Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Huckabee: Take This Nation Back for Christ « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 9 10 11

NovaBuc

****
Starter

Posts : 842
Offline
« #150 : December 14, 2007, 07:35:33 PM »

 Buckeye,

 For the record, I don't believe in abortion, don't believe in the death penalty ( I like consistancy), believe in God but not the 'Church'.

 Roe v. Wade did not create law per se, it struck down a vaguely written law in Texas and created tests for future laws. At the time, abortion law was handled by the states as there was no national law. Being the highest court in the land, when the lower courts decision (again, decided in favor of McCovey/Roe) was appealed, it went to the Supreme Court. Now, they could have declined to hear the case but they chose to do so. While Blackmun's opinion was quite possibly one of the worst written ones in the history of the court, it was consistent with how the courts had handled State Law cases where there was no Federal statute involved. Blackmun's citing of the right to privacy was also not unprecedented as many detractors of the decision state, it was not created whole cloth out of nothing. In 1965 with Grizwold v. Connecticut and in 1972 with Eisenstadt v. Baird the court cited the right to privacy contained within the Bill of Rights. Granted, those cases presented the right to privacy as a penumbra right contained within the Bill of Rights as a whole rather than an explicitly stated right tied to one Amendment. This is perhaps where Blackmun departed from precedent by stating the right to privacy was in the 14th amendment in his opinion. What Roe v. Wade did was establish a baseline for the States to form their laws by stipulating what they cannot make criminal.

 I believe Roe v. Wade was a poor decision mostly due to the written opinion and dissents being weak arguments on the matter (it did not help that Rehnquist, one of the two dissenters, wasn't really a dissenter as he stated the law was unconstitutional as it pertained to individuals). As it was, it is likely Roe v. Wade would quite possibly be insignificant today if state legislatures and Congress had not challenged the decision so many times with overly broad or overly narrow laws that subsequent Courts had no choice but to strike down.  As things stand now, Roe v. Wade is not the 'law of the land' and the decision from the case is not the Supreme Court's choice of precedents to use in abortion cases. For quite a few years now the cases Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services and Stenberg v. Carhart are the 'standard' so to speak. Roe v. Wade's influence on the Court has been more or less reduced to the provision on the viability of the child outside the womb. Don't get me wrong, as long as folks are rabid about striking down Roe v. Wade or seeing it remain, the case will remain on the center stage as far as the debate about abortion goes. But it is incorrect to consider the case the law of the land except in the broadest sense of the term. You, as well as many other folks, make the mistake of thinking that striking down a law or setting standards for the writing of a law is creating a law. That just isn't the case, but it is understandable how folks see things this way as it is how the media present the case to us. It is also how it is 'spun' by both detractors and supporters. Doesn't make it true other than through perception.


 No, I am not claiming Justices are merely presidential legacies. One of the main factors that lead to the appointments being so contentious and considered a prize because they are seen as presidential legacies. Look at your statement about Roosevelt's appointees protecting his social programs, in essence protecting his legacy. If you don't think that the idea of the appointee serving for life is a large factor in how they are chosen or why the process is so contentious, you are missing a rather large piece of the puzzle.

 As far as the checks and balances on the court go, impeachment is one of them. It does not matter how often it might have been used or how ineffective the last one was it is still a check and balance in the same way the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction during the Cold War was. Last I checked, neither the Soviet Union or the US launched nuclear strikes on each other during that time. Might not be the best analogy, but I think it gets the point across. A check and balance system does not have to be used every day to be effective, the threat of a check being used can also keep things in balance.

 Finally, I'd just like to point out every time I hear about activist judges from anyone it is always in the context of not agreeing with a decision the judge has made. When judges make decisions in similar cases but find for someone's 'side' then they are just upholding the Constitution and whatnot, when the decision is against someone's 'side' it is because the judge is 'activist'.

 

doobiedoright

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3223
Offline
« #151 : December 14, 2007, 10:50:09 PM »

I'm hoping Huck wins the R nomination and Hilary wins the D nomination.

Then Ron Paul can run as a Lib. and beat 'em both! He'd have an outsiders chance
if those three things happened. IMO. He has enough support to get into the final
debates.

Sorry joe not enough no planers to make this happen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The White Tiger

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 11371
Offline
« #152 : December 15, 2007, 12:15:54 AM »

I don't doubt you believe what you write Nova - and obviously you have a stake in law. I do not share your belief that judicial activism isn't a real and significant problem, though. I outlined Roe from my perspective as it is the shakiest, therefore easiest for all to grasp. The reapportionment issue I posted in my first reply to you illustrates another "opportunity" the court had to hear a law it wanted to rule on.

Another example was the decision regarding the morphing of education into a government responsibility. Communities once handled their own education - when they did they had no problems meeting in churches and having a prayer in the AM. The ONLY reason we have a country so far away from the standard set up by the founders is due to government reach and involvement. In order to make sure everyone had equal access (education is now a right) the government "leveled the playing field by spreading government funds around. Then because government was invovled it was deemed innapropriate to continue a cultural heritage. At one point the right of the few trumped the right of the many - so we divorced first prayer, then God from a childs education. Then it was stretched once again in order to make sure not to offend anyone in history class - we had teachers deciding not to teach about the founders own words about the role God played in the development of this country...

And you look around 100 years later and we have no moral compass, we are now taught that man is not here for any purpose except for pleasure, and we watch men struggle and die in quiet desperation.

It is because inch by inch we allowed the errosion to take place for the good of all - but in so doing we are losing our identity at the very point in history where we may need it.

Is Christianity a get out of jail free card? No, Jesus told all of us that in this life you will have trials. This process does not have to be accelerated in the one place created to preserve a protection against the persecution.

It is an insidious creep. If you do not stand against the creep you are responsible for more losses.

I do like the discussion. I am fond of the checks, and marvel at what was accomplished by men from two centuries prior! The creativity and humble weight each founder took to ensure an enduring success has not been duplicated anywhere in all this time since. I am amazed at their passion and singleness of mission. If you read their words and what they were committed to do you see men more fervent than any committed communist I've heard - these guys really believed that what they were doing was the last, best hope of man.

It was no mere coincidence. I thought because of your closeness to the law I'd give you John Adams thoughts (again) on why we need God in order to make this place work:

Our Constitution was designed for a moral and religious people only. It is wholly inadequate for any other."

Incomparable sig by Incognito

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28941
Offline
« #153 : December 15, 2007, 05:22:52 AM »

The guys all over the map - I don't think he ever intends to be President. I'm of the opinion that he just wants to sell books, after he loses.
Quote

Book? You really have no idea what Ron Paul is about if you think he's doing this just
to sell books.

He's all over the map? He doesn't tow the party line? Good for him. I don't agree with
everything he stands for but I like his honesty and I think he will wreak havoc on
the election if he runs as a Libertarian. I can't see him giving all of those millions
back after he misses out on the R nomination. For what? To go back to Congress?

The money continues to flow in for Paul. $12 million in this last quarter? Amazing.
Sunday is going to be a big day.

Big_MAC_Buc

*
Starter
****
Posts : 421
Offline
« #154 : December 15, 2007, 05:28:56 AM »


It was no mere coincidence. I thought because of your closeness to the law I'd give you John Adams thoughts (again) on why we need God in order to make this place work:

Our Constitution was designed for a moral and religious people only. It is wholly inadequate for any other."



The entire quote:
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.”

If you read below what Adams really thought of religion it becomes obvious that what he meant was that our Constitution was designed for a nation of people who are meek and co-operative. As long as there was religion to dictate morality the newly formed nation could be successful.

A few thoughts from our second President on religion. His would not seem to be a personal god, but rather a generic god of nature.  Adams was also somewhat of a reprobate when it came to organized religion. He did not think much of it himself for himself, but he may have thought it was a necessary opiate for the masses.

In a letter to Thom Jefferson he wrote:

“Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!" But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell.”
-- John Adams, quoted from Charles Francis Adams, ed., Works of John Adams (1856), vol. X, p. 254

Jefferson’s reply:

“If by religion we are to understand sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your exclamation on that hypothesis is just, "that this would be the best of worlds if there were no religion in it."”
-- Thomas Jefferson, in a reply to John Adams' letter, quoted by Joseph Lewis in his address "Jefferson the Freethinker," delivered at a banquet of the Freethinkers' Society of New York on the evening of April 13th, 1925, at Hotel Belleclaire, 77th Street and Broadway, New York City, in honor of the 182nd anniversary of the birth of Thomas Jefferson.
 


The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 20, 1815

I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, from George Seldes, The Great Quotations, also from James A Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world.
-- John Adams, "this awful blashpemy" that he refers to is the myth of the Incarnation of Christ, from Ira D Cardiff, What Great Men Think of Religion, quoted from James A Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?
-- John Adams, letter to FA Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816

The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes.
-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814, quoted in Norman Cousins, In God We Trust: The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of the American Founding Fathers (1958), p. 108, quoted from James A Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
-- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88), from Adrienne Koch, ed., The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society (1965) p. 258, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church"

Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.
-- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88), from Adrienne Koch, ed., The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society (1965) p. 258, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church"

We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions ... shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power ... we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society.
-- John Adams, letter to Dr. Price, April 8, 1785, quoted from Albert Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom (1991)




I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma  made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. --Umberto Eco

Big_MAC_Buc

*
Starter
****
Posts : 421
Offline
« #155 : December 15, 2007, 05:59:52 AM »

On the seperation of church and state:

Religion or church-states fathered Kings with "divine rights."

Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists, explaining the decision to seperate state and religion:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for is faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

James Madison, principal author of the constitution:
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State." (1819).

"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform" (Madison, Annals of Congress, 1789).

"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?" (Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance)

"How a regulation so unjust in itself, so foreign to the authority of Congress, and so hurtful to the sale of public land, and smelling so strongly of an antiquated bigotry, could have received the countenance of a committee is truly a matter of astonishment ." (Madison, 1785, letter to James Monroe, on a failed attempt by congress to set aside public funds to support churches)

"If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents should discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expense." (Madison, detached memoranda, 1820)

"That religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience." (Patrick Henry)

"I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta [Constitution] of our country" (George Washington, 1789).

"In the course of the opposition to the bill in the House of Delegates, which was warm & strenuous from some of the minority, an experiment was made on the reverence entertained for the name & sanctity of the Saviour, by proposing to insert the words "Jesus Christ" after the words "our lord" in the preamble, the object of which would have been, to imply a restriction of the liberty defined in the Bill, to those professing his religion only. The amendment was discussed, and rejected by a vote of agst." (James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance)

"The appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, [is] contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment'" (James Madison, Veto, 1811)




I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma  made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. --Umberto Eco

Big_MAC_Buc

*
Starter
****
Posts : 421
Offline
« #156 : December 15, 2007, 07:16:05 AM »


The Constitution is a secular document concerned with the nuts and bolts issues of how to create a workable nation in a land of economic, cultural, and religious diversity. It simply did not touch on matters relevant to the Bible.

What some other great Americans and Presidents had to say about the separation of church and state:
(My favorite is James Garfield…even Ron Paul might have like him.)

"As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of government to protect all conscientious protesters thereof, and I know of no other business government has to do therewith." (Thomas Paine, the Rights of Man)

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish [Muslim], appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the profession of a priest for the sake of gain, and in order to qualify himself for that trade he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive anything more destructive to morality than this?" (Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason)

Thomas Jefferson, author of the sweeping Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, stated that no citizen "shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever..." and that to "compell a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of [religious] opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical."

"I am tolerant of all creeds. Yet if any sect suffered itself to be used for political objects I would meet it by political opposition. In my view church and state should be separate, not only in form, but fact. Religion and politics should not be mingled." (Millard Fillmore)

"When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read: "All men are created equal except negroes, foreigners and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer immigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty--to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy." (Abraham Lincoln) 

(Side note: The Know-Nothings began originally as the American Republican Party. Their knee-jerk fear of Irish Catholic immigrants and multiculturalism was eerily similar to the yellow dog issues of today’s Republican Party.)

"Encourage free schools, and resolve that not one dollar of money shall be appropriated to the support of any sectarian school. Resolve that neither the state nor nation, or both combined, shall support institutions of learning other than those sufficient to afford every child growing up in the land the opportunity of a good common school education, unmixed with sectarian, pagan, or atheistical tenets. Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private schools, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separated." (Ulysses S. Grant)

"We all agree that neither the Government nor political parties ought to interfere with religious sects. It is equally true that religious sects ought not to interfere with the Government or with political parties. We believe that the cause of good government and the cause of religion suffer by all such interference." (Rutherford B. Hayes)

"The divorce between Church and State ought to be absolute. It ought to be so absolute that no Church property anywhere, in any state or in the nation, should be exempt from equal taxation; for if you exempt the property of any church organization, to that extent you impose a tax upon the whole community." (James A. Garfield)

"Because we are unqualifiedly and without reservation against any system of denominational schools, maintained by the adherents of any creed with the help of state aid, therefore, we as strenuously insist that the public schools shall be free from sectarian influences, and, above all, free from any attitude of hostility to the adherents of any particular creed." (Theodore Roosevelt)

"In the experiences of a year of the Presidency, there has come to me no other such unwelcome impression as the manifest religious intolerance which exists among many of our citizens. I hold it to be a menace to the very liberties we boast and cherish." (Warren G. Harding)

"The fundamental precept of liberty is toleration. We cannot permit any inquisition either from within or from without the law or apply any religious test to the holding of office. The mind of America must be forever free." (Calvin Coolidge.)

"I come of Quaker stock. My ancestors were persecuted for their beliefs. Here they sought and found religious freedom. By blood and conviction I stand for religious tolerance both in act and in spirit." (Herbert C. Hoover)

"Religious and racial persecution is moronic at all times, perhaps the most idiotic of human stupidities." (Harry S. Truman)

"I believe in an America where the separation of Church and State is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be a Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him." (John F. Kennedy)

So, my friends, it is not just us atheists who want to reinforce the wall of separation between church and state; it is a 200-year old tradition established by the Founding Fathers and steadfastly supported by a long line of succeeding Presidents. The forces of the religious right will continue trying to chip away at our treasured Constitution, but I am confident the the voices of reason will inevitably overcome the fear and superstition of the evangelistic demagogues .




I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma  made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. --Umberto Eco

BucsGuru

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 6397
Offline
« #157 : December 15, 2007, 10:56:29 AM »

I'm actually going to vote this year, and Huck will get my vote!
However, come November, I believe that Mrs. Clinton will be our next President.

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28941
Offline
« #158 : December 15, 2007, 01:22:15 PM »

Big MAC, thanks for those amazing quotes. I learned something.

That pretty much demolishes the claims that our founding fathers formed this
nation with any bias towards Christianity. And it also shows how vehemently
they wanted to keep the church and state separate.

Good stuff.

BTW, Hilary's campaign is in trouble. I hope not. Hilary and Huck!

And in swoops Ron Paul...

The White Tiger

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 11371
Offline
« #159 : December 15, 2007, 05:14:01 PM »

Big Mac - where did you see anyone speak to narrow church and state? I believe the constitution is devoid of religious overtones - except to state that hte government should not be in the business of establishing a religion, controlling religion in any way, nor should it limit the free expression of it.

If you tell school kids they can't pray at school, on their own, without teacher direction - that is an abridgement of that students rights. If you do not touch on Washingtons farewell address - then you leave out what he thought of recognizing his God's participation in the founding of our country.

The founders did not want a return to a religion founded with the intent of the king as the leader of the church - he was in essence a divine ruler. The quotes you have referencing divine rulers were intended to be a not so subtle swipe at the king oand church f England (the religion established because Henry VIII could divorce at will - the pope wouldn't allow it so he started his own religion with himself as the head of it).

The opiate reference is from Marx - but even early Marxists did not use it in the derogatory phrasing your post implies. Here is how Moses Hess turned the phrase: “Religion can make bearable…the unhappy consciousness of serfdom…in the same way as opium is of good help in painful diseases.” And Hein said this:  “Welcome be a religion that pours into the bitter chalice of the suffering human species some sweet, soporific drops of spiritual opium, some drops of love, hope and faith”.
http://newsocialist.org/newsite/index.php?id=243

Contrasts this with what the Bible say's about Christ being "an ever present help in times of trouble."
I see no problem so far - pretty similar.

The problem for you comes in that these men knew all too well that to exalt man as his own God was folly - and had been the very essence of what they were fighting against. "Organized religion" during these times was dominated by two very worldly institutions - The Catholic Church and The Church of England - you may have enjoyed them as they used the power and strength of those believers to achieve totally secular (perhaps selfish) aims. This is what Adams and many rebelled against.

The fact thgat this NATION of people was a nation of Christian hamlets and became very clear during the "1st and 2nd Great Awakenings"

From The National Humanities Center

"What historians call "the first Great Awakening" can best be described as a revitalization of religious piety that swept through the American colonies between the 1730s and the 1770s. That revival was part of a much broader movement, an evangelical upsurge taking place simultaneously on the other side of the Atlantic, most notably in England, Scotland, and Germany. In all these Protestant cultures during the middle decades of the eighteenth century, a new Age of Faith rose to counter the currents of the Age of Enlightenment, to reaffirm the view that being truly religious meant trusting the heart rather than the head, prizing feeling more than thinking, and relying on biblical revelation rather than human reason.

The earliest manifestations of the American phase of this phenomenon—the beginnings of the First Great Awakening—appeared among Presbyterians in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Led by the Tennent family—Reverend William Tennent, a Scots-Irish immigrant, and his four sons, all clergymen—the Presbyterians not only initiated religious revivals in those colonies during the 1730s but also established a seminary to train clergymen whose fervid, heartfelt preaching would bring sinners to experience evangelical conversion. Originally known as "the Log College," it is better known today as Princeton University."

And:

"Many students of the first Great Awakening have been drawn to considering its possible bearing on the American Revolution".

While there are historians that debate the "First Great Awakenings" effects on the American Revolution many still imply that it had everything to do with the founders knowledge of the religious climate and the Christian culture of the colonies.

Again,  the Declaration of Independence:

"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

And just so you know how deep religious feeling goes in the American Culture - there was a "Second Great Awakening" - it started AFTER the revolution in June of 1800.  This illustrates that the the First Great Awakening established the culture, and the Second Great Awakening fixed it in the American cultural fabric.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1091.html

The revival's secular effects consisted of two main strains:

The virtues and behavior of the expanding middle class—a strong work ethic, frugality and temperance—were endorsed and legitimized.

Its emphasis on the ability of individuals to amend their lives engendered a wide array of reform movements aimed at redressing injustice and alleviating suffering—a democratizing effect.
Evangelizing the West also took the form of interdenominational missionary groups, such as the American Home Missionary Society (1826). Their exponents were witnesses for the faith, teachers and civic pillars. Other societies published Christian literature; notable among these was the American Bible Society (1816) and the American Tract Society (1826).

[/b]Social activism[/b] spawned abolition groups, temperance and suffrage societies, and others committed to prison reform, care for the handicapped and mentally ill. A noted proponent of such reforms was the evangelist Charles G. Finney. In addition to being an innovative evangelist whose techniques others would imitate, he held that the Gospel saved people, but also it was a means to reform society. True to his word, Finney was a fervent abolitionist and encouraged other Christians to get involved.

Again - back to the OP - you want to know where Huckabee has the audacity to state "we need to take the nation back for Christ"? This is it.

You may have remembered it - had your teachers taught it to you.

This was the culture of the time, it needs to be presented as fact - because it was fact. Many teachers are afraid today, because they think the church state argument requires erasure of ALL religion from our history and because they are government workers. This attitude never occurred to educators 100 years ago, because they were not government workers. I'm sure another reason for erasing religioin from our past is that religious acheivement of social advancement doesn't fit a socialist/secular message that man got rid of religion and he blossomed...because the awakenings show that man was only the tool used to effect change and reform - not the impetus.

The history and secularism you are espousing was from the French Revolution - it eventually became completely devoid of religion, actually hostile to it. The French Revolution acheived SOME of the same ends - but France's version of Democracy sank and was diminished - it was brutal and bloody.

I have never made the case that we should allow the goverment to establish ANY religion. Only that the framerrs were deists at best  and knew of the religious climate of their country. You could not help but run into it - either in the cities or in the country.

America has always been a Christian natioin. The reference in our Consitution did not give power to the "First Estate" but more than this; it established that the government couldn't abridge freedom of religious expression.

Incomparable sig by Incognito
  Page: 1 ... 9 10 11
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Huckabee: Take This Nation Back for Christ « previous next »
:  

Hide Tools Show Tools