 |
|
|
Years ago they used to preach "O we are going to walk on streets of gold." I would say, "I don't need the gold up there. I've got to have it down here.
-- Benny Hinn, Praise-a-thon, April 2, 1991
|
|
| |
by Nathan Dubois
Are we? What really makes us such? What has EVER made us such? No one disputes that many of the Founding Fathers were Christians. Three of the most essential to our Declaration and Constitution being Ben Franklin, James Madison and John Adams! But if that is the case, why is our Constitution void of any references to Christ or at least the God of the Bible? Why does the Declaration of Independance reference a "Maker," but not Jehovah?
The fact is that Christians, and other religious men of that day, believed that God was not a God of coercion. That he made the mind free to make up it's own mind, and that the government had no place supporting the Christian religion even over Islam. Both were to be equally supported under the government of the United States and both parties were to be equally free of feeling supressed by the other.
Unfortunately the more zealous demons of our nature do not inherantly support the wisdom that came from our Founding Fathers. These were men learning from the mistakes of the days of the foundings of Virginia and New England. Both of which had very oppressive laws and very strict punishment for breaking the tenants of what they considered the Christian faith. Strict church attendance, proper dress, and no ability to debate the ruling clergy were many issues that faced the pilgrims. Jefferson and Madison knew these lessons very well, and refused to repeat them.
Even today we see the zealous demons reappearing in our culture. The over reaction of the ultra-secularist is leading to an over-reaction of the ultra-conservative. The 10 Commandments on the walls, prayer in schools, crosses on public property, etc. are all issues that can be better resolved with a more proper view of history.
America is a Free Nation, founded by religious men, mostly Christians, who believed that America was a nation that should represent the freedom to worship in all faiths, or none, and violently oppose the coercion to worship, or the push to uplift, any one particular faith over another. They believed in this because they were mostly Christians. They believed that in setting up a government free from oppression, the best way to honor God would be to respect the inherant freedom in man to choose for himself the God whom he would serve.
Thomas Jefferson
"WHEREAS Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend to only beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumptions of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greater part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagations of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his personal contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards ..."
James Madison
"Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, 'that Religion or the duty which we oweto our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.' The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in it's nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds, cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator...
Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much to forget it. 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 Christianity, 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?...
Because the establishment proposed by the bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependance on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them; and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to it's own evidence, and the ordinary care of Providence: Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy."
This is not the talk we hear from the D. James Kennedys, Pat Robertsons, or Jerry Falwells. rather, we hear an extreme Republican pundit version of history, in an effort to rewrite our Founding Fathers intentions for America.
First and foremost, America was a nation founded on allowing all men to worship freely. No matter who they worship. Insuring freedom for Christianity in America, meant separating the government from ANY religion, including Christianity!! It is not that good men shouldn't lead. It is not that government would not benefit from having moral, Christian men at it's leadership; but can society benefit from another wannabe theocracy where fallible men, with false ideals, force the laws of God (in their own mind and interpretation) on all persons under that government? Let it not be.
As Preterists we should see this and readily identify with the heart of Jefferson and Madison, when we see the failed policies and teachings of fallible men in charge of the "church" today. Yet in politics and government, many Preterists still rally hard behind, and fight in force with, those who would rewrite our Constitution, and name it a Christian nation. It was not the intention of our Founding Fathers to establish a "Chrsitian nation," but a nation where Christianity is as free as any other sect of any other religion under that government. Let us never forget that the majority of abuses of mankind over the last 2000 years was in the name of Christ, protected by governments who claimed Christianity at it's core.
I recommend this book!
http://www.jonmeacham.com/
God Bless
Nate
How many people actually read this before saying "Yes we are!"?
------
Nathan Dubois is a columnist for PlanetPreterist.com.
View Nathan Dubois archives
Note: Opinions presented on PlanetPreterist.com or by PlanetPreterist.com columnists may not necessarily reflect the position of PlanetPreterist.com, or reflect the beliefs, doctrine or theological position of all other preterists. We encourage all readers to first and foremost carefully analyze all articles in the light of God's Word.
|
| |
|
|
Average Score: 5
Votes: 1
 |
|
|
^^Go to Top -  E-mail to Friend -  Print -  View PDF -  Subscribe -  Comments RSS
Re: A (Score: 1)
 by Ed on Tuesday, December 05 @ 18:03:09 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | Hmmm. Nate, I would ask you to take out your copy of the Constitution and look at the very bottom of the document. What you will find is an interesting statement, "In the Year of Our Lord." Funny thing for these men to say, don't you think?
Of the 13 original colonies, I believe that 10 of them had state churches. Pennsylvania was Quaker, Massachusetts was Puritan/Congregational, New York was Dutch Reformed, Maryland was Anglican, etc., etc. Virginia was one, along with Rhode Island, that practiced freedom of worship and non-establishment of a state church.
It is interesting that most of the founders were from Virginia, where the freedom to choose the church you would worship in was valued. Although you name Jefferson with the Constitutionalists, he was not there. He wrote the Declaration, to be sure, but he was in France at the time of the writing of the Constitution.
The agreement was that at the Federal level, there would be no establishment of one denomination over another. No test oaths, for that might offend folks like the Quakers, who weren't much for taking oaths. And so, our young Republic began, established on Western culture, whose roots were biblical - for they came from English common law.
When they built the new capital in the District of Columbia, they placed scripture on each building there. They placed the 10 Commandments over the hall of the Supreme Court, recognizing that God's word was supreme over all man-made laws. They established a chaplaincy for the Congress, and found money for the printing of bibles, purchase of lands for the building of churches, and established "days of worship" like Thanksgiving.
These were a religious people, a Christian people. Some were Quakers, some universalists, some Presbyterian, some Congregational, some Anglican, some Baptist, and some Methodist. But none were Islamic. None were Jewish. None were Hindu. None were Buddhists.
Yet today, you are correct, our land practices that freedom of religion. We accept other faiths on our shores. We don't attack synagogues or mosques (even after 9/11). We don't behead Buddhists. We recognize that the freedom that our founders established was meant for all faiths, even those who worshipped "false gods."
But to sit here and deny that the freedom that the founders established was meant for anyone but a Christian people is to exhibit an astonishing lack of thought on your part. There was nothing else here on our shores except Christianity and American Indian spirituality. And that was, at that time, being eradicated by the spreading of the good news of Jesus Christ by the gospel preachers that spread throughout the Western US territories (like California).
Those missionaries brought medicine and human rights to people, contrary to what some would claim. The Catholic missions of California was a haven for healing of the indigenous people. Hospitals and orphanages were established, just like in Europe, by monks, nuns, and priests. Schools were established for the teaching of the American Indian and the Christianization of a people.
Chief Bad Eagle (www.badeagle.com) was the first Comanche warrior to convert to Christianity, and he brought his entire tribe with him. And while some unscrupulous whites stabbed our Indian brothers in the back, it does not nullify that this continent was firmly established as a place where Christianity was to flourish.
Even in the plantations, many slaves were taught Christianity (which is still strong in the black community today) and educated by the northerners after the Civil War. Schools such as Paul Dunbar Academy were established to educate the free blacks. It's list of dignitaries included Thurgood Marshall and many other famous black heroes.
While this nation could have done things better at times, the truth is that biblical principles guided us. And though our journey twisted and turned before finding a path through "the straight and
Read the rest of this comment... |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Virgil on Tuesday, December 05 @ 18:28:56 PST
- by Ed on Tuesday, December 05 @ 18:36:59 PST
- by mazuur on Wednesday, December 06 @ 06:57:02 PST
- by mazuur on Wednesday, December 06 @ 08:12:10 PST
- by Islamaphobe on Tuesday, December 05 @ 20:09:15 PST
- by TheIdealNate on Wednesday, December 06 @ 10:19:49 PST
- by Parker on Tuesday, December 05 @ 22:50:56 PST
- by Starlight on Wednesday, December 06 @ 06:49:40 PST
- by mazuur on Wednesday, December 06 @ 07:07:20 PST
- by Islamaphobe on Wednesday, December 06 @ 08:18:01 PST
- by Parker on Wednesday, December 06 @ 08:10:31 PST
- by mazuur on Wednesday, December 06 @ 08:17:02 PST
- by Islamaphobe on Wednesday, December 06 @ 08:20:14 PST
- by Parker on Wednesday, December 06 @ 08:37:34 PST
- by Starlight on Wednesday, December 06 @ 09:38:41 PST
- by Parker on Wednesday, December 06 @ 10:30:37 PST
- by Starlight on Wednesday, December 06 @ 10:51:35 PST
- by Parker on Wednesday, December 06 @ 11:06:17 PST
- by Starlight on Wednesday, December 06 @ 11:40:05 PST
- by chef on Wednesday, December 06 @ 19:05:03 PST
- by Parker on Wednesday, December 06 @ 19:43:23 PST
- by mazuur on Thursday, December 07 @ 07:12:46 PST
- by Parker on Thursday, December 07 @ 07:55:37 PST
- by mazuur on Thursday, December 07 @ 08:43:10 PST
- by Parker on Thursday, December 07 @ 09:54:03 PST
- by mazuur on Thursday, December 07 @ 10:55:20 PST
- by chef on Thursday, December 07 @ 09:08:07 PST
- by Ed on Thursday, December 07 @ 10:08:04 PST
- by Parker on Thursday, December 07 @ 10:50:22 PST
- by Parker on Thursday, December 07 @ 10:13:24 PST
- by Starlight on Thursday, December 07 @ 09:09:19 PST
- by Parker on Thursday, December 07 @ 09:43:25 PST
- by chef on Thursday, December 07 @ 09:53:01 PST
- by Parker on Thursday, December 07 @ 10:20:08 PST
- by Starlight on Thursday, December 07 @ 10:29:37 PST
- by mazuur on Thursday, December 07 @ 10:58:54 PST
- by mazuur on Thursday, December 07 @ 10:59:07 PST
- by Starlight on Thursday, December 07 @ 11:29:20 PST
- by mazuur on Thursday, December 07 @ 11:55:47 PST
- by Parker on Thursday, December 07 @ 11:01:50 PST
- by Parker on Thursday, December 07 @ 11:06:13 PST
- by Starlight on Thursday, December 07 @ 11:08:31 PST
- by Parker on Thursday, December 07 @ 11:12:54 PST
- by Starlight on Thursday, December 07 @ 11:17:04 PST
- by mazuur on Thursday, December 07 @ 11:58:23 PST
- by Parker on Thursday, December 07 @ 12:39:49 PST
- by Ed on Thursday, December 07 @ 14:59:40 PST
- by TheIdealNate on Wednesday, December 06 @ 10:16:20 PST
- by Ed on Wednesday, December 06 @ 10:29:29 PST
- by TheIdealNate on Wednesday, December 06 @ 10:41:55 PST
- by Ed on Wednesday, December 06 @ 10:55:28 PST
- by TheIdealNate on Wednesday, December 06 @ 11:03:00 PST
- by vento on Wednesday, December 06 @ 12:22:00 PST
- by TheIdealNate on Wednesday, December 06 @ 14:11:37 PST
- by Ed on Wednesday, December 06 @ 17:39:25 PST
- by mazuur on Thursday, December 07 @ 06:31:36 PST
Feeding The 5000 or Pentagrams? (Score: 1)
 by EWMI on Tuesday, December 05 @ 20:48:49 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | Both Australia and America are said to be Christian nations. I can't help but wonder why each of their capitol cities are laced with masonic or kabbalistic symbols, not Christian ones. We see obelisks not crosses and pentagons not triquetras (recognised symbol of the Trinity) etc.
Perhaps a testament to the Deists in our past? |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by mazuur on Wednesday, December 06 @ 07:01:11 PST
- by EWMI on Wednesday, December 06 @ 11:52:58 PST
- by Ed on Wednesday, December 06 @ 17:56:48 PST
- by EWMI on Wednesday, December 06 @ 18:06:31 PST
Re: "A Christian Nation" (Score: 1)
by rfwitt (hifive@att.net) on Wednesday, December 06 @ 04:20:12 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | “LK 22:24 Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”
Perhaps if we put as much energy in fulfilling the words of Christ as we do in trying to preserve Christian symbols we would have a greater impact on our culture. Works of mercy can unite Christians. As far as being united in externals (doctrine, etc. only God knows if or when that will happen). Even Europe with its State Churches (and supposed unity of beliefs) has become greatly secular. As a nation we are heading in the same direction. Should our response be to decry the shift towards secularism or should we do what the Lord has called us to.
“ MT 5:13 "You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.
MT 5:14 "You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.”
|
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by mazuur on Wednesday, December 06 @ 06:21:00 PST
- by rfwitt on Wednesday, December 06 @ 07:35:47 PST
- by mazuur on Wednesday, December 06 @ 08:21:19 PST
- by rfwitt on Wednesday, December 06 @ 09:51:06 PST
- by Ed on Wednesday, December 06 @ 10:38:52 PST
- by Ed on Wednesday, December 06 @ 09:55:31 PST
- by TheIdealNate on Wednesday, December 06 @ 10:21:06 PST
Re: A (Score: 1)
by mazuur on Wednesday, December 06 @ 07:59:36 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | This whole article is a twisting of their words.
"Insuring freedom for Christianity in America, meant separating the government from ANY religion, including Christianity!!"
If this were true, then the below facts concerning Jefferson (which I will re-post), would not have happened or been tolerated by Jefferson himself, let alone every other Founder. I could also post similar facts for every other Founder showing them actively promoting Christianity.
How is it that the Government then did everything it could to promote Christianity, from creating Churches to religious schools using Government money and power, yet today we read the crap you just posted that states otherwise? Somebody is lying, and I don't think it is their actual writings and all the other historical documents we have.
Jefferson:
1) urged local governments to make land available specifically for Christian purposes; [1]
2) In an 1803 federal Indian treaty, Jefferson willingly agreed to provide $300 to “assist the said Kaskaskia tribe in the erection of a church” and to provide “annually for seven years $100 towards the support of a Catholic priest.” He also signed three separate acts setting aside government lands for the sole use of religious groups and setting aside government lands so that Moravian missionaries might be assisted in “promoting Christianity.” [2]
3) When Washington D. C. became the national capital in 1800, Congress voted that the Capitol building would also serve as a church building. [3] President Jefferson chose to attend church each Sunday at the Capitol [4] and even provided the service with paid government musicians to assist in its worship. [5] Jefferson also began similar Christian services in his own Executive Branch, both at the Treasury Building and at the War Office. [6]
4) praised the use of a local courthouse as a meeting place for Christian services; [7]
5) assured a Christian religious school that it would receive “the patronage of the government”; [8]
6) proposed that the Great Seal of the United States depict a story from the Bible and include the word “God” in its motto; [9]
7) closed his presidential documents with the phrase, “In the year of our Lord Christ; by the President; Thomas Jefferson.” [10]
8) Jefferson stated: "No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example." [11]
I guess this guy didn't know about today's interpretation of his own words. He should clearly have been impeached for ignoring the very laws he created.
Again, you do nothing but twist the Founders words to fit a context they do not exist in, to support a lie.
Rich
Sources below
[1] Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Bishop Carroll on September 3, 1801 (in the Library of Congress, #19966).
[2]American State Papers, Walter Lowrie and Matthew St. Claire Clarke, editors (Washington, D. C.: Gales and Seaton, 1832), Vol. IV, p. 687; see also Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U. S. 38, at 103 (1985), Rehnquist, J. (dissenting); see also, The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America, Richard Peters, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1846), Vol. VII, p. 79, Article III, “A Treaty Between the United States and the Kaskaskia Tribe of Indians,” December 23, 1803; Vol. VII, p. 88, Article IV, “Treaty with the Wyandots, etc.,” 1805; Vol. VII, p. 102, Article II, “Treaty with the Cherokees,” 1806.
[3] Debates and Proceedings of the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1853), Sixth Congress, p. 797, December 4, 1800.
[4] See the records recently reprinted by James Hutson, Chief of the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress. R
Read the rest of this comment... |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by TheIdealNate on Wednesday, December 06 @ 10:27:36 PST
- by Ed on Wednesday, December 06 @ 10:33:23 PST
- by TheIdealNate on Wednesday, December 06 @ 10:45:30 PST
- by Ed on Wednesday, December 06 @ 10:58:35 PST
- by TheIdealNate on Wednesday, December 06 @ 11:04:09 PST
- by Ed on Wednesday, December 06 @ 11:08:15 PST
- by mazuur on Wednesday, December 06 @ 10:51:12 PST
- by TheIdealNate on Wednesday, December 06 @ 11:07:30 PST
- by Ed on Wednesday, December 06 @ 11:33:29 PST
- by TheIdealNate on Wednesday, December 06 @ 14:14:50 PST
- by Ed on Wednesday, December 06 @ 17:51:50 PST
Re: Jefferson the Unitarian (Score: 1)
by PeytonLucy on Thursday, December 07 @ 07:37:00 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | "As Preterists we should see this and readily identify with the heart of Jefferson and Madison." (This is taken out of context.) I do not know much about Madison; however, I do have a copy of the Jefferson Bible and know that he was anti-Christian and a unitarian. In fact, he predicted the demise of Christianity in America within the lifetime of those then living. As Preterist we should avoid unitarianism (and the related universalism.) I'm not aiming this as an attack on Nate.
My purpose is to illustrate how difficult it is for many to distinguish unitarian-universalism from Christianity because UU's use Christian-like language on a regular basis. A UU clergy person told me that a local meeting of Evangelical pastors asked him to say the opening prayer at a meeting. He was amused because the Evangelicals did not understand his beliefs and could not parse his prayer to understand that he was not Christian. The fundamentalist pastors would never have prayed with the UU clergy person if they knew what UU was.
The founding fathers were a mix of Christians, unitarians, and deists. Incidentally in some towns, pre-1776, mainstream denominations used tax money to support their churches, while denying funding to Baptists, etc. The rift between mainline denominations and Evangelicals didn't start in the 20th century.
peytonlucy |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Ed on Thursday, December 07 @ 10:14:08 PST
- by PeytonLucy on Thursday, December 07 @ 11:16:51 PST
- by Ed on Thursday, December 07 @ 14:06:24 PST
- by Virgil on Thursday, December 07 @ 14:34:24 PST
- by Ed on Thursday, December 07 @ 14:46:56 PST
Re: A (Score: 1)
by Ed on Thursday, December 07 @ 14:45:47 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | I am answering Parker here - sort of, due to the fact that the thread is getting too long.
My dear friend, Parker. It amazes me how you can take ANY thread that is started, from any article, no matter the subject, and turn it into a discussion about "The True Church."
I am not going to engage you on this article anymore, unless you want to talk about Christian culture - which I defined as both Protestant AND Catholic. I made favorable comments about the Catholic Church a number of times here - emphasizing her good work in establishing hospitals, orphanages, missions, etc.
You on the other hand ALWAYS attack Protestants, talking about schism, and how you guys are not...
Truth is, IF the many denominations are the reason for the secularization of the "Protestant" colonies, why is California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona secularized and divided into several states? Why is there no unity in South and Central America politically, since they have been controlled by Catholicism for centuries?
I'm sure you'll have some excuse, talking about how those Catholics are not following the Pope, but that very argument disproves your theory about the non-schismatic Roman Church. We've had this discussion before: your claim of unity, while at the same time having Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, et al as communicant members of the Catholic Church in spite of their approval of abortion. Or Shawn Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Bob Novak, Sam Brownback, et al being communicant Catholics even though they support the War in Iraq.
Only Pat Buchanan is a Practicing Catholic who agrees with the Pope in the political realm. AND HE CAN'T GET ELECTED. So much for unity.
So, let's stop arguing about unity, and start practicing it. You are as divisive and schismatic as anyone else here. We all have the tendency to not see (or own, as Davo pointed out to me recently) our own sin. So, I am saying this to you respectfully and pleading with finding an end to this seemingly endless, unfruitful argument.
ed
|
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
| 
|
