Hey Dingo, what about 'endowed by our creator', does that not reek of a higher being, a God? I would say so, but HEY, I do of course have some certain presupoositional biases in my thinking don't I?
(Thought I'd throw in alittle to disturb the waters some!!)
Thanks for your comments. This is my response to them.
Adam,
I almost forgot about you. My bad... You know, the holidays and all, blah, blah, blah. I do apologize.
Anyway, to answer your question below... In discussion of the Declaration of Independence
First, that was the Declaration of Independence (DoI), which has no legal weight. You cannot go into court and say, "your honor, the DoI gives me the right to pursue happiness." We, of course have no "right" to pursue it... we can, but it is not a right.
Second, as also stated in the DoI, "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God..." This can be viewed as a nod to god, or it can be viewed as a nod to Natural Law which Jefferson and other lawyers were into big time. Natural Law was a theory used by St. Thomas Aquinas to explain how law is derived from humans 'natural' morality and expanded from there. The theory believes that law (natural law) exists and can be pulled out of thin air because morality exists. The notion that all men are created equally is inherent in human nature is a Natural Law principal. Yes, this does have connection with the notion of god as creator of humans, but the theory can be separated from and exist separate from religious doctrine. You can be religious or an atheist and still believe in natural Law. Of course morality is connected with Christian belief, but the Natural Law theory believes even non-Christians can discern and exercise Natural Law because it comes from human nature. The existence of Natural Law can occur with or without a god. Were the founding fathers Christians? Yes, without doubt, but that does not mean they looked only to Christianity for their justification for the revolution. Did it influence them? I am sure that it did, but so did many of the classical Greek philosophers. An argument that I can give to you is that during that time, a king was considered God's choice as a ruler. To rebel against that would to rebel against God (as many loyalists pointed out). The founding fathers needed to look for something else and used Natural Law as shown by the statement of,
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
Of the signers of the DoI, 25 were lawyers and only one was a minister which gives some credence to my argument of Natural Law. (I would also like to add - these guys were liberals for their day... not conservatives. I think the term ya'll on the right like to use is "moonbats")
For more on natural law, you can read up on it here (or many other places):
Third, the phrase, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." This notion is completely non-Christian. The thought that the people are the just holders of the rights of government is contrary to cannon law. Here, there is no mention of God. The Christian Churches believed that the justice to govern came from the will of God, not the people. The DoI goes on and on about the people and their rights...
Looking past the DoI, what Christian principals is the US founded on? I ask this respectfully because I just don't see it.
Democracy is not a Christian principal - Both the notion of a republic and democracy predated Christianity and didn't see the light of day in any Christian nation (except Switzerland and limited amounts in the UK) until the US was formed.
Slavery - that is condoned in the bible, but I don' this it is something we really want to grab onto as a founding principal. Furthermore, it was the Quakers who initially fought against slavery (as Christians). The fact that we had a war over it goes to show that this was not a founding "Christian" principal (at least that is what I would like to believe) since there was a great divide.
The man is the head of the house - Yes, this is both a Christian principal and a belief of the founding fathers, but yet another one I think is better by the wayside.
Charity - there was no welfare, social security, etc at our founding.
Freedom of speech and press is not Christian - blasphemy is sin and punishable by the church, but it is protected by the 1st amendment.
Right to bear arms - I don't think Jesus would have added this amendment if he had a say... but that is just my opinion.
Quartering of troops - no
Jury trials and due process - no
speedy trial and right to counsel - no
Civil trials - not even close
Cruel and unusual punishment - no stoning allowed in the US
Marriage - That was initially left up to the churches. There was originally no state sanctioning of it. No license or blood tests needed, just a minister and a father with a shot gun.
Bicameral Legislature - no
Checks and Balances - no
In fact, the only mention of religion in the constitution was to say that government will not get into it.
So, in conclusion, summation and closing, I say that this nation was founded by Christian men, but not on Christian principals. This is a nation consisting of more Christians than non-Christians, but it is not a Christian nation. It was founded by Christians but was intended for all. Have some groups gone too far in pushing secularism? Yes, but some Christians have also gone too far in pushing their beliefs where they do not belong. My co-worker is a fundamentalists and I am Catholic. As a fundamentalist, she believes in creationism. As a Catholic, I can believe in the big bang and evolution. We will never agree and only argue about it so, we just leave religion at home and don't bring it to the office, and so the office is much less tense when religion is not discussed. I can respect her opinion and she can respect mine even though we do not agree. But it is better we don't talk about it. The classroom, the courtroom, etc. are places where religion does not need to be because it is just way too personal and there is no right answer that can be proven. That is why it is called Faith. If religion could be proven, it would be called science. We can both exercise our religions and be respectful of others at the same time, but it is going to take some compromise and a lot of patients.
By the way, did you know that in Germany, they teach religion in the classroom? Didn't help them any, did it? Religion comes from the home, not the school.
Hope you had a merry Christmas and you have a safe and happy new year.
1 comment:
Hate to tell yo, but JC was not exactly anti having weapons. In Luke 22:35 he mentions to his followers that if they have not a sword, let them sell their garments and get one. Now liberal theologians have attempted to ignore this or apply it as a a spritual sword only.
However the coptic text of St. Thomas, which while not within the Cannon of the western church, is held to be most likely the best collection of the actual quotes of JC. The oldest copy of the gospel of St. Thomas that exists is from late second century or early third A.D. In it JC mentions the right of self defense several times, though with the lack of context makes it is difficult to know exactly what the finer point was (why it is excluded for catholic canon). He does mention specifically that "blessed is the man who is forwarned of the intruder, for he shall be armed to meet him" (not exact quote but close). So JC might have been in favor of arms for self defense, though I do not think any one would say he was for wars and the like.
From what little commentary I have read on this, it would seem that if one can turn the cheek to an attack of offense, one should. But a Christian may have to use arms to defend those under his protection, and there is no requirement to let evil truimph over one, if a bit of defensive weaponary might stop evil in its tracks.
Post a Comment