Guest editorial: Charlottesville’s do gooders, don’t get it

These are the true “fat cats” who’ve prospered and got theirs in a free system, and now, instead of being grateful for and promoting that system–they seek to tinker with it to their immediate advantage. They know better.

Even if I were to disagree with you, and I don’t think I do, there is nothing positive to be said about ASAP.

I say this as someone concerned about the broader issues of environmental stewardship and social justice — two areas we probably share little common ground, given that we are posting on this particular venue [Scilling Show Blog].

ASAP is nothing more than a front group. You mention population. They [ASAP] have arrived at a population figure of 37,000 as what the Charlottesville-Albemarle is able to sustain.

37,000.

Which 37,000 comes to mind? Which of the roughly 100,000 “unsustainable” denizens get to leave?

Which de-population strategy does ASAP support? A lottery? A LIFO strategy? Some form of economic Darwinism — survival of the wealthiest? Most intellectual? Most Progressive? All non-Christians? Hispanics, asians, other minorities leave now?

Actually, the strategy of ASAP is not so clearly stated, but no less transparent: A form of economic euthenasia.

To stop “evil” economic growth — a byproduct (we would hope) of normal, natural biological growth — strangle it. Smother it. Starve it.

Adequate infrastructure? Oppose it. Stall it.

Roadways. Water supply. Ring a bell?

Economic activity? Tax it. Restrain it. Control it.

Noise ordinances. Sign ordinances. BAR. Not even “entrepreneurs” of the lowest caste — panhandlers — are exempt from these control freaks. Sound familiar?

Make no mistake where ASAP has its roots and draws its sustenance: from environmental extremists who fancy themselves our intellectual superiors leading us [this community] toward a better tomorrow.

Ironically, many members of this vocal minority — reportedly 362 members strong, presumably all of whom count themselves among the select 37,000 — are folks who moved here after retirement. How convenient.

“Do Gooders”? I think not. Elites who would tell the average citizen how and where to live? [Not here, presumably, and if so, without roads or water resources.] Absolutely.

Perhpas “dredging” does make perfect sense: Remove some of this intellectual silt from the local political system, before we are left high and dry.

ASAP is just another front group engineered for the benefit of a privileged few. To them, Charlottesville is a boutique City, and Albemarle their private reserve. Time to grab your pitchforks, and run these pretenders out of town.

If I desire to take from my neighbor, his property or his rights, how dreadfully uncivilized do I appear to my fellow community members, if I do so at the point of a sword, bayonet, or gun? How tyrannical do I look if I do it in person? However, if I can accomplish the same feat without having to get my hands dirty, and through the efforts of a government agancy, in the name of doing good for my fellow neighbors, how well off am I? I obtain my goal of denying to my fellow citizen, his rights. I am applauded by my fellow elitists for my civic ideals, and I can sit beside my neighbor in public, and in peace. His contest is with the government, certainly not with me.

Government was conceived to perform only two basic duties. Protect the life of its citizens. Protect the property of the same. When it is perverted to do anything else, it becomes an instrument of tyranny.

Patriot ole buddy, I guess we’ve had an instrument of tyranny in our lives for quite some time then? By your definition, our government has been off track for quite some time.

By the founders definition of freedom and the appropriate role of government, we’ve been off the track since approximately 4:00 PM 9 April, 1865.

Patriot, was that you we heard on the show about 12:35 this Thursday afternoon? Whoever it was, the guest on the show who responded to you inadvertently offered something of a refutation when he joked about how he’d chosen his parents wisely.

You may have worked hard for what you have, but you deserve no credit for the gifts God gave you. All men are created equal, but they’re not created with equal gifts and equal circumstances, that is, with equal opportunities. Now of course this by itself is no excuse for any and every government program, but it might make you re-examine, especially in light of the Bible’s great concern for the poor and Jesus’ lack of concern about taxation, just what’s yours by unassailable right, and how what’s legally yours got to be that way.

Tyranny? Not to be nasty, but you guys sure feel sorry for yourselves.

Ken, yes I did call in yesterday at around that time. I was north of Warrenton, the outermost fringe area of WINA’s transmission range, so I am at a disadvantage, in as much as I did not hear the joke regarding chosing parents wisely.

I am going to make an illustration here. Not to be condescending, nor to see myself tickle the keyboard, but I want to make absolutely sure that I am making the point in the clearest manner possible. Free from potential misinterpretation due to preconceived rhetoric.

Believe it or not, I stand in complete agreement with you regarding the gifts bestowed upon me by God. I also stand in complete agreement with you regarding the need for those who have been blessed by God, to stand together in mutual concern for the needy. Remembering the often quoted passage “But by the grace of God, there go I.”. I take no credit for the gifts given to me by the Almighty, and I give thanks to Him daily, for meeting the needs of myself and my family. That being said, I respectfully submit for your consideration, the following illustration.

You and I live in Anytown, USA. You reside at Number 10, Main street. I, across the street at Number 9. On your left, in house Number 8, resides your neighbor, John Doe. John is a hard working man with two children. He has never caused a problem, keps his home in excellent condition, participates in the community as a baseball coach and Scoutmaster of the local troop. On your right, in house Number 12, resides Hary Smith. Harry lives with his girlfriend with whom he has three children, with another one on the way.He rarely works regularly. He has no physical or intellectual reason to not be steadliy employed, he just has a negative attitude, refuses to accept authority and he also has a problem with both alcohol and drugs.

Now, the economy pops. John Doe is unemployed, though he has looked for work for more than 18 months. Though he has found nothing steady, he has managed to find enough odd jobs between he and his wife, to scrape by and survive. Having lived beside John for this many years, you know that John desrerves some help. You’ve been blessed by God, and you are still working steadliy. You and your wife discuss it, and you start helping John out. You render him financial assistance that allowss him to heat his home, and to feed his children.

I reside across the street at Number 9, Main Street in Anhytown. I am aware that you are assisting John and his family. I don’t think its fair. You are helping John, but not doing anything to help Harry and his girlfriend. I am relatively new to the neighborhood, so I don’t know what you know about Harry. Now I can march across the street, and beat on your door, and give you my opinion, and demand that you take care of Harry. You can choose to render an explanation, or you can slam the door in my face and tell me to mind my own business. Now, our relationship is forever tainted by this encounter. I’ve made an ass out of myself, and I am still seeing Harry going without.

So, I go down to city hall, and I am able to get enough politicians interested in “doing something” to pass a tax act that, through coercion and confiscation, takes from you, a large portion of your earnings. Now, you have less discretionary income than you did before. John still has no job, but your loss of income due to taxes, means you no longer have it to give.

In the meantime, Harry has suddenly discovered he has friends in city hall. He is getting a weekly check that enables him to continue on in his lifestyle. He still is not concerned about working, but thats fine, his new friends in city hall are taking care of it. John on the other hand, is struggling to survive and set a good example for his children. He is working two and three piece meal jobs. None offer benefits. He went down to city hall as well, but his income was just outside the parameters to receive any assistance. In order to receive any help, he must not own a home or property. John and his wife are now considering throwing their values to the wind, walking away from the house, and throwing up their arms in surrender to a system that offers them no assistance if they continue to try and live with good old fashioned American work ethics.

Ken, I am not saying that we should ignore the needy. Not at all. What I am saying, is that I wholeheartedly desire for YOU to have the CHOICE of helping people worthy of the assistance. When we allow government to become the caregiver, we help a few, but enable a multitude. Why? Because if we are going to say that church and state are to be seperate, and I don’t want to go there in this instance, then we are saying that government is value neutral. However it isn’t. Just as a glass is never empty. It is either half full of water, or half full of air. It is never in a vacumn. Government is the same. If we are to wrongly assume that government is value neutral,then the only method of operation in the disbursement of government funds, is to base it on non valued principles.

Referencing back to my illustration. I was new to the neighborhood, and I did not know of Harry’s past established behavior. You did. You knew that giving Harry anything would just prolong the obvious. However, you knew that John, who had established behavior of discipline and industry, was not going to friviously fetter away the help you gave him. By going to city hall and convincing politicians to cause government to encorach into an area it was not designed to govern, I was successful in not only robbing you of the income earned by the sweat of your brow; I was also successful in taking away from you, the right of choice. You lost the ability to give aid to John, while at the same time, through coercion, you are now forced to support an individual, whose lifestyle you stand in disagreement with, in the person of Harry.

That was my point in that comment yesterday. I do not advocate ignoring the needy, not at all. I do advocate making a proper judgement on who receives the aid. Remember, in the Great Depression, no one starved to death because of lack of help. Before FDR had given birth to all of the vafrious societal programs, there stood in the gap, the local church and the loving hearts of individuals. They did not need government to force them to do the right thing for their fellow man. They did so, out of the law of love.

“They did not need government to force them to do the right thing for their fellow man. They did so, out of the law of love.”

They also did so unconditionally, if they followed the teachings of Christ. That is a point lost in your parable.

Matthew 20:16 speaks not to the role of government, but it sure as heck speaks to God’s grace.

One of the most difficult lessons in life is to love your neighbor that you don’t like, give generously to those who do not deserve it.

None of which really has to do with the original topic. I was just struck by your argument as to how we, as individuals, might respond to our neighbors.

Patriot, first of all, I’m glad I can put a voice to your written words here. I enjoyed hearing you speak. It’s often easy and often a temptation to read the other side’s posts as rants, but having heard you speak, I’m glad to say I can no longer do that in your case.

While the example you’ve given is an extreme one, I understand and respect your point of view. But I think you’re somewhat romanticizing conditions in the Great Depression (and think of Appalachian poverty decades afterwards even), and, in any case, how could we effectively – rapidly, as you folks would like –go back? Private citizens can’t and won’t take care of all the John Does (remember that far fewer of us are Christians nowadays), and the only way to help them all is to help some Harry Smith’s too. If we radically cut TANF and other social programs your taxes went down even $500 a year, would you really use all that for charitable purposes yourself? Surely you’d be one in a thousand if you did. You and I agree that we should help the needy. I just think that to do so effectively, to extend a helping hand to all who need it, we’re going to get taken advantage of sometimes. “If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic” – I think there’s a lesson there.

So, I go down to city hall, and I am able to get enough politicians interested in “doing something” to pass a tax act that, through coercion and confiscation, takes from you, a large portion of your earnings.

I don’t understand this “coercion and confiscation: notion. Are you a libertarian? Do you use the phrase for Social Security and Medicare too, and every government program except those that protect lives and property? Even if you are and you do, our government has no power beyond what the citizenry give it. Let’s say for the sake of argument (it’s not true) that every American at the time the Constitution was written felt that government’s role should be as circumscribed as you do. Still, didn’t 20th century Americans, and don’t 21st century ones today, liberals and progressives among them, have rights too? Don’t they have the right to advance and have the Supreme Court rule on their understanding of constitutional principles, and their vision of the good society? As best I understand you, you see your conservative views as reflecting God’s will. Even if they do . . . talk about confusing church and state! We live in a functioning democracy. “Tyrannical democracy” is an oxymoron.

However, if I can accomplish the same feat without having to get my hands dirty, and through the efforts of a government agancy, in the name of doing good for my fellow neighbors, how well off am I? I obtain my goal of denying to my fellow citizen, his rights.

Goal? Really? That way – that notion – madness lies. No one wants to deprive you of your rights. We just differ as to what _our_ rights, yours and ours together as Americans, really are. Sure there are lazy liberals. Also there are mean-spirited conservatives. I’ll agree we’re all lazy if you’ll admit you’re all mean-spirited.

Better yet, never mind. Your resentment is not without cause. But our honest goal is to help our neighbors. If you’re not willing to acknowledge that, then I worry that the earnest but mild-mannered guy I heard on the radio is going to go out guns blazing someday.

But I think you’re somewhat romanticizing conditions in the Great Depression (and think of Appalachian poverty decades afterwards even),

No, I don’t romanticize about it, it was a historical fact, and it, like so many other acts, was unwarranted and cruel. Please know as well, that as I see it, and as I stated in my editorial regarding the Southern War for Independence, most such actgions are usually at the behest of private individuals weilding the big bayonet of government. What was the motive behind the entire manner in which our federal government treated the Indians, or Native American’s? Get them out of the way of the railroads. Why did the north invade the south? Access to the rich raw materials there, as well as the tax base upon which the northern infrastructure was laid and maintained. Why were nearly a thousand families, some distant relataions to me, chased from the Blue Ridge in order to create the Skyline Drive and the Blue Ridge Parkway. To benefit? Businessmen who wanted a way to funnel tourisim dollars into the Winchester, Va area. And so on, and so on. At the same time, remeber too the outreach that private citizens and churches were doing for the Appalachian area. All without government assistance, indeed, despite it.

how could we effectively – rapidly, as you folks would like –go back? Private citizens can’t and won’t take care of all the John Does (remember that far fewer of us are Christians nowadays),

Some may want to go back rapidly, I never contended that we could or should. Reason the first, we have not arrived at this point in one, two or three generations. We arrived here in increments, and it is only logical to assume that we should return in the same fashion. Reason the second, the private sectors need to be reached out to, recruited and trained to assume the burden as it is relenquished by the government. In other words, if we are free to give our money to a charity of our choosing, it has to be effective. It cannot be remotely as wasteful as the government currently is. Reason the third, the church needs to awaken and assume its rightful place in our culture again. Most, I dare say, all, of the societal ills we now face can be traced back to the churches failure to impact society and culture, as Christ expected it to. We do need to establish a stopping point, and make efforts towards a return to basics.

If we radically cut TANF and other social programs your taxes went down even $500 a year, would you really use all that for charitable purposes yourself?

I would, and so would you. Regretably, and back again to the proper effectiveness of the church, you are probably right. The extra tax relief would fund a golf outing or a plasma T.V. for the rec room. Again, one has to ask how much more respect would America garner, if she whould have stayed true to her original mission. Once upon a time, we fed the worlds stomachs from our amber waves of grain. We also fed the worlds souls, from the missionaries of the gospel that we exported from our shores. Tragically, we now export pornography, violence and due to our collective hunger for drugs, we assist in creating cultures like the ones in Mexico.

You and I agree that we should help the needy. I just think that to do so effectively, to extend a helping hand to all who need it, we’re going to get taken advantage of sometimes. “If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic” – I think there’s a lesson there

We can track one cow with mad cow disease, all the way back to the stall it as birthed in. I appreciate your point about the cloak, but you must agree, if governement truly wants anything bad enough, it will find a way in which to achieve it.

Are you a libertarian? Do you use the phrase for Social Security and Medicare too, and every government program except those that protect lives and property?

I am trying to establish that myslef. I suppose I am a Constitutionalist Foundationalist. Neither side is impressing me much these days. And yes, I can forsee a time when the Medicare and Social Security, as we now know it, is going to have to be completely restructured. That will be the sacrafice of our generation unfortunately. Our forefathers gave their lives and blood, their arms, eyes and legs. We are going to have to give up security, in order to allow the generations to follow, room to live.

Don’t they have the right to advance and have the Supreme Court rule on their understanding of constitutional principles, and their vision of the good society?

In so doing, do they have the right to undo the bedrock of present society? I can not concede to that. Not for myself, but for the culture, or lack thereof, my children and grandchildren will have to endure. Oncde upon a time, I am sure that Sodom and Gommorrah were great places to work and raise a family.

Goal? Really? That way – that notion – madness lies. No one wants to deprive you of your rights. We just differ as to what _our_ rights, yours and ours together as Americans, really are. Sure there are lazy liberals. Also there are mean-spirited conservatives. I’ll agree we’re all lazy if you’ll admit you’re all mean-spirited.

This one hits home, literally. The meager few acres that my family has pasid taxes on for more than t60 years, has been deprived of its planned future. Thanks to the well meaning intention of the soild and land consveration vote taken by the BOS. It was Ann Malleks first vote. plan to allow a third generation of family to build a home someday, has been denied to us now.

No, you’re not all lazy. No, we are not all mean spirited, but through well intentions, my rights were denied.

I worry that the earnest but mild-mannered guy I heard on the radio is going to go out guns blazing someday.

Not to worry, I know in whose hands I rest, and I see the frapid coming together of prophecy. My deliverer carries something much greater than a gun. At the same time though, remember Christ commanded us “to occupy until he returns”. Using one voice and reason theswe days may be like scooping out the ocean one teaspoon at a time, but it is a start.

Patriot you need to be careful, someone could claim you’ve gone soft, in reading these posts back and forth. This past election shows us that they are on the run. Now is the time to keep pressing the line back on’em. We can’t wait for increments, it’s time to run it all the way down the field.

No, I don’t romanticize about it, it was a historical fact, and it, like so many other acts, was unwarranted and cruel. Please know as well, that as I see it, and as I stated in my editorial regarding the Southern War for Independence, most such actgions are usually at the behest of private individuals weilding the big bayonet of government. What was the motive behind the entire manner in which our federal government treated the Indians, or Native American’s? Get them out of the way of the railroads. Why did the north invade the south? Access to the rich raw materials there, as well as the tax base upon which the northern infrastructure was laid and maintained. Why were nearly a thousand families, some distant relataions to me, chased from the Blue Ridge in order to create the Skyline Drive and the Blue Ridge Parkway. To benefit? Businessmen who wanted a way to funnel tourisim dollars into the Winchester, Va area. And so on, and so on. At the same time, remeber too the outreach that private citizens and churches were doing for the Appalachian area. All without government assistance, indeed, despite it.

Speaking of historical facts, private assistance didn’t end hunger in Appalachia or anywhere else in America. Government aid did. And while individuals sometimes use government for selfish purposes, without government, there would be little check on the most powerful and selfish individuals.

the church needs to awaken and assume its rightful place in our culture again. Most, I dare say, all, of the societal ills we now face can be traced back to the churches failure to impact society and culture, as Christ expected it to.

Yes and no, I think. I’m not sure Christ had any false expectations, him being God and all. Churches are full of sinners, sinners being the only ones on earth to fill them. Think of the KKK, made up of churchgoers.

one has to ask how much more respect would America garner, if she whould have stayed true to her original mission.

What do you think that was and what do you base your beliefs on?

Once upon a time, we fed the worlds stomachs from our amber waves of grain. We also fed the worlds souls, from the missionaries of the gospel that we exported from our shores.

While we were preaching the gospel we were also taking economic advantage of a lot of the people we were preaching to.

Don’t they have the right to advance and have the Supreme Court rule on their understanding of constitutional principles, and their vision of the good society?

-In so doing, do they have the right to undo the bedrock of present society?

Are you a Constitutionalist or not? What’s lawful doesn’t depend on your vision of an ideal society.

“It is not reasonable to suppose that such a Christian Party will will acquire new powers of leavening the infidel organization to which it is attached. Why should it? Whatever it calls itself, it will represent, not Christendom, but a part of Christendom. The principle which divides it from its brethren and unites it to its political allies will not be theological. It will have no authority to speak for Christianity; it will have no more power than the political skill of its members gives it to control the behaviour of its unbelieving allies. But there will be a real, and most disastrous novelty. It will be not simply a part of Christendom, but a part claiming to be the whole. By the mere act of calling itself the Christian Party it implicitly accuses all Christians who do not join it of apostasy and betrayal. It will be exposed, in an aggravated degree, to that temptation which the Devil spares none of us at any time —- the temptation of claiming for our favourite opinions that kind and degree of certainty and authority which really belongs only to our Faith. The danger of mistaking our merely natural, though perhaps legitimate, enthusiasms for holy zeal, is always great. Can any more fatal expedient be devised for increasing it than that of dubbing a small band of Fascists, Communists, or Democrats `the Christian Party’?”

— C.S. Lewis, “Meditation on the Third Commandment”

Lewis had the political leanings backwards, but he sure foresaw the arrogance, delusion and resulting cultural impotence that characterizes the Christian Right.

Realist-Your sports analogy does not work for me. By “running it all the way down the field”, you are simply recreating a historically established pattern of producing further failure. At the conclusion of WWI, the victors “ran it all the way to the end of the field”. In so doing, set the stage for Hitler’s ascension to power. How costly was that? If you have childen or grandchildren, and are thinking of them, you would encourage greater, not lesser dialogue. This past election has proven nothing. We will not have proof of anything, until we see voting records of the newly elected representatives.

Ken, Instead of trying to do a point by point, allow me to say this, and I suppose it is all inclusive. I was a child in the sixties, and early seventies. I saw the past and it worked. I can remember going with my father for gas. There was a little gas station owned by a Mr. Haney, sitting where the entrance to Kegler’s is now. One purchased drinks out of a tin washtub of ice. You pulled the drink out, and dropped a quarter in the box. The same with snacks. Mr. Haney did not have to stand over us to make sure we paid, and he was seldom at a loss. I am sure that that sounds silly to most today. Like something off an old Andy Griffith episode. However, it begs the question, is that really such a bad thing? I would have liked to have had the ability, to have had our society to coninue on. I mean how is it that we had a basically safe society, until the sixties? Children were safe to play outside all day, without adults present. Women could walk the streets from point A to point B, with the reasonable expectation of arriving there without being raped, assualted, robbed or killed.

Were there issues? Of course there were. Every point in time had its warts. Overall though, if we could go back to 1959, and have a do over, without the jettisoning of established morals and the rebelling against authority, and the redefining of right and wrong, as established by God in Genesis, would we not be a happier people? Would our women and children not be safer.

I have read the writings of our founders. I know what they intended for us, and this is not it. As a Constitutionalist, I know that what was to be lawful, is not dependent on my ideals of a perfect society. It is the ideals of the Judeo-Christian beliefs that the vast majority of our founders possessed. I also acknowledge your arguments regarding the sinful nature of man, but if we were to unbind the gospel message of Christ, and once again allow HIM to compete freely and unfetterd in the market place of ideas, things would be far better off.

In the end, I wanted my progeny to have the opportunity to grow up in a nation the way I did. Rgretably, my children will be deprived of seeing an ordered and civilized society, pumping with optimism, fueled by freedom.

I think my sports analogy does work!! I don’t know you music prefefrence, but here is something. It sings what you’re trying to write. For what its worth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AlrFOBmdVI

Ken, Instead of trying to do a point by point . . .

you completed dodged my points. I appreciate your sentiments, but they don’t rebut arguments and they don’t change facts.

Speaking of historical facts, private assistance didn’t end hunger in Appalachia or anywhere else in America. Government aid did. And while individuals sometimes use government for selfish purposes, without government, there would be little check on the most powerful and selfish individuals.

Prior to the expansion of government that FDR introduced under the auspices of handling that financial crisis, how did the poor in society receive aid. From what I have read, and from family memebers who could actually relate to me, first hand accounts, no one starved to death. They may have missed some meals, but they did not perish due to starvation. Why? Remember, this was before FDR had a chance to make a difference. How did society make it from October of 1929, til FDR in March of 1933? Indeed longer, because it would have taken at least six motnhs, before all of the programs FDR initiated, could remotely begin to make an impact. Yet, no one starved to death. Because the church was there to fulfill its duties, and stand int eh gap. Not all of the wealthy were selfish. Consiser how much philantrhopy was taking place back then.

Yes and no, I think. I’m not sure Christ had any false expectations, him being God and all. Churches are full of sinners, sinners being the only ones on earth to fill them. Think of the KKK, made up of churchgoers.

I once heard a pastor invite a man to church. The man replied “Are you kidding, the placeo is full of hypocrits.” To which the pastor responded, “Well, come anyway, one more ain’t going to matter much.” Yes, I agree with your assessment. Christ knew then, as he knows now, the darkness of the human heart. Thats why he could predict so accurately, that “The poor will always be among you.” Why? Because as long as there is greed for riches and lust for power, within the human breast, the poor will always be nearby. Again, I don’t think that this fact simply defaults to the notion that we must have government fix it.

What do you think that was and what do you base your beliefs on?

I base my beliefs on the written historical facts, as well as the opinions of the founding fathers themselves. A sample:

John Adams

SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; JUDGE; DIPLOMAT; ONE OF TWO SIGNERS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; SECOND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.

The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost. . . . There is no authority, civil or religious – there can be no legitimate government but what is administered by this Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it. All without it is rebellion and perdition, or in more orthodox words damnation.

Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company: I mean hell.

The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity.
Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. . . . What a Eutopia – what a Paradise would this region be!

I have examined all religions, and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world.

John Quincy Adams

SIXTH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; DIPLOMAT; SECRETARY OF STATE; U. S. SENATOR; U. S. REPRESENTATIVE; “OLD MAN ELOQUENT”; “HELL-HOUND OF ABOLITION”

My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ and I cannot cavil or quibble away [evade or object to]. . . . the whole tenor of His conduct by which He sometimes positively asserted and at others countenances [permits] His disciples in asserting that He was God.

The hope of a Christian is inseparable from his faith. Whoever believes in the Divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures must hope that the religion of Jesus shall prevail throughout the earth. Never since the foundation of the world have the prospects of mankind been more encouraging to that hope than they appear to be at the present time. And may the associated distribution of the Bible proceed and prosper till the Lord shall have made “bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God” [Isaiah 52:10].

In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.

Samuel Adams

SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; “FATHER OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION”; RATIFIER OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION; GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS

I . . . [rely] upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins.

The name of the Lord (says the Scripture) is a strong tower; thither the righteous flee and are safe [Proverbs 18:10]. Let us secure His favor and He will lead us through the journey of this life and at length receive us to a better.

I conceive we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world . . . that the confusions that are and have been among the nations may be overruled by the promoting and speedily bringing in the holy and happy period when the kingdoms of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and the people willingly bow to the scepter of Him who is the Prince of Peace.

He also called on the State of Massachusetts to pray that . . .

the peaceful and glorious reign of our Divine Redeemer may be known and enjoyed throughout the whole family of mankind.
we may with one heart and voice humbly implore His gracious and free pardon through Jesus Christ, supplicating His Divine aid . . . [and] above all to cause the religion of Jesus Christ, in its true spirit, to spread far and wide till the whole earth shall be filled with His glory.
with true contrition of heart to confess their sins to God and implore forgiveness through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ our Savior.

Josiah Bartlett

MILITARY OFFICER; SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; JUDGE; GOVERNOR OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Called on the people of New Hampshire . . . to confess before God their aggravated transgressions and to implore His pardon and forgiveness through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ . . . [t]hat the knowledge of the Gospel of Jesus Christ may be made known to all nations, pure and undefiled religion universally prevail, and the earth be fill with the glory of the Lord.

Gunning Bedford

MILITARY OFFICER; MEMBER OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS; SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; FEDERAL JUDGE

To the triune God – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost – be ascribed all honor and dominion, forevermore – Amen.

Elias Boudinot

PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS; SIGNED THE PEACE TREATY TO END THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION; FIRST ATTORNEY ADMITTED TO THE U. S. SUPREME COURT BAR; FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; DIRECTOR OF THE U. S. MINT

Let us enter on this important business under the idea that we are Christians on whom the eyes of the world are now turned… [L]et us earnestly call and beseech Him, for Christ’s sake, to preside in our councils. . . . We can only depend on the all powerful influence of the Spirit of God, Whose Divine aid and assistance it becomes us as a Christian people most devoutly to implore. Therefore I move that some minister of the Gospel be requested to attend this Congress every morning . . . in order to open the meeting with prayer.

A letter to his daughter:

You have been instructed from your childhood in the knowledge of your lost state by nature – the absolute necessity of a change of heart and an entire renovation of soul to the image of Jesus Christ – of salvation through His meritorious righteousness only – and the indispensable necessity of personal holiness without which no man shall see the Lord [Hebrews 12:14]. You are well acquainted that the most perfect and consummate doctrinal knowledge is of no avail without it operates on and sincerely affects the heart, changes the practice, and totally influences the will – and that without the almighty power of the Spirit of God enlightening your mind, subduing your will, and continually drawing you to Himself, you can do nothing. . . . And may the God of your parents (for many generations past) seal instruction to your soul and lead you to Himself through the blood of His too greatly despised Son, Who notwithstanding, is still reclaiming the world to God through that blood, not imputing to them their sins. To Him be glory forever!19
For nearly half a century have I anxiously and critically studied that invaluable treasure [the Bible]; and I still scarcely ever take it up that I do not find something new – that I do not receive some valuable addition to my stock of knowledge or perceive some instructive fact never observed before. In short, were you to ask me to recommend the most valuable book in the world, I should fix on the Bible as the most instructive both to the wise and ignorant. Were you to ask me for one affording the most rational and pleasing entertainment to the inquiring mind, I should repeat, it is the Bible; and should you renew the inquiry for the best philosophy or the most interesting history, I should still urge you to look into your Bible. I would make it, in short, the Alpha and Omega of knowledge.

Jacob Broom

LEGISLATOR; SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION

A letter to his son, James, attending Princeton University:

I flatter myself you will be what I wish, but don’t be so much flatterer as to relax of your application – don’t forget to be a Christian. I have said much to you on this head, and I hope an indelible impression is made.

Charles Carroll

SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; SELECTED AS DELEGATE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION; FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; U. S. SENATOR

On the mercy of my Redeemer I rely for salvation and on His merits, not on the works I have done in obedience to His precepts.

Grateful to Almighty God for the blessings which, through Jesus Christ Our Lord, He had conferred on my beloved country in her emancipation and on myself in permitting me, under circumstances of mercy, to live to the age of 89 years, and to survive the fiftieth year of independence, adopted by Congress on the 4th of July 1776, which I originally subscribed on the 2d day of August of the same year and of which I am now the last surviving signer.

I, Charles Carroll. . . . give and bequeath my soul to God who gave it, my body to the earth, hoping that through and by the merits, sufferings, and mediation of my only Savior and Jesus Christ, I may be admitted into the Kingdom prepared by God for those who love, fear and truly serve Him.

Congress, 1854

The great, vital, and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and the divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Congress, U. S. House Judiciary Committee, 1854

Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle… In this age, there can be no substitute for Christianity… That was the religion of the founders of the republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.

John Hancock

SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS; REVOLUTIONARY GENERAL; GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS

Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement.

He called on the entire state to pray “that universal happiness may be established in the world [and] that all may bow to the scepter of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the whole earth be filled with His glory.”

He also called on the State of Massachusetts to pray . . .

that all nations may bow to the scepter of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and that the whole earth may be filled with his glory.
that the spiritual kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ may be continually increasing until the whole earth shall be filled with His glory.
to confess their sins and to implore forgiveness of God through the merits of the Savior of the World.
to cause the benign religion of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to be known, understood, and practiced among all the inhabitants of the earth.
to confess their sins before God and implore His forgiveness through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior.
that He would finally overrule all events to the advancement of the Redeemer’s kingdom and the establishment of universal peace and good will among men.45
that the kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ may be established in peace.

George Washington

JUDGE; MEMBER OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS; COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF THE CONTINENTAL ARMY; PRESIDENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION; FIRST PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; “FATHER OF HIS COUNTRY”

You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are.
While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.

The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially so in times of public distress and danger. The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier, defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country.

I now make it my earnest prayer that God would… most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of the mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion.125

d righteousness among all the nations of the earth.
that with true contrition of heart we may confess our sins, resolve to forsake them, and implore the Divine forgiveness, through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, our Savior. . . . And finally to overrule all the commotions in the world to the spreading the true religion of our Lord Jesus Christ in its purity and power among all the people of the earth.

Thats just a small portion of the examples too numerous to input here. But you et the idea. These men, despite the attempts to revise history to fit our political needs today, were not deists, nor did they have disdain for Christianity. Indeed, they anticipated that the Christian
faith would forever be indissouably linked to our republic

While we were preaching the gospel we were also taking economic advantage of a lot of the people we were preaching to.

Regretably, it seems that the church always arrived late at the party. However, as economic ventures opened up new frontiers, the church, while tardy, did show up. To provide for the spiritual and physical needs of those who were being exploited. Many times impacting the collective conscience of a people, such as William Wilberforce did in England.

Don’t they have the right to advance and have the Supreme Court rule on their understanding of constitutional principles, and their vision of the good society?

-In so doing, do they have the right to undo the bedrock of present society?

Are you a Constitutionalist or not? What’s lawful doesn’t depend on your vision of an ideal society.

Again, as I stated previously, I bass my preception of what is or is not lawful, upon the law passed down in the Bible, and by the founders of our republic. Though man has done so, he in all actualtiy, does not possess the right to make laws over issues already established by God. We may attempt to legally reedefine marriage to fit the sin nature of todays society, but marriage will always be defined as one man with one woman for one lifetime. The same is true for the attempts to legitimize sexual deviancy. Its not my vision that I am applying, it is the vision of God.

“Its not my vision that I am applying, it is the vision of God.”

You profess, therefore, to have, or know, of God’s vision? Perfectly so, at that?

Interesting, given the sheer number of religions that share one God, and the number of denominations that proclaim Christianity, with different “visions”.

How wonderfully you, alone, must have been created.

Proac,
First, I subscribe to the definiton of religion, not by todays convoluted definition, but by the definition that our founding fathers had, and we as a country had until relatively recently. When you read historical documents, and see the word religion, it was defined and understood as the following:
Religion, n – Religion, in its most comprehensive sense, includes a belief in the being and perfection of God, in the revelation of HIS will to man, in man’s obligation to obey HIS commands, in a state of reward and punishment, and in man’s accountableness to God; and also true Godliness or piety of life, with the practice of all moral duties. It therefore comprehends theology, as a system of doctrines or principles as well as practical piety; for the practice of moral duties without a belief in a divine lawgiver, and without reference to his will or commands, is not religion.
Religion, as distinct from theology, is Godliness or real piety in practice, consisting in the performance of all known duties to God and our fellow man, in obedience to divine command, or from love to God and HIS law.
Religion, any system of faith or worship. In this sense, religion comprehends the beliefs and worship of pagans and Mohammedans, as well as Christians; any religion consisting in thebelief of a superior power or powers governing the world, and in the worship of such poer or powers. Thus we speak of the religion of the Turks, of the Hindoos, of the Indians, etc as well as of the christian religion. We therefore speak of a FALSE RELIGION

When our founding fathers speak of freedom of religion, this was the religion gthey were speaking of. The Gospel of Jesus Christ! Everything else was considered a false religion.

Interesting, given the sheer number of religions that share one God, and the number of denominations that proclaim Christianity, with different “visions”.

Therefore, it was once clearly understood, that all of these other “visions”, and religions that claim to share one God, are therefore false, and in error, and can not rightly call themselves Christian.

So in 1828, Noah Webster, the father of the American English Language accurately defined religion. Like everything else, it was the following generations that diluted, confused and perverted the understanding of the word. Much as wse are attempting to redefine marriage, and abortion, to meet the political expediency of our day.

How wonderfully you, alone, must have been created.

Not just me, you as well, and every other human being cfreated in the image of almight God. Tragically, this heritage is under attack, and being denied to our posterity.

I do not claim any special vision at all. I simply choose to believe in the vision that God, through HIS only begotten son Jesus Christ, brought to mankind, and solidified through the purchase of HIS sacrafice, on a cross at Calvary.

Proac,
I see that not all of the definition in my first response did not post. Following the words FALSE RELIGION, the remaining text should read, as contrasted to that of TRUE RELIGION.

When our founding fathers speak of freedom of religion, this was the religion gthey were speaking of. The Gospel of Jesus Christ! Everything else was considered a false religion.

So do you just deny that half those guys were Deists or had Deist leanings? You deny that Jefferson divested his Bible of miracles and more?

No, I can not have lived here in Charlottesville, and not be aware of that fact. However, what is left out of the history books,is the fact that nearly 30 of the 56 signers of the Declaration, were educated in religious colleges, and held degrees in divinity. We are focused only on the two individuals who made a wrong choice, Jefferson and Franklin. Remember, the examples I cited earlier, were only a small portion of the examples I could submit. Like it or not, we were founded as a Christian nation. Facts are stubbornly inconvienent things.

Like it or not, we were founded as a Christian nation.

So that lasted for what, 20 years, till in the treaty with Tripoli in 1796, Article XI we rewrote history and stated that “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion . .”?

Neither Washington, nor Franklin, nor Jefferson, Adams or Madison were Christians – you would consider them heretical theological liberals at best – and that not obscure pamphleteer Thomas Paine was of course an enemy of the faith. It is true that most Americans at the time were believers. Not the Founding Fathers.

Upon what evidence do you base your statement that George Washington was not a Christian? Washington happens to be my favorite founding father, and personal mortal hero. I would suggest that you read the book, “Sacred Fire”. It lays to rest, with extensive documentarty evidence, that George Washington, was indeed a Christian.

Also, I can not help but to inquire the following. You submit that the government os the best agent of administering to, and supervising the needs of the poor and the needy. If so, then I can not help but to wonder, how do you explain the actions of the Charlottesville Council, that took every available opporunity and legal trick it could avail itself of, to not assist Pastor Harold Bare, and his son Josh’s efforts to meet those needs. Instead, it wielded its terrible swift sword to shut it down. Fortunately, there were supporters that came in, to allow it to at least function as a day haven. However, with the approaching winter nights, that will be of little help. Local government did not solve a problem, but did manage to make itself a hindrance to an agent that was at least, making a positive impact. How many other scenarios like this one have played out across the land. We will never know.

Judging by Washington may have been closer to the faith than the others, but in his First Inaugural Address he spoke of the “Great Author,” “Almighty Being,” “invisible hand,” and “benign parent of the human race,” not God. And though he attended an Episcopal Church, he didn’t take communion.

And I noted that government is capable of helping people that private individuals and organizations don’t help. The fact that the Cville government in one case declined to do so – I assume because they accept the bogus liberal reading of America’s separation of church and state tradition – doesn’t invalidate my observation.

How we moved from the topic at hand — ASAP — to a rather quaint and peculiar view of Christianity and religion, beats me. Anyway, I am not going to feed the alligator.

Ken, you as do many others, claimed that Jefferson omitted all miraculous events of Jesus from his “Bible.” Lets have Jefferson speak for himself. Jefferson’s own words explain that his intent for that book was not for it to be a “Bible,” but rather for it to be a primer for the Indians on the teachings of Christ (which is why Jefferson titled that work, “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth”). What Jefferson did was to take the “red letter” portions of the New Testament and publish these teachings in order to introduce the Indians to Christian morality. And as President of the United States, Jefferson signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe wherein he provided—at the government’s expense—Christian missionaries to the Indians. In fact, Jefferson himself declared, “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” While many might question this claim, the fact remains that Jefferson called himself a Christian, not a deist.

Patriot, would you write a primer on Christianity that omitted the miracles? Would you accept noe from anyone else as orthodox? Enough said.

“It is not to be understood that I am with him (Jesus Christ) in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism, he preaches the efficacy of repentance toward forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it.” – Thomas Jefferson, heretic, to Carey, 1816

As you must know, there are other instances of Jefferson putting down Christianity. But they’re almost beside the point. You claimed that “Like it or not, we were founded as a Christian nation.” As I noted, the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams on June 10, 1797 and negotiated while Washington was president, says that “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion …” There it is, a refutation as plain as day.

Your view of America’s Christian beginnings is largely romantic fantasy. It’s escapist. It’s lovely, but it’s untrue.

Ken, you keep attempting to make this case, citing the Treaty of Tripoli, that our founders were not Christians, nor did they intend for America to be a Christian nation. As you know, the passage in question reads:
“ As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen and as the said States have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

This passage may be read in two manners. It may, as critics, such as yourself do, be concluded after the clause “Christian religion”; or it may be read in its entirety and concluded when the punctuation so indicates. But even if shortened and cut abruptly (“the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion”), this is not an untrue statement since it is referring to the federal government.
Recall that while the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation, they did include a constitutional prohibition against a federal establishment; religion was a matter left solely to the individual States. Therefore, if the article is read as a declaration that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, such a statement is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation.

Ken, if as you state above,

Your view of America’s Christian beginnings is largely romantic fantasy. It’s escapist. It’s lovely, but it’s untrue.

is correct, then judging by the following, my delusional state was shared by the city of New York, when Washington was innagurated.

On April 30th, 1789, George Washington was to be inaugurated on the balcony outside
Federal Hall. (Federal Hall was originally named Old Hall, but New York City – in an effort to convince the new federal government that the City was serious about becoming
the national capital – remodeled the structure, renaming it Federal Hall. The House and Senate met in two chambers inside that Hall, and the inauguration took place on the
remodeled building’s balcony.)

Religious activities had been planned to
precede the inauguration, with the people of New York City being called to a time of prayer. The papers in the Capital City reported on that scheduled activity:

On the morning of the day on which our illustrious President will be invested with his office, the bells will ring at nine o’clock, when the people may go up to the house of God and in a solemn manner commit the new government, with its important train of consequences, to the holy protection and blessing of the Most High. An early hour is prudently fixed for this peculiar act of devotion and . . . is
designed wholly for prayer.

I stand in good company.

Patriot, as you know a prayer is still said at presidential inaugurations today. And aren’t prayers said at the opening of Congressional sessions?

The historical account you posted is not in the least surprising. In fact, although I don’t remember the exact figures any more, something like roughly half the states in colonial times had official churches and taxed to support them. That America was (and still is) an overwhelmingly religious nation and that Christianity was and is the dominant religion is not in dispute.

What’s not true is that the Founders were orthodox Christians, plain and simple, who intended to found an officially Christian nation, and so therefore when we move away from Christian foundations we are moving away from their intent.