America: A Christian Nation?
by Hank Martin
There appears increasingly these days, the question as to whether or not America is a Christian nation. While there was little doubt or debate about this until the early twentieth century, the question seems to be growing in both intensity and discussion. The question was brought to the forefront by President Barack Obama, when he stated that “America is not a Christian nation” during an address to the Turkish Parliament. He may be correct in that assessment of America’s present, but he is categorically and irrefutably incorrect in regards to the historical facts of America’s past. Tragically, in the many things that today’s academic institutions fail to deliver to our students, the saddest of all, is their failure to transmit the idea and the understanding of American Exceptionalism.
America of today stands in a tall shadow of a remarkable and a blessed history. Those fifty-six men who risked “their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor,” aided Thomas Jefferson in crafting a Declaration of Independence that provided for a strong and righteous foundation for our government to be constructed upon. Once upon a time, the public schools in America, openly and freely taught students about American Exceptionalism. This term was first used by the French author, Alexis DeTocqueville, in his treatise of the American culture entitled, Democracy in America. Having traveled extensively throughout America for four years in the 1830’s, he published this book as a report on the nation that was approaching fifty years of existence. DeTocqueville stated in his book:
“The position of the Americans is quite exceptional, and it may be believed that no democratic people will ever be placed in a similar one”
How right were his observations! From our inception, to the present, America has had only one form of government. Though many would contend, and I would agree, that the initial governmental ideology and philosophy has been corrupted, the basic form has remained the same. Consider; in the same corresponding time as America has existed, France has experienced fifteen forms of government. Just in the twentieth century alone, Afghanistan has seen five different constitutions. Since 1921, Poland has had seven, and Russia four, since 1917. Out of the approximately 192 nations represented within the United Nations, America alone has been the only one that has not experienced some form of revolution, or government upheaval, every thirty to forty years. Americans have gotten used to this stability, so much so, that many regard it as normal. History’s statistics would argue differently. This stability that “We the people” have come to take for granted, is not at all the norm, and given the dark hearts of men, it is certainly not natural. Jesus tells us himself in Matthew 24:6, “And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.” It was this way when Christ walked upon the earth the first time, and it will remain so until he walks upon the earth again. The overall peace that America has experienced domestically is not normal. This fact has always been amazement to me, and which is why I have always been equally perplexed at America’s fascination with Europe. Particularly in the Charlottesville area, the very cradle of liberty. This overwhelming desire to emulate all things European. European style government, civil rights, and most recently, health care. We now even have some in the Supreme Court, attempting to cite European legal precedents, and to fashion American justice in the veils of European legal philosophy. This desire to copy European culture is not a new one. Two hundred years ago, this same misplaced fascination with all things European was so prevalent; it led our own Thomas Jefferson to state:
“The comparison of our form of government to those of the European forms of government, are likened with a comparison of heaven to hell.”
American Exceptionalism is not a bombastic, arrogant or prideful position. It is simply a statement that indicates that our system of government was designed in such a manner, as to be able to be blessed by God with prosperity and freedom. As President Andrew Jackson acknowledged:
“The Bible is the rock upon which the American republic rests.”
This acknowledgement is what has made us different from all the other nations. God, as he has displayed in HIS word, is no respecter of persons. Nor is he a respecter of nations. Any individual, who so chooses to live his life by the light of HIS word, HE will bless. Consequently, any nation that chooses to live by that light, HE will equally bless.
Who are the men responsible for the freedoms we have had. Oh, sure, history teaches us about Jefferson, Adams, Washington and Hancock. But if one reads the writings of these men, you gleen something altogether different. In 1816, John Adams attributed the America’s freedom to men such as the Reverend Samuel Cooper, the Reverend Jonathon Mayhew, the Reverend George Whitfield, and the Reverend Charles Chauncey. Who were these men? Interestingly enough, all were preachers of the gospel of Jesus Christ. We do not hear these men’s names ever mentioned in today’s public school history classes. Instead, we are told that the American Revolution was a means for rich colonials to avoid paying their fair share of taxes to the Royal Crown. Yes, taxation without representation was one of the twenty-seven reasons given in the Declaration of Independence, as to why the colonies were separating from England. However, it is interesting to note, that it came in as reason number seventeen of the twenty-seven. It did not even make the top ten, yet with economics being so important lately, that’s what is focused upon these days. So much so, that the religious and moral factors that predicated the separation, have been largely ignored or forgotten. So what was the importance of these men, that John Adams attributed their influence to the revolution? If one thoroughly scrutinizes the rights laid out in the Declaration of Independence, you will see that for all intents and purposes, with no disrespect to our own Mr. Jefferson, the document is really a condensation of all of the various sermons that had been echoing out over the land, from the pulpits of these men, and men like them, for the previous twenty years. What Mr.Jefferon had done so eloquently, was to encapsulate all of that lightning, and inscribe it into the bottle we call the Declaration of Independence.
Our forefathers were allegedly deists, or agnostics. If so, then one must consider this. When all of these atheists, deists, and agnostics convened together to form the very first Continental Congress in September of 1774, what did these atheists, deists, and agnostics do? They commenced the very first session with prayer, and followed it up with a four hour Bible study! Again, as recorded by John Adams, that particular morning, the group studied four chapters of the Bible. By Adams’ account, God revealed Himself through that Bible study, so much so, that the entire assembly was energized with the faith and hope that indeed, the mighty British Empire, could and would be defeated. What portion of the Holy Scripture so motivated these men? Psalm 35. What followed was a continental proclamation of fasting and prayer. When God answered those prayers with victory, another proclamation of praise and thanksgiving was issued. This took place fifteen times during the Revolutionary War. During the times of fasting and prayer, John Adams wrote to his wife Abigail:
“Millions will be on their knees at once before their Great Creator, imploring HIS forgiveness and blessings; HIS smiles upon American council and arms.”
This was the origination of opening each session of congress with prayer. An act that is still carried out today, at least in form, if not in heart. What were the results of those prayers? Simple farmers, with no formal military training were going up against the mightiest superpower on the planet. They commenced to capturing forts on land, and British men-of-war, at sea. No small feat when one considers that our navy at the time consisted of row boats with cannon mounted on each end! What were John Adams observations regarding such victories?
“It appears to me, that the eternal Son of God is operating powerfully against the British nation.”
Our leaders as well as our citizenry recognized that God’s power was enabling the fledgling United States in remarkable ways. That self-evident power of God was also commented upon by George Washington. He wrote:
“The hand of Providence has been so conspicuous in our endeavors, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations.”
I do not know how that statement strikes you, but it seems rather powerful to me, coming from someone who has been reported to be a non-Christian.
When the American Revolution ended in 1781, what was one of the first acts that our founding fathers had the new country embark upon? Believe it or not, English law at that time prevented Bibles from being printed by the colonies, in the English language. We could print any Bibles in any other language, and we did so, as we delivered the gospel message to the American Indians, and others. But no Bible had been printed in America, in the English language. So what was our first congressional act? To implement the printing of Bibles in the English language. Eleven months after the British surrender at a Yorktown, the first American Bibles were delivered. Done so by the United States congress. Why? AS a matter of congressional record, it was stated that:
“This Bible is a neat edition, to be used in our schools.”
Why would they promote a Bible to be used in the schools? Well consider this. The first law ever passed concerning public education, was in 1647. It was passed both in Massachusetts and Connecticut. It was called The Old Deluder Satan Act. How did it read? Let’s look.
The Old Deluder Act (1647)
From Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England (1853), II: 203
It being one chief project of that old deluder, Satan, to keep men from the knowledge of the Scriptures, as in former times by keeping them in an unknown tongue, so in these latter times by persuading from the use of tongues, that so that at least the true sense and meaning of the original might be clouded and corrupted with false glosses of saint-seeming deceivers; and to the end that learning may not be buried in the grave of our forefathers, in church and commonwealth, the Lord assisting our endeavors.It is therefore ordered that every township in this jurisdiction, after the Lord hath increased them to fifty households shall forthwith appoint one within their town to teach all such children as shall resort to him to write and read, whose wages shall be paid either by the parents or masters of such children, or by the inhabitants in general, by way of supply, as the major part of those that order the prudentials of the town shall appoint; provided those that send their children be not oppressed by paying much more than they can have them taught for in other towns.
And it is further ordered, that when any town shall increase to the number of one hundred families or householders, they shall set up a grammar school, the master thereof being able to instruct youth so far as they may be fitted for the university, provided that if any town neglect the performance hereof above one year that every such town shall pay 5 pounds to the next school till they shall perform this order.
What then was the original intent of compulsory education in America? To counteract the priority-one purpose of Satan. Which is to keep people from the knowledge of God. How? By denying access to the scriptures. Either through the inability to possess the knowledge of reading or by the denial of access to the Holy Word. This was why the following three hundred and twenty years saw the Bible as being a part of public education. It was not until 17 June, 1963, that saw our Supreme Court, through legal force, and against the will of the majority, force the removal of God’s word from the minds of our students. That first ever Bible printed in this country, well, consider this endorsement:
Philadelphia, September 10, 1782
Whereupon,
Resolved,
That the United States in Congress assembled highly approve and recommend this edition of the Bible, to the inhabitants of the United States.
I can not fathom reading this, and being able to interpret it in any other fashion, but as what it states. Atheists, deists, and agnostics are not going to make this kind of endorsement of a Bible. No one would or could, unless they felt it was an important part of a person’s life. This also negates the notion, that this was a godless or secular revolution. Consider as well the peace treaty that was signed by Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and John Jay. This was the document that officially ended the conflict between the United States and Great Britain
Paris Peace Treaty
(PEACE TREATY of 1783)In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity. (Emphasis mine)
It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch- treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences that have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish to restore ,…
If indeed, as has been asserted by many, why would these agnostics, deists and atheists take the time and effort, to make the first thing inscribed upon the treaty of this secular revolution, a vow in the name of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit? Actions do indeed speak louder than words.
Some have attempted to make the case, citing the Treaty of Tripoli, that our founders were not Christians, nor did they intend for America to be a Christian nation. 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 [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] 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 article may be read in two manners. It may, as its critics 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.
I am perplexed beyond measure, how we, some two centuries after the fact, can call into question the character, beliefs, and motivations of those who were there, and have left to us an incredible wealth of written material to attest to the fact. It is not by accident, that today’s students can immediately identify Jefferson and Franklin, the two least religious figures in the foundation of America, in the painting that depicts the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Why is the fact so blatantly ignored, that twenty-nine of the fifty-six signers of the Declaration all held seminary degrees? It is no accident that the two we are forced to focus our attention upon is Jefferson and Franklin. There was a day in this country, when we knew our history, and this form of propaganda would not be allowed to stand. We would know facts regarding Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration, was instrumental in initiatating the Sunday school movement in this country, as well as starting the very first Bible society. He knew that if Americans read the Bible and obeyed it, not only would they have a personal relationship with God, but our society would be free of all of the societal ills, crime, sexual promiscuity, drunkenness, etc, that plague a society free from religious discipline. He, as well as the rest of the founders knew, that a country filled with a population capable of self-discipline and self-control, would not require a large government requiring a large operational budget. Another signer of the Declaration, Francis Hopkinson, designer of the American flag as we know it, what was one of his goals after the war? He took all of the Psalms and put them to music, so that they could be sung as they were in King David’s day. This begs two questions. Why is he not mentioned along with Betsy Ross, and why are his accomplishments never mentioned? There was a day when we understood that Sam Adams was the father of the revolution. Today, say his name, and most Americans are going to head for the beer aisle. Sam Adams once stated:
“I rely upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins”
The examples are endless, so in the interest of space, I am forced to move on. Another false notion regarding the fact of America being a Christian nation, is the idea of exclusivity. That is a fallacious manner of thinking. Indeed, a Christian nation is the one nation that will allow other forms of religion to coexist. As early as 1654, the Jewish people had a presence here, and synagogues in which to worship. Muslims were here amongst us even earlier, in 1619, with Koran’s being published here in the 1800’s. The same can be said of Buddhism. Why was this allowed? The fact is simple. Our founding fathers were not concerned in allowing other faiths on our shores, because they knew the truth. They had the promise of the one and only faith that would allow an individual to escape the judgment that is promised to all of us. They knew that as long as we had the truth, and preached the truth, that the truth would overcome all of the false cults that came against it. The same way in which Elijah had no fear as he challenged the pagan priests to call down from heaven, the fire of their false gods. In the end, only the one true God displayed HIS power that day. As long as this nation allowed the gospel of Jesus Christ the opportunity to compete in the free market place of ideas, Christ won. Is it not an observable trend, to see every other form of false religion given favor, but say the name Jesus out loud, and the legal and political professionals descend like vultures on a dead carcass?
I have always found George Washington to be a human being worthy of study and whose actions and character were worth emulating. There is little I have not read regarding his life and times. His warning to future generations, regarding the foundations of our country, is illustrated in his farewell address. In that address, he states;
“Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”
He knew that for our nation to survive, for our people to continue to prosper, and for our culture to continue its smooth operation, that the people would have to have religion and morality as the foundation for their lives. Another important item to remember is how the word religion is defined. In Washington’s day, that definition was as follows:
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 the belief of a superior power or powers governing the world, and in the worship of such power or powers. Thus we speak of the religion of the Turks, of the Hindus, of the Indians, etc as well as of the Christian religion. We therefore speak of a FALSE RELIGION as contrasted to that of TRUE RELIGION.
As America’s first commander and chief, as well as first president no one could know better how to view patriotism than he. What did he say about anyone who would attempt to remove religion and morality from our society and our country? This is his view on those attempts.
“In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.”
Washington knew that anyone who would attempt to expunge or subvert the two most basic and necessary characteristics required for a nation to prosper was a traitor and was seeking to destroy the country.
This is just a small portion of the available material that exists. There is simply no way to encapsulate all the material I have read for the last four decades, into so small a forum. As a nation, and as a culture, we have been robbed. Certainly, denied. Denied the historical facts of our heritage. Denied the promise and the glory that have historically accompanied it. One can find all of this material, as I have done. However, why should we have to go digging? Why should we not be provided this in our educational system? Because there exists a hidden agenda to allow evil to grow and to prosper. There exists a desire to move our citizenry from the light and into the dark. An agenda that would have the American people not only desire, but demand the destruction of the Constitutional Republic we were given. The cries can be heard, and the contest is just beginning. I leave this one final and chilling warning from our founding area, by the Reverend Mathias Burnet, it speaks for itself;
“Let not your children have reason to curse you for giving up those rights and prostrating those institutions which your fathers delivered to you.”
The overall peace that America has experienced domestically is not normal.
Given how strong we are militarily, it’s normal.
This is just a small portion of the available material that exists.
Yes it is. Rather than confront the facts that call your simplistic claim into question, you’ve written as if they didn’t exist. That’s good enough if you’re preaching to the choir, but not if you want others to take you seriously.
Here’s another take on American exceptionalism, from an article entitled “Conservatives’ new focus: America, the exceptional” by Karen Tumulty in today’s Washington Post:
With a more intellectual sheen than the false assertions that Obama is secretly a Muslim or that he was born in Kenya, an argument over American exceptionalism “is a respectable way of raising the question of whether Obama is one of us,” said William Galston, a former policy adviser to President Bill Clinton who is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Gingrich says Obama fails to understand that “American exceptionalism refers directly to the grant of rights asserted in the Declaration of Independence,” and that it is a term “which relates directly to our unique assertion of an unprecedented set of rights granted by God.”
But White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer noted that Obama has declared exactly that on many occasions – including in his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, the moment that first brought the then-Illinois state senator to national attention.
“Tonight, we gather to affirm the greatness of our nation not because of the height of our skyscrapers, or the power of our military, or the size of our economy; our pride is based on a very simple premise, summed up in a declaration made over 200 years ago,” Obama told the delegates in Boston. ” ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ That is the true genius of America.”
Given how strong we are militarily, it’s normal.
How would you then explain how, prior to the achievement of military superpower status, America did not experience the same violent upheavals as the other nations? Would not the depression era 30’s have been a fine time for an uprising/revolt/upheaval?
Yes it is. Rather than confront the facts that call your simplistic claim into question, you’ve written as if they didn’t exist. That’s good enough if you’re preaching to the choir, but not if you want others to take you seriously.
Out of consideration for Rob’s site and the understanding of todays microread patience, I felt compelled to make it as succinct and as brief as possible. Also, it has been my experience in the past, that were I able to submit ALL the historical documents that would support my case, it would still not be enough. In that, I am sadly disappointed. Being denied of our past is one thing. To refuse to learn the truth, and be courageous enough to at least consider it, is tragic.
Regarding your quotation of Obama, it is deeds not words that I pay attention to. He may say or claim anything he wants, but it is his ultimate treatment of WE THE PEOPLE, that displays his true feelings and understanding and motives. If you deprive the people of their creator, then how easy it is to deprive them of the rights endowed by the same.
How would you then explain how, prior to the achievement of military superpower status, America did not experience the same violent upheavals as the other nations? Would not the depression era 30’s have been a fine time for an uprising/revolt/upheaval?
My mistake, sorry – I misread you.
Out of consideration for Rob’s site and the understanding of todays microread patience, I felt compelled to make it as succinct and as brief as possible.
C’mon, Hank, that’s completely lame. You posted almost 4000 words, and you want me to believe you were trying to be succinct? You cherry-picked the facts but you have the gall to tell other people to have the courage to face the truth? Sorry, but that’s downright hypocritical.
If you deprive the people of their creator, then how easy it is to deprive them of the rights endowed by the same.
Golly, now he’s actually _depriving_ people of God, and doing so with the intention of taking their rights as well. Amazingly talented but mendacious guy, that Obama.
I usually try to avoid sarcasm, but sometimes sarcasm is the only fitting response.
What you are calling cherry picking of facts, was, once upon a time, widely accepted history. When I go “Cherry picking” as you accuse me of, I primarily rely upon the older texts, 1930 and prior. Granted, you have to check the off beat book stores and now, thanks to digitalization, this material is gradually becoming easier to get. However, I tend to take with a grain of salt, anything published post 1930-35. It was during this time that revisionist history began to take root.
My accusation of deprivation of God and God given rights is aimed at our federal government, not specifically at Obama. Since 1963, the federal government has actively worked to deprive the citizen the right to practice personal religion. If you challenge that, then watch what would happen if a teacher or government official were to begin quoting or speaking about anything which I have written. In all seriousness, were I to have submitted to Rob, a 500,000 word treatise on the issue, would it make a difference? I know what I know, due wholly to the fact that I was willing to believe more than simply what was permitted to be given to me through the school system. If I did not keep an open mind, I would simply blow it off, no matter the volume of facts to the contrary.
What you are calling cherry picking of facts, was, once upon a time, widely accepted history.
Facts are all that matter, and you’ve cherry-picked the facts.
My accusation of deprivation of God and God given rights is aimed at our federal government, not specifically at Obama.
Nonsense. There are only two sentences in that paragraph, the first one specifically concerns Obama, and the second one flows directly from it.
Since 1963, the federal government has actively worked to deprive the citizen the right to practice personal religion. If you challenge that, then watch what would happen if a teacher or government official were to begin quoting or speaking about anything which I have written.
It’s true that your point of view is out of favor a lot of places because, and that’s partly due to political correctness, but it’s also true because, as I’ve said in this thread, your version of history is based on willful ignorance, and has been debunked. In any case, while I agree that Christianity is under attack in this country and in the West in general, teaching your point of view has nothing to do with practicing your religion. You guys are always exaggerating and playing the victim.
Ken,
Suppose for just a moment, that everything you said is one hundred percent correct. That I am, indeed, as you put it, “willfully ignorant”? If all of the historical evidence that supports my position, was a conspiracy of that day, or those days back then, to create a false history for a deception for future generations to follow. Then exactly what was its purpose? What would have been the plan? Why would all of these founding fathers have written and allowed to be documented, the tremendous volume of religious activities to be so well documented? Why would the memorials and monuments from those days, be inscribed as they are? What could our founding fathers have been hoping to achieve? I can think of nothing more than what it was, and is. They intended to create a nation that was designed to transcend the generations, and to provide a land of liberty for each successive generation to have the opportunity to excel. Perhaps you have a reasonable explanation for the intent of these men.
I believe you stated in a previous post that you have a family. Can you honestly tell me, that the vision I have, or had for this country, would not be better for them, than what your children and mine or going to be left with? Do you really believe that if we could go back to 1959, and prevent all of those actions that have brought this current climate of societal chaos and financial greed and self-centeredness, would not have manifested a better world than we have today? Once upon a time, there was civility and respect for the older generations by the younger. Those days were ones of order and things in the proper place. With that order came achievement. That society put a man on a moon in less than ten years, prevented the despicable actions of the Nazis and Imperial Japan, from spreading worldwide. Now look at us, we’re hitching rides to the space station with the Russians. What is your idea of a great society for the next generation to exist in. I am understandably curious.
Patriot, I didn’t say that any of the evidence you cite has been falsified. Just that you cut a lot out. And while I think society was better off in many ways in 1959 than it is today, it was much worse from a civil rights perspective, and financial greed and self-centeredness weren’t born in the 1960’s.
Once upon a time, there was civility and respect for the older generations by the younger.
Haven’t people been saying this since at least the Greeks?
Ironic isn’t it? The federal government successfully delivered civil rights, through the destruction of the family structure of the same individuals whose civil rights were being established. The numbers tell it all. The Statistical Abstracts of the U.S. show that almost simultaneously, civil rights were established, the black home was destroyed. I have never understood how that unintended consequence came to fruition.
Haven’t people been saying this since at least the Greeks?
Maybe they have, I can not say. I do know that when I was growing up, generational respect was enforced. I was nearly thirty before I ceased the “mams” and “sirs”, and if I spoke to a man my age now, the way some of the younger one address me, my next question would be why are not my teeth and I in the same room together? Again, societal chaos that produces nothing good. I liked it when teachers used to look like teachers, and not like the students they were teaching. Ironically, the teachers that I found to be the least effective for me, were the ones that insisted that I not call them Mr. Miss, or Mrs., but insisted I call them by their first name. Invariably, they were the least able, but most rapidly advanced.
The federal government successfully delivered civil rights, through the destruction of the family structure of the same individuals whose civil rights were being established.
Huh? Civil rights had nothing to do with it, except that desegregation allowed well to do black families to do what well to do white families have always done, to move away from less well to do and often dysfunctional ones, so that some of the best roles model left the ghettos.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_3_black_family.html
Prior to government mismanagement, there existed a father figure and role model in the home. Uncle Sam gave dad the boot, and made it profitable for illegitimacy to flourish, in both the black and white communities. It did however, hit one side harder. We provided choices all right, all of the wrong ones. There was something to be said about shotgun weddings, it provided family and society order and stability. It may not have been easy, but for the overall good, it was right.
Tell the truth, then explain it. Uncle Sam didn’t give Dad the boot; Dad’s leaving was an unintended consequence. And it was Uncle Sam who ensured African-Americans civil rights in the first place.
You’d like to go “back to 1959” – back, that is, to when you weren’t taxed to support unhealthy African-American families. But that’s also back to when African-Americans weren’t really free. I don’t blame welfare for inner-city dysfunction as much as I blame sexual “liberation” and the legacy of slavery.
I have often stated, and still hold firm to the reasoning, that our government is not value neutral. Every time it enters the private arena, despite good intentions, it is declaring a value. We hold debates on when does life begin, at conception, or at birth. The federal government already made their decision. When does life begin for them? Well, you can not declare a dependent until after the birth of the child. Even though the Bible clearly states that life begins at conception, and provides examples to support that fact.
Tell the truth, then explain it. Uncle Sam didn’t give Dad the boot; Dad’s leaving was an unintended consequence.
You have just stated the very problem with our government. No one bothers to stop and meditate upon the long range consequences of an action. They simply do what is politically expedient at the moment, to garner votes and manipulate the electorate. Had anyone bothered to put into place certain morality clauses, that would have followed Biblical commands, dad would stayed. Why? Because the mother would not have had welfare to be a provider, instead of the dad. The federal government, intended or not, managed to usurp dad’s responsibilities, and supplant him in the home. This was wrong.
I don’t blame welfare for inner-city dysfunction as much as I blame sexual “liberation”
Again, what agency usurped and supplanted basic Judeo-Christian values, and made sexual “liberation” possible. The federal government. Again, when one examines the statistical abstracts of that time, evidence indicates that the African-American family was far healthier before LBJ lost his declared war on poverty.
The people who took advantage of welfare obviously weren’t living by Judeo-Christian values, but that hardly reflects on the values of the people who favored the program beforehand. In fact, welfare was instituted so that poor people could have a roof over their heads and three square meals a day.
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. – James 1:27
Far from supplanting Judeo-Christian values, the institution of welfare was in obedience to James 1:27. If enough Christians had been following that command, welfare might not have been needed. The same holds true today.
I’m still waiting for you to explain why progressive taxation and the estate tax aren’t consonant with the Jubilee Year.
Ken,
Regarding your reference from the book of James, being a Christian involves doing, consequently, doing involves mercy. The word religion, has to do with worship in the outward sense, religious service. Just as an uncontrolled temper or tongue exposes a spiritual problem, a man’s religion is vain if it yields no results. Pure religion involves visiting the forsaken and relinquishing worldly enticements. I know and acknowledge that without aid, widows and orphans face hunger and cold alone. Their welfare was, (as in the days of James,) and still is the responsibility of Christians, not the government. Government has overstepped its role and its function, thereby pushing the church out of the realm of service. Again, I cannot help but to cite the example right here in Charlottesville, where city government, wielding oppressive power, prohibited Pastor Harold Bare and his son Josh, from fulfilling their scriptural duties of service to the poor and needy. Instead, the city fathers, lusting for yet more power, created yet another program to accomplish the same results, at considerably more cost and less efficiency.
As I have stated repeatedly, it is not the governments job to force me to behave in a certain fashion. That is between me and God. Government was established and ordained by God, as an outgrowth of the patriarchal family system, to do two things; protect life and to protect property. Instead, we now have a government that undermines the family, takes property, and condones, with tax payers funds, the killing of the innocent unborn. How can I respond to the Gods will, and the leading of HIS Holy spirit, if the funds I would give to the needy, have been confiscated from me, and wasted by the government on some undeserving crack head across town? By attempting to be god, government places itself as a direct barrier to God, and the freedom of HIS followers to do HIS will.
The federal government need not be doing all of these social programs. The church was already doing them before there ever was this overpowering central government. Eliminate all of these social programs from the federal government. Reduce taxes accordingly, and get out of the way of the local church. Oh, thats right. To do that would be to relinquish power and control, and return it to the individual. We can’t have that. We must continue to enforce the notion that there is no God, thereby keeping the citizens on their knees to the state, with a sword of oppression, not love, at their throats.
The federal government need not be doing all of these social programs. The church was already doing them before there ever was this overpowering central government.
If the Church was adequately caring for the needy, why was the welfare system created?
Simple. To supplant the ability of the church to influence society. The first step to taking away liberty, is to remove the influence of the creator of liberty. Instead of looking to the freeing assistance of the church, individuals can look to the self-esteem stealing chains of government bondage. The welfare system was created to manufacture a built in electorate for the liberal party. The ugly part of this is that it appeals to the slothful, sinful nature of man, while simultaneously breeding self-contempt, thereby making the individual find some other means to make themselves feel better. Sex, drinking, drugs, etc. Case in point, look at all of the individuals displaced by Katrina. Many went to work for the first time in their lives at their new living locations. Those who did have stated how much better they feel about themselves. Man was created by God, to work and provide for himself and his family. Please do not cite current circumstances to support any claims to the contrary. We’ve experienced three generations of sloth, that has aided in getting us into our current crisis.
You know, I really don’t mean to be insulting, I really don’t, but that’s paranoid thinking, and like most paranoid thinking, it’s ignorant and nutty. And I’m going to guess it also appeals to your pride, because it’s a theory that doesn’t just make your ideological opponents wrong, but attributes bad motives to them and makes you morally superior.
If I’m not mistaken, you consider yourself a student of history. You should know that welfare in this country began in the Depression, for pete’s sake, and that much poverty still existed before Johnson’s ill-fated but well-intended Great Society programs were created in the 60’s. This is very basic, high school if not middle school level knowledge. Try to wrap your head around the idea that Christian people who already spend time and money caring for poor and needy people might want to have the government help poor and needy people who aren’t getting help.
It’s one thing to say that government aid is counter-productive. That’s a respectable argument I’m not entirely in disagreement with. But to say that aid wasn’t needed, that churches and individuals were meeting all the needs, and that aid was a liberal plot to supplant church influence . . . that’s crazy and willfully ignorant.
Then how does one explain, that prior to the formation of big government as we now know it, there was no record of wide spread starvation, destitution, etc? Where are the photos, from that era, of the mass graves required, to bury the victims of said starvation? I do not disagree that there was poverty, but what I am saying, is that due to the efforts of the church, there was not wide spread disaster or death. When the government entered the arena, is it not questionable, that relatively quickly, the tentacles of government control pushed out the religious groups that were responsible for the beginings of such programs? It is not pride, nor moral superiority that interests or motivates me. It is a simple understanding of history, Biblical and modern, and the understanding of human nature. This desire to create a human utopia, minus a healthy respect for God, goes all the way back to the tower man erected to the heavens at Babel. That did not end well, nor will this electronic spider web of human control we are weaving today, fare any better, when all is said and done.
Just off the top of my head:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_Us_Now_Praise_Famous_Men
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/lange/index.html
due to the efforts of the church, there was not wide spread disaster or death.
So it was OK for people to go hungry and suffer malnutrition as long as they didn’t actually die directly from it?
This desire to create a human utopia
The fact that some people – if there are really any of them left – think government aid can create utopia, is no reason for the rest of us not to support government aid when aid is needed because private efforts aren’t meeting the need.
When the government entered the arena, is it not questionable, that relatively quickly, the tentacles of government control pushed out the religious groups that were responsible for the beginings of such programs?
No it did not. Is the government stopping PACEM in Charlottesville? The Salvation Army? Church lunches for the homeless?
No it did not. Is the government stopping PACEM in Charlottesville? The Salvation Army? Church lunches for the homeless?
With all due respect, conversely, does the government support the instruction of students in morality? Of character? Abstinence based sex education? Will it allow prayer in school, that existed until 1963? Does it prevent the celebration of Christmas? Can students carry a Bible in the halls, without causing a panic by administrators? Can students say a prayer, not simply have a “moment of silence”? Can Jesus Christ be said aloud as freely as every other form of free speech? Not in the world I reside in. Without question, the government today is a stumbling block. I repeat, were government not so overgrown and inflated, wasting our tax money, you and I, and everyone else, would have more money in our pockets, thereby making it possible to meet the needs. I do all that I can to help those less fortunate. I have never needed the sword of government to make me do it. I have done so, by being obedient to Scripture. Knowing that what I do for the least of them, I have done as unto the Lord. Also, soberly aware that but by the grace of God, there go I.
Articles such as these would have more credibility, if the quotes and content were not taken out of context. In this article, the guest writer quotes John Adams as writing, in a letter to his wife, “it appears to me the eternal son of God is operating Powerfully against the British Nation for their treating lightly serious Things.“ However, said text appears within quotation marks…because those were not his words—he was quoting someone else. The entire passage actually reads, “One Evening, as I sat in one Room, I overheard Company of the Common sort of People in another, conversing upon serious subjects. One of them, whom I afterwards found upon Enquiry to be a reputable, religious Man, was more eloquent than the rest-he was upon the Danger of despizing and neglecting serious Things. Said whatever Person or People made light of them would soon find themselves terribly mistaken. At length I heard these Words — “it appears to me the eternal son of God is operating Powerfully against the British Nation for their treating lightly serious Things” (Adams, 1777).
The author also mentions to how the first Continental Convention in 1774 was opened with prayer; however neglects to mention that when Benjamin Franklin (of all people) made call for prayer at the Constitutional Convention four years later, the purportedly fervent Christian delegates were decidedly uninterested. Franklin notes on his speech in his own hand, “…The convention, except three or four persons, thought prayer unnecessary (Franklin, 1787).
References:
Adams, J. (1777, December 15). Letter to Abigail Adams. National Archives. Retrieved from https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/04-02-02-0300
Franklin, B., (1787). Speech at the Constitutional Convention. Harvard Divinity School. Retrieved from https://rlp.hds.harvard.edu/news/test-title on November 11, 2018
The Founders were intellectuals formed by the Enlightenment, and either highly unorthodox Christians – heretics by fundamentalist standards – or not Christians at all. But the majority of the populace were believers.