Search This Blog

Friday, March 23, 2012

The Godly foundation of the United States part two

"There is no free lunch.   Washington is not supposed to be Robin Hood.  The road to dystopia is paved with the bricks of false "rights" and things that are "deserved" rather than earned." - Radar


I give up!  More on the Christian foundation of this United States of America.   That the United States was formed on the basis of Christian morality and the laws derived from primarily Bible sources and others who referenced the Bible is an historical fact.  Facts do not often seem to convince Darwinists, however, so...

As I told a commenter:

Truly I cannot fathom your lack of perception? The article I posted with all the quotes from the Founding Fathers, the research done that produced the linked article and then you say I cannot answer? I have answered quite clearly, the question is why is it you cannot comprehend it? To quote the Founders when they declared Independence and began to form the new nation:


"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness..."


The Founders made it clear that they were forming a "...new Government, laying its foundation on such principles..." Those principles were stated clearly as resting upon the foundation that God created man and gave man inherent rights and that the new government would be built based on these principles. Furthermore, research shows us that the documents they studied and upon which they depended to help them write the Constitution were first the Bible and then Montesquieu, Blackstone and Locke and that these three men often referenced scripture in their works.


Quoting David Barton: "The individual who was cited most often in the writings of the Founding Era was political philosopher Charles Montesquieu, with 8.3 percent of the quotes being taken from his writings. Legal scholar William Blackstone was next, with 7.9 percent of the quotes; and political philosopher and theologian John Locke was third, with 2.9 percent. These were the three most frequently-cited individuals during the Founding Era, but the single most-cited source was the Bible, with 34 percent of the quotes coming from the Scriptures. Significantly, that percentage is even higher when the source of the ideas used by individuals such as Montesquieu, Blackstone, and Locke are identified and included. Consider, for example, a primary source of Blackstone’s ideas."


I have led the horse to water and even pushed his head down into the stuff. Whether he chooses to drink or not, the water is obviously there!

Why my exasperation? Because after posting on the Christian foundation of the Nation recently, commenters clearly refuse to see what is right before their eyes!   Just one article from David Barton's very good site about the historical links between Christianity and the United States, among other things, should clear things up for those who are willing to stop and think for just a minute?


America’s Godly Heritage Part 7 by David Barton

Political science professors believed that this question could be answered by examining a broad spectrum of writings from the Founding Era with the goal of identifying the sources cited in those writings. The researchers assembled 15,000 representative writings from that period and isolated 3,154 direct quotes in those writings. At the end of ten years, they had traced the quotes back to their original sources, thereby identifying the most frequently-cited sources of the Founding Era. (The results of that study may be found in the book The Origins of American Constitutionalism)


The individual who was cited most often in the writings of the Founding Era was political philosopher Charles Montesquieu, with 8.3 percent of the quotes being taken from his writings. 46 Legal scholar William Blackstone was next, with 7.9 percent of the quotes; 47 and political philosopher and theologian John Locke was third, with 2.9 percent. 48 These were the three most frequently-cited individuals during the Founding Era, but the single most-cited source was the Bible, with 34 percent of the quotes coming from the Scriptures.


Significantly, that percentage is even higher when the source of the ideas used by individuals such as Montesquieu, Blackstone, and Locke are identified and included. Consider, for example, a primary source of Blackstone’s ideas.


montesquieu (left), blackstone (middle), and locke (right)


Blackstone’s most famous work was his Commentaries on the Laws. First introduced in 1766, it became the final word in American courts and remained a primary legal authority until well into the twentieth century: it was quoted to define words, establish procedure, and settle disputes. A primary source of Blackstone’s ideas is evident even through a superficial examination of his writings, but the testimony of Charles Finney (1792-1875) also provides a clear confirmation. Finney, a university president, educator, and civil rights leader, was probably best known as a famous revivalist during America’s Second Great Awakening of the early 1800s. In his autobiography, Finney recounted his early desire to become an attorney, so like all other law students at that time, he commenced a study of Blackstone’s Commentaries. As Blackstone covered the various legal concepts, he frequently presented the Biblical ideas on which the laws were based. Finney stated that in the process of studying Blackstone, he read so much of the Bible that he became a Christian and received his call to the ministry.


Clearly, then, a primary source of Blackstone’s ideas was the Bible; and a survey of the writings of Montesquieu and Locke confirms a similar (and sometime even stronger) Biblical influence on their writings. Therefore, while thirty-four percent of the quotes in the representative writings of the Founding Era came directly from the Bible, many of the other quotes were taken from writers who, like Blackstone, had used the Bible to help arrive at their own conclusions. The Bible therefore was far and away the most influential source of ideas in the Founding Era.


Consequently, it is not surprising that the Constitution reflects many Biblical principles. For example, Isaiah 33:22 sets forth three distinct branches of government; the logic for the separation of powers was based on teachings derived from Jeremiah 17:9; the basis of tax exemptions for churches (exemptions originated by the Founding Fathers 51) can be found in Ezra 7:24; and there are many other examples of American government applying Biblical patterns and precedents.


The Biblical underpinnings of America were so obvious to previous generations that in 1892, even the U. S. Supreme Court had no difficulty in rendering a unanimous decision declaring:

No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. . . . This is a Christian nation.



What would lead the U. S. Supreme Court to conclude that America was a Christian nation? The simple answer is, America’s own history.


The Court’s decision was only sixteen pages long, but even in that short span, the Court provided almost eighty different historical precedents. The Court cited statements of the Founding Fathers, acts of Congress and state governments, and numerous others official documents, even noting that there were many additional volumes of historical precedents also proving that America was a Christian nation. Eighty precedents in a case is not only impressive but it is also important, for courts seek to base their decisions on precedent; this enables them to be consistent from ruling to ruling, thus contributing to a stable society.


Significantly, that 1892 Court decision was by no means the only Supreme Court decision that recognized and preserved America’s Biblical heritage; similar decisions were rendered both before and after that ruling. For example, in 1844, a school run by the city of Philadelphia adopted a policy prohibiting Christian ministers from setting foot on campus. That school, originally founded by a wealthy French immigrant, was operated on the philosophy dominant in France during the French Enlightenment (and embraced by many public schools today) that students could successfully learn morality apart from Christianity or the Bible.


This policy, perceived as an attempt to keep the Bible from students, became an issue at the U. S. Supreme Court. The Court’s ruling on that subject was animous and was delivered by Justice Joseph Story, called a “Father of American jurisprudence” and placed on the Court by President James Madison. In that decision, the Court declared:

Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament . . . be read and taught as a divine revelation in the school – its general precepts expounded . . . and its glorious principles of morality inculcated? . . . Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sadly, the First Amendment is being frustrated by a misused phrase written by Jefferson to a friend that was never to be part of either the Constitution or to be applied to American law, the "separation of church and state."   Our Founders made us a Christian nation but one not beholden to any one church, branch of church or denomination.   Christianity was the default setting but it was written into the laws intrinsically and expected as normal morality amongst the citizenry.   The Founders did not want a State Church or a State Religion per se.    They could not have imagined that we would now be a secular nation with a State Church aka Humanism!   Yet that is what has happened over the many generations between George Washington and Barack Obama. 

Not Madison nor Adams nor even Jefferson could have imagined lawsuits challenging a public display of a cross or a menorah or a manger scene, or the Ten Commandments being chased from a public building!   Ben Franklin would nod sagely and recall his words that ended "...a republic, if you can keep it!"





Ben?  We may not be able to keep it.  We barely have it at all now.   America has come to resemble the England that we freed ourselves from back in the 18th Century although we are far worse than the England we once rebelled against.   Christianity is not only not the default setting, it is under attack from the elitist Humanists who wish to rule by fiat while presenting a Socialist State to the public and hoping they do not see the chains wrapped within all the bread and circuses being offered to them.

We are not so far from falling under tyranny yet again.  But until the time comes that our freedoms are all yanked away and I am led off in chains I will continue to cry out for freedom and Truth!   At this moment we remain the land of the free and the home of the brave.    Time is coming for the brave to stand up and be certain to hold on to the freedoms, for there are many who crave them and seek to snatch them away!


There is no free lunch.   Washington is not supposed to be Robin Hood.  The road to dystopia is paved with the bricks of false "rights" and things that are "deserved" rather than earned.

dys·to·pi·a  (All below sourced from Free Online Dictionary)
n.
1. An imaginary place or state in which the condition of life is extremely bad, as from deprivation, oppression, or terror.
2. A work describing such a place or state: "dystopias such as Brave New World" (Times Literary Supplement).

 
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

dystopia [dɪsˈtəʊpɪə]
n
(Literary & Literary Critical Terms) an imaginary place where everything is as bad as it can be
[C19 (coined by John Stuart Mill (1806-73), English philosopher and economist): from dys- + Utopia]
 
dystopian  adj & n
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

dystopia
an imaginary place where the conditions and quality of life are unpleasant. The opposite of Utopia.
See also: Utopia
 
-Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

Radar,

The statement I had an issue with is this:

...the Constitution was based on the Bible more than any other document or source...

And finally, you sort of start to answer the question, about where within the constitution are direct reflections of biblical ideas and principles, that I've asked a few times. The article you paste answers this:

Consequently, it is not surprising that the Constitution reflects many Biblical principles. For example, Isaiah 33:22 sets forth three distinct branches of government; the logic for the separation of powers was based on teachings derived from Jeremiah 17:9; the basis of tax exemptions for churches (exemptions originated by the Founding Fathers 51) can be found in Ezra 7:24; and there are many other examples of American government applying Biblical patterns and precedents.

It appears you have 3 supposed examples(and "many other examples"--- but given the strength of the three given examples, I'm not holding out much hope for many other ones) of biblical ideas incorporated within the constitution:

(1) Three branches of government being derived from Isaiah 33:22....have you read this passage? Really? For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; it is he who will save us.

(2) Separation of Powers--- this is based from The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it? Jeremiah 17:9? Seriously?

(3) Tax exemptions for churches. Where again are tax exemptions mentioned within the document of the constitution?

Here is what I'm saying: The ideas that make up and define our Constitution-- Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances, the Democratic Process, Federal v. State Power, Limited Government, supremacy clause, full faith and credit, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of press, right to juries, due process, right to bear arms, right from excessive bail, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, and the later amendment of equal protection, and many other ideas I'm missing-- these are not direct reflections of biblical principles. People who were christian may have developed these ideas, but that does not make the ideas themselves christian in nature. The Constitution wasn't based on the Bible in the way your quote at the top of this would imply.

I'm not trying to argue that founding americans weren't christian. This isn't something you need to argue any more. I'm just saying your statement at the top of my comment is wrong in the way any normal person would comprehend it.

lava

Hawkeye said...

Hi Radar,

No one is so blind as he who will not see... or even open their eyes.

Lava,

You're a dolt. You said...

Three branches of government being derived from Isaiah 33:22....have you read this passage? Really? For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; it is he who will save us.

Let's go through this REAL slow, OK? What are the 3 branches of government? 1) The Judiciary, 2) The Legislative, and 3) The Executive. Now let's look at the passage shall we?

When the passage says that "the LORD is our judge", it exemplifies one aspect of God's authority over mankind. He judges right from wrong.

When the passage says that "the LORD is our lawgiver", it exemplifies a second aspect of God's authority over mankind. He makes the rules.

When the passage says that "the LORD is our king", it exemplifies a third aspect of God's authority over mankind. He executes power.

By implication then, the Founders recognized these 3 aspects of God's authority and chose to create a government based on that model. Judge = Judiciary. Lawgiver = Legislative. King = Executive.

Now was that really so hard to comprehend? Or were you expecting the verse to say something like: "I am the Lord thy God, and verily I say unto you, thou shalt establish thy government on three co-equal branches being the judiciary, the legislative and the executive. Amen and Amen."

Open your eyes man.

Doug Indeap said...

You seem to have drunk deeply of the snake oil David Barton peddles. As revealed by the meticulous analysis of Chris Rodda and many others, zealotry more than fact shapes his "work," which is riddled with shoddy scholarship and downright dishonesty. See Chris Rodda, Liars for Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History (2006) (available free on line http://www.liarsforjesus.com/); http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Should-Christians-Trust-David-Barton-John-Fea-05-11-2011.html. Rodda presents Barton's claims, reviews the evidence and explanations he offers, and then shines a bright light on the evidence omitted, misinterpreted, or even made up by Barton, all with documentation and references so complete one can readily assess the facts for one's self without the need to take either Barton's or Rodda's word for it. The irony is that, by knowingly resorting to lies, this would-be champion of a religious right version of history reveals his fears that the real facts fall short of making his case.

Illustrative of the misleading spin Barton puts on historical events is what he--and you--would make of Justice Brewer's statement in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States that "this is a Christian nation." Misled by Barton and others of his ilk, some even think the Court "ruled" to that effect or that the opinion pertained to the Constitution. Neither is so. The Court held that a statute restricting importation of any alien under contract to perform labor or service did not preclude a church from contracting with an alien to come to this country and serve as its pastor. The Court based this holding on its finding that, notwithstanding what a literal reading of the statute suggested, Congress intended simply to stay the influx of cheap, unskilled labor and did not intend to address circumstances such as the church's contract with an alien pastor. It supported this finding, in dictum (i.e., a statement not essential to its holding), with the further thought that as this is a Christian nation, Congress would not have intended to restrict the church in this situation.

What did Brewer mean by that statement? He later clarified that he meant simply to observe that the nation's people are largely Christian, and not that the nation's government or laws are somehow Christian: "But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. [...] Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world." D. Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation (1905) 12.

Anonymous said...

Hawkeye,

When you said:

By implication then, the Founders recognized these 3 aspects of God's authority and chose to create a government based on that model.

(1) You made a gigantic, unsupported logical leap here. This statement is not true.

(2) It doesn't take god to realize someone has to make laws and someone has to enforce laws. The judiciary has been around a long time and in non christian regions, too.

(3) Even assuming you were correct, this one example does not justify Radar's original statement: ...the Constitution was based on the Bible more than any other document or source... Little to no support has been shown for this statement.

lava

radar said...

Hawkeye, thank you for your logical answer to someone who is bound and determined not to comprehend what is true because he does not like it. We get a lot of that around here.

Lava, your failure to understand the very obvious sources used by the Founders is astounding! I cannot go back and haul James Madison back from the dead to set you straight, if evidence does not convince you then you are simply set in stone.

"..the Constitution was based on the Bible more than any other document or source" (me)... Little to no support has been shown for this statement. Lava.

I will state unequivocably that I have made a strong and airtight case for the Bible as the number one source used by the Founders and David Barton is certainly not the only source you can check to back this statement up. Lava, I gave you straight black-and-white evidence and you evidently have some kind of filter in front of your mind? I cannot comprehend your continued assertions that I have not proved my case? Amazing!

radar said...

http://www.earstohear.net/separation/BliblicalFoundation.html

radar said...

As to Mr. Indeap, he is apparently indeed in too deep. Not one part of Barton's post is wrong and you who intentionally misconstrue what he has written do so in order to obfuscate.

The fact is that 18th Century American society was absolutely soaked in the Bible. The first colleges were Bible colleges. The most common printed articles were sermons or editorials referencing the Bible. Not only did the Founders depend on the Bible and other sources who drew from the Bible, they would have had to work hard to avoid the Bible had they wished to do it.

As usual, naturalistic materialistic atheists look back at history and try to twist and change it to fit their worldviews. Too bad. We were founded as a nation based on Christian principles but with no state church so that people could be free to woship as they wished. Take another look at the 1st Amendment and tell me what the Founders sought to protect first, religious freedom or speech?

Good scholarship reveals that the US was founded on Biblical principles, period. Those who disagree with this are poorly informed, intentionally obfuscating or too stubborn to admit that they were wrong.

radar said...

This really is rather sad. This country is like a mighty sea wall holding back the waves of oppression but there are so many trying to chip away the walls from the inside out. Attacks on Christianity, on common decency, on accepted social mores, on good old right and wrong?

When will they learn that atheism and socialism always lead to tyranny and untold sorrows for the majority of the people? We have seen it happen time and time again. Yet we still have those who seem intellectually or emotionally unable to grasp the truth and others bent on breaking the truth into little pieces and throwing it away.

When the Nanny State comes, as it will if you Darwinists persist, then only the head Nannies will have a good life and the rest of us will be like serfs. Don't you get it? Even Orwell and Huxley knew better!!!

Doug Indeap said...

While presuming to lecture others about what you assume to be historical facts offered to you by Barton, you plainly have not undertaken even the slightest scrutiny of his "work." Had you done so, you would be aware that he is notorious for twisting and fabricating "history" to serve his ends.

Illustrative of his distortions are the very items you highlight. (I've already addressed the Holy Trinity case.) As is widely recognized, he misrepresented the work of the political scientists on the founders' references to the Bible. http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg9.htm http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/07/more_christian_nation_nonsense_1.php http://www.alternet.org/news/147497/hey_glenn_beck,_our_constitution_is_not_based_on_the_bible/?page=2

Barton's spin on Blackstone's Commentaries has also been thoroughly debunked. C. Rodda, Liars for Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History, ch. 13 (2006) (available free on line http://www.liarsforjesus.com/).

Purging the pervasive ill effects of Barton's snake oil on your mind will be a difficult undertaking, but you have to start somewhere.

Anonymous said...

Radar,

I had issue with the statement that the constitution was based on the bible more than any other source. That is simply not true.

I haven't argued and won't argue that christians made up a good majority of the founding fathers. Most everything you post goes to this point. This point is not at issue.

In the thousands of words you've posted on this question, your sources have given three terrible examples of biblical thoughts reflected in the constitution. Until you can provide more evidence, your original statement cannot stand.

lava

radar said...

lava, I completely disagree with your assessment and will stand on the evidence presented. You have your opinion and I have mine.

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't expect any less radar, logic has never been your strength.

lava

radar said...

"Anonymous said...

I wouldn't expect any less radar, logic has never been your strength.

lava"


Again, ad hominem seems to be a default setting for most anonymous commenters. You've been shown the information, you pretend it is not valid, then you make sure to point out how superior you are? How is it you claim to be in possession of logic when you dismiss the evidence? How is it that your conclusion is to call me stupid? That is the argument of a man without an argument.

You have completely missed the evidence because you do not want to believe it. I get that. Darwinists typically prefer a *poof* to God so naturally you would also prefer a modern spin on 18th Century history even if it is intentionally twisted. So I guess I am going to throw it back at you, you are blind to the truth so truth looks like error to you and vice-versa?

I invite the reader to read both recent Founding Fathers posts, the actual logic of Hawkeye's comment and do your best to check out the Indeap guy. He is a symptom of the institutional illness I call "history spin" in which modern naturalists try to remove God and Christianity and morality from the history of mankind. Funny how they often prefer Allah or Buddha or Zeus or ANYTHING but God and, when they try to make fun of religion they will use some obscure one rather than face the Bible and the real God.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Again, ad hominem seems to be a default setting for most anonymous commenters."

Again, Radar doesn't get what "ad hominem" means.

"Darwinists typically prefer a *poof* to God"

If we did, we'd go with the "God" option, because that's the only "poof" being proposed here.

Anonymous said...

Radar,

I said logic isn't your strength, not as necessarily an insult, but more as the truth. I tried to reason with you logically. You can't seem to understand that the fact that most founders were christian does not lead to the conclusion the constitution was based more on the bible than any other source, as you claimed. You posted three supposed examples, that were terrrrrrrible. The rest of what you post are just random quotes talking about the founders and god. The point is, that a christian says something does not make what they say christian in nature necessarily.

lava

radar said...

When you make such a comment it indicates to me that you have not actually researched the founding of America yourself and are probably just depending on somebody like that indeap guy?

Lava, you cannot have read my articles and the referred sites and say that if you are actually, as you say, logical.

Anonymous said...

I'm a lawyer. I went to law school(don't you remember that debacle when you accused Obama of violating his duty as an officer of the court as a lawyer in not turning his aunt in to the authorities for overstaying a visa? This fact came out then too). I studied American legal history formally in classes. Since law school I've continued to read books on legal history. I've read the primary sources. So, no, radar. You are wrong again.

lava

radar said...

Lava went to law school. Great. Still doesn't mean anything. Some goofballs who practice law decided the "separation of church and state" taken from a private letter by Jefferson should be patched into the Constitution. Some lawyers argued for and others agreed with privacy over life and we got the murderous and shameful Roe v Wade. So lawyers do not impress me. Some of them are not so wise, obviously.

Atheists desperately need to try to debunk the Christian heritage of the USA in order to continue to make Secular Humanism the state religion and I will keep fighting them.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Lava went to law school. Great. Still doesn't mean anything."

Well, the fact that he studied American legal history formally and has continued to read books on legal history and has read the primary sources does mean that it is very likely he knows something about the subject.

Your own understanding of logic is so sparse that you not only still don't understand what "ad hominem" means, but you don't see the gaping holes in your argument that Lava kindly pointed out for you.

radar said...

Lava polnted out not gaping holes, but rips torn in history invented by later spinmeisters trying to reinvent America by changing history to match their worldview. I am not impressed with them or his support of them.

Most of you commenters believe the opposite of what I believe. Fine, it is still a mostly free country and I believe in the 1st Amendment, otherwise comments would be moderated. But those who try to rewrite our history must first castigate and attack those who present the truth. Then they give us their version of what happened back then.

No, I understand ad hominem, which is Latin for "to the man" and is an attack on the person presenting the information rather than the information itself. It is not necessarily an invalid argument, in fact it is often a very good one, as I have used it myself concerning disparate folks like Kent Hovind (a creationist who apparently is willing to lie) and talk origins (a group of people who apparently are willing to lie), so when it is used against me I do not go into a corner and cry.

In fact, to an extent I will use it against commenters who consistently ignore actual history or science. It is hard to sort out the various anonymous commenters so I am not always sure who I am even addressing?

I've spent many years studying many things and the history of America since long before it was a nation is one of those fields of studies. I have studied the Indians who lived here before the Europeans began coming in numbers. I've studied the period of the early settlements and mini-governments, the French and Indian War, the Colonial period, the time of Rebellion against the Crown, and on and on and on.

I am descended from settlers who came before the USA was formed, including Henry Lee, a Declaration signatory. Much of my English side came over prior to the Revolution. I am descended from Irish and Scottish and German settlers who came over in boats and stood in line to enter the land at Ellis Island. I am descended from the Cherokees, who once had control of a large part of the Southeast and were forced to migrate to the West (a shameful part of our history). My ancestors fought in the American Revolution and, so far as I can tell, every single war America has fought officially and a couple that were considered conflicts, such as our presence in Afghanistan.

That does not make me an expert, but it does make me aware of what is and is not truth. I know that America was founded on Christian principles and that the law is based on the Judeo-Christian ethic. I know the Founders were mostly men of great Biblical knowledge and it was intrinsic to their thinking. This is foreign to modern humanists and they have difficulty wrapping their minds around the idea. So they deny it. Go ahead, stick your head in the sand if you like!

radar said...

As to *poof*? That is what Darwinists resort to when asked for how the following came into existence:

The Universe
Physical logical laws
Stars and planets and galaxies
Life
Information

Those are just a few. None of you have the answer because, according to Darwinists they just "happened." Now, if my five year old granddaughter thinks something "just happened" she is now old enough that I can explain to her how something came to be. How is it that my granddaughter is in some ways more wise than Darwinists?

Want a hint? Because she is willing to learn. Darwinists do not want to know the truth because that means that they have to admit to themselves that there is a Creator God, a higher authority and He will be the one they answer to someday. They are willing to flush evidence and logic down the toilet to avoid this thought.

Another hint? Nobody gets out of this world alive and you are not taking anything with you but for one thing - your relationship with God. If you have that relationship you step right into the last Universe which is an eternity spent with God and all those who trusted him, from Adam to the very last person who is saved before God pulls the plug on this material existence.

If you have no relationship with God and have rejected Him, then you go where those who rebelled against Him go. No use blaming me for this, the Bible says that is the way it is. God makes the Universe, God makes the rules.

Knowing God is far better than not knowing God. I remember being a non-Christian quite clearly. There was always something missing inside that I could not define and usually ignored. I sought comfort in every way - fame, money, women, drugs, drinking, learning, meditating, writing songs and poems, standing outside at night gazing at the stars and trying to pull truth from the sky. Then it turns out that Bible stuff I used to scoff at was the real thing. Life changed and a guy who was either going to be famous as a rock star, jailed as a drug dealer or killed as a drunk driver or in a big bar fight instead has six kids and three grandkids and a huge bunch of friends. God changed me from the inside out. But you have to be willing to be one step below God and not think you are the top dog in your world before you can hear Him.

I do hope you can hear Him...

Anonymous said...

Lava polnted out not gaping holes, but rips torn in history invented by later spinmeisters trying to reinvent America by changing history to match their worldview. I am not impressed with them or his support of them.

Do you even understand what I was asking for? I didn't point out "gaping holes" or "rips torn in history invented by later spinmeisters..." I did three things:

(1) I pointed out a statement(that the const was based more on the bible than any other source) you made was wrong,
(2) asked you to back that statement up with specific evidence
(3) and told you why your logic was flawed when you presented evidence that the founders were generally christian (not something that is controverted) as proof that the constitution was based more on the bible than any other source.

I did not distort history. I barely posed any references to history, other than citing to some constitutional concepts.

In the thousands of words you posted, you provided three horrrrrrible examples.

Either you are being willfully ignorant about all this, or you just don't understand it. I'm not sure which is worse.


lava