| From | Message |
steve gosling
Guest
7/30/2003
05:45:59
|
 Subject: Many Conservatisms
IP: Logged
Message:
The existence of a current best seller by Anne Coulter highlights a particular problem in seeking to find the real face of American Conservatism. I have just received a package of publications from ISI(Modern Age etc.,). These publications reflect a deep, reflective,and meaningful conservative perspective.
The only problem is that this deep and reflective conservatism is never reflected in the actions or words our 'conservaive' candidates and officeholders.
Question: is Anne Coulter and Company a conservative or just another spokesperson for a passing populist mood?
|
Joseph
Guest
7/30/2003
22:45:30
| RE: Many Conservatisms
IP: Logged
Message:
Almost anyone can be a "conservative", even a communist can be a "conservative". According to my sister's definition (a professor of political science) a conservative is anyone who wants to keep things as they are. Liberals want change, conservatives want to keep things the way they are, reactionaries want to make things the way they were.
|
steve gosling
Guest
7/31/2003
07:27:41
| RE: Many Conservatisms
IP: Logged
Message:
Yes you are right. Samuel P Huntington made the same observation; he called it 'situational conservatism'. I am addressing the perception of
conservatism; the reflective traditionalism of ISI and its brand of anglo-american conservatism and the populist simplifications of NR/Coulter et al.
I suppose the question is: can we dispense with the populism and have a mature and deep Conservative Politics that is intelligent, articulate in the public forum.?
|
MercuryMan
Guest
7/31/2003
22:04:21
| RE: Many Conservatisms
IP: Logged
Message:
Good question, here's a strategy...
I doubt we can dump the fashionable, populist part of conservatism. But talking parrots aren't the problem. America was too well off to care about culture or paleocon theory, until recently, thanks in no small part to Lawrence v. Texas. Paleos and reactionaries must convince Americans that the Republican party in its present form lacks moral judgement. This is the angle paleos need to get into the debate.
Joseph's definitions are right on the money. (Are you the same joseph in OD?) However I would hasten to add that because paleocons and reactionaries are visionaries they tend to make poor politicians because people aren't ready for their uncompromising ideology...Unless it's Christian ideology. I believe if Paleos and reactionaries court the Christian right they could get a formidable base; the numbers are there. Paleos and the Christian right have too much in common to let minor differences such as support of Israel stand in their way of bringing about a true conservative revival.
Buchannan's Reform party flopped because he failed to follow America's unwritten two-party law. If paleos prove themselves capable of offering sound economic, defense, and foreign policies within the Republican party, they will become a legitimate alternative to the neo-conservatives. Buchanan's magazine seems bent on doing just this, however to court the Christian right, it needs more of a Christian theme. And it needs to be perhaps not outright Zionist, but at least not distasteful to strong supporters of Israel.
It is nothing less than the internal struggle for control of the Republican Party. If paleos play their cards right, they could wind up as the Republicans to trust when it comes to speaking out against gay high schools, same-sex marriage, and an uncompromising pro-Christian stance. All the Anglo-American concerns would be secondary, but nonetheless there.
But the angle, I believe, is the Christian right. After all, conservatism without Christianity is nothing more than skepticism of change. And we all know where that has gotten us...
-Merc
|
MercuryMan
Guest
7/31/2003
22:05:46
| RE: Many Conservatisms
IP: Logged
Message:
Good question, here's a strategy...
I doubt we can dump the fashionable, populist part of conservatism. But talking parrots aren't the problem. America was too well off to care about culture or paleocon theory, until recently, thanks in no small part to Lawrence v. Texas. Paleos and reactionaries must convince Americans that the Republican party in its present form lacks moral judgement. This is the angle paleos need to get into the debate.
Joseph's definitions are right on the money. (Are you the same joseph in OD?) However I would hasten to add that because paleocons and reactionaries are visionaries they tend to make poor politicians because people aren't ready for their uncompromising ideology...Unless it's Christian ideology. I believe if Paleos and reactionaries court the Christian right they could get a formidable base; the numbers are there. Paleos and the Christian right have too much in common to let minor differences such as support of Israel stand in their way of bringing about a true conservative revival.
Buchannan's Reform party flopped because he failed to follow America's unwritten two-party law. If paleos prove themselves capable of offering sound economic, defense, and foreign policies within the Republican party, they will become a legitimate alternative to the neo-conservatives. Buchanan's magazine seems bent on doing just this, however to court the Christian right, it needs more of a Christian theme. And it needs to be perhaps not outright Zionist, but at least not distasteful to strong supporters of Israel.
It is nothing less than the internal struggle for control of the Republican Party. If paleos play their cards right, they could wind up as the Republicans to trust when it comes to speaking out against gay high schools, same-sex marriage, and an uncompromising pro-Christian stance. All the Anglo-American concerns would be secondary, but nonetheless there.
But the angle, I believe, is the Christian right. After all, conservatism without Christianity is nothing more than skepticism of change. And we all know where that has gotten us...
-Merc
|
MercuryMan
Guest
7/31/2003
22:25:51
| RE: Many Conservatisms
IP: Logged
Message:
Good question, here's a strategy...
I doubt we can dump the fashionable, populist part of conservatism. But talking parrots aren't the problem. America was too well off to care about culture or paleocon theory, until recently, thanks in no small part to Lawrence v. Texas. Paleos and reactionaries must convince Americans that the Republican party in its present form lacks moral judgement. This is the angle paleos need to get into the debate.
Joseph's definitions are right on the money. (Are you the same joseph in OD?) However I would hasten to add that because paleocons and reactionaries are visionaries they tend to make poor politicians because people aren't ready for their uncompromising ideology...Unless it's Christian ideology. I believe if Paleos and reactionaries court the Christian right they could get a formidable base; the numbers are there. Paleos and the Christian right have too much in common to let minor differences such as support of Israel stand in their way of bringing about a true conservative revival.
Buchannan's Reform party flopped because he failed to follow America's unwritten two-party law. If paleos prove themselves capable of offering sound economic, defense, and foreign policies within the Republican party, they will become a legitimate alternative to the neo-conservatives. Buchanan's magazine seems bent on doing just this, however to court the Christian right, it needs more of a Christian theme. And it needs to be perhaps not outright Zionist, but at least not distasteful to strong supporters of Israel.
It is nothing less than the internal struggle for control of the Republican Party. If paleos play their cards right, they could wind up as the Republicans to trust when it comes to speaking out against gay high schools, same-sex marriage, and an uncompromising pro-Christian stance. All the Anglo-American concerns would be secondary, but nonetheless there.
But the angle, I believe, is the Christian right. After all, conservatism without Christianity is nothing more than skepticism of change. And we all know where that has gotten us...
-Merc
|
Joseph
Guest
8/01/2003
13:34:04
| RE: Many Conservatisms
IP: Logged
Message:
What is OD?-guess not.
Populism is really the last resort of the modern GOP. Much like the mainstream liberals, their platform has become so vague and watered down that each side is reduced to a single standpoint: opposing the other side.
Liberalism has, for the time being at least, won the propaganda war. The political culture of USA, and virtually the entire western world, is one which gives the most honored position to such catch-phrases as "progressive", "cutting-edge", "ground-breaking". People now naturally see anything conservative (in the traditional sense) as backward, out-dated and just 'un-cool'.
Christianity will have to have a major restoration itself before it can be a major political force. Many Christian churches are slowly adopting more and more of the liberal stances in order to 'go with the flow' and not stick out. Most people in the west no longer go to Church, most feel it is too silly and archaic (they have been educated beyond their own intelligence) and when someone like Pope John Paul reminds them of a fact like 'gay is wrong', they just stop listening because they don't like the message.
Conservatives are partly to blame for their own political downfall in the present time. Originally liberal ideals, just take the simple principle of democracy itself, which is the rule of the majority aka popular opinion, were adopted over time by conservatives as well. Now we are faced with an unpleasant fact about the nature of humanity: when popular opinion rules we get laws that say anything you want, be it sodomy or gay marriage, is okay! God says something is wrong? Forget it, we out-vote him. Why do you suppose reality tv (selling your dignity for a chance at riches) is so popular?
Good Lord, I'm starting to sound like Hobbes, somebody stop me!
|
MercuryMan
Guest
8/01/2003
20:39:13
| RE: Many Conservatisms
IP: Logged
Message:
Joseph,
I'm not so sure populism will ever surface as mainstream. Republicans certainly won't turn to populism as long as neoconservatives fare so well.
Neoconservatives take advantage of economic man. A poll on CNN today showed that 82% of Americans hold that the president's economic plan is what matters most. Culture was not even on the list.
The recent judicial activism may be just the catalyst that is needed to awaken Christian conservatives to start running on a platform with some paleoconservative-type ideals.
It must come from the inside though, which is why populism won't work.
-Merc
|
steve gosling
Guest
8/02/2003
07:40:28
| RE: Many Conservatisms
IP: Logged
Message:
If the Paleos's were to control the Republican Party, what would their platform be?
|
MercuryMan
Guest
8/02/2003
14:06:27
| RE: Many Conservatisms
IP: Logged
Message:
Mr. Gosling,
The paleo platform would entail an unwaivering commitment to traditional family values, the democratic process, and an America first foreign and domestic policy. It would be virtually identical to the America First Party's platform since many are paleos themselves.
http://www.americafirstparty.org/docs/platform.shtml
-Merc
|
Louis XIV
Guest
8/03/2003
20:48:02
| RE: Many Conservatisms
IP: Logged
Message:
...an unwaivering commitment to traditional family values, the democratic process, and an America first foreign and domestic policy.
Why the democratic process? It is known for hypocricy, stalemate, and gridlock, an inability to govern. The democratic process seems rather at odds with counterrevolutionary philosophy if that philosophy is brought to its logical conclusion.
Philosophical works questioning, discussing, or doubting the democratic process:
Burke - Reflections on The Revolution in France
Confucian Thought
Works of Joseph de Maistre
Democracy in America
|
MercuryMan
Guest
8/04/2003
22:27:06
| RE: Many Conservatisms
IP: Logged
Message:
Louis XIV,
I don't think the democratic process and counterrevolutionary philosophy are mutually exclusive. The problem is judicial review. If we had a few more in the Supreme Court like Scalia and Thomas, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now. Furthermore, in an atmosphere deviod of judicial activism, counterrevolutionary philosophy could thrive.
Church going Christians are more aligned in thought with paleos than liberals. They just need tools to have a fighting chance. Enter a bill that would allow Churches to speak out against radical liberalism:
http://www.vision-america.org/HR2357/020722HR2357-tlk.htm
In 1954 Lyndon B. Johnson passed an amendment revoking tax exeption status from churches if they even remotely spoke on political issues. Many political experts agree this was all he needed to secure his presidential bid.
But now 48 years later a N.C. congressman seeks to repeal this church muzzle law.
If this bill is passed (Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act, H.R. 2357) churches will no longer be neutered, and will be able to rejoin the process of deciding our Nation's fate. Just as they did prior to 1954.
Lawrence v Texas opened our eyes. Now we need the tools to fight. If the bill passes, churches will once again be able to help determine the outcome of our culture. Something long overdue.
H.R. 2357: Let's do it!
-Merc
|
Joseph
Guest
8/05/2003
14:54:32
| RE: Many Conservatisms
IP: Logged
Message:
I think the problem between Christianity and democrcacy is that democracy in itself means the rule of popular opinion; and, according to the Bible I read, God said that most people (or the majority) will usually do the easier more gratifying thing which is wrong, while only a very few will follow the narrow path to salvation. A look through the Bible will show that all of God's chosen instruments were not often very popular.
Again, it all goes back to your view of the true nature of man; whether we are naturally enlightened and benevolent creatures who would build a heaven-on-earth if left to our own devices; or whether we are naturally corrupt, brutal and wicked creatures who must be controled so we do not destroy ourselves.
Rousseau or Hobbes? Which is it to be...
|
Louis XIV
Guest
8/05/2003
20:48:19
| RE: Many Conservatisms
IP: Logged
Message:
I don't think the democratic process and counterrevolutionary philosophy are mutually exclusive.
The logical conclusion of counterrevolutionary philosophy is the rejection of popular sovereignty, a concept that places a great deal of trust in the people to determine right and wrong, good and bad, legal and illegal. The democratic process, however, is based on the idea, so the two seem to be somewhat at odds. Although, as it is defined, advocates of America's Old democratic Republic are part of the counterrevolution, and I accept them as such. I did not intend for my original statement to object to them.
The problem is judicial review.
Judicial review, i.e., the process whereby the judicial branch of government checks the other two branches of government and reviews their work, actually has been part of America's constitutional system from the very beginning, 1787.
If we had a few more in the Supreme Court like Scalia and Thomas, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.
Right you are sir. They have done good work there. We should all be thankful for them.
I think the problem between Christianity and democrcacy is that democracy in itself means the rule of popular opinion....
For a possible alternative mix of Christianity and politics, see this.
|
MercuryMan
Guest
8/07/2003
15:20:00
| RE: Many Conservatisms
IP: Logged
Message:
Joseph,
True, democracies are run by popular opinion which is often at odds with Christianity. Point well taken. However America is a republic not just a democracy and as such avoids your scenario of church and state incompatibility. If America were a total democracy, or a populist state, I'd agree with you. But it is precisely because America is a republic that Christians can gain a stronghold in politics and culture.
Louis XIV,
You are right. Judicial review has always been around and hasn't until recently been a thorn in our side. This is because judicial activists grounded in a definite liberal ideology have gained a foothold in the Court. My original writings were meant to bear this out. My appologies for the confusion.
As regulars in this forum know, what is needed is an alternative ideology to liberalism. Enter counterrevolutionary thought (CRT). The core of CRT is Christianity. Christianity gives life and vision to reasoned, practical ideologies, like mainstream liberalism or conservatism.
Think of the two mainstream ideologies (conservatism and liberalism) as large tanks. Whoever gets inside them automatically gets the tank's goodies. The revolution must come from the inside, that is, taking over one of the 2 big tanks because starting over is counterproductive and foolish. Pat Buchanan is right that conservatism was taken over by a crowd who aren't the tank's original soldiers. They aren't Christians so much as they are "neo-conservatives" and whoever they are, they have a different vision than Christians had.
Case in point: National Review's (conservatism's flagship magazine) Bill Buckely came out against Texas' law barring homosexual sodomy. He should have at the least come out in support if only for the reason of states' rights.
So if conservatism has lost its true vision where does liberalism stand? Logically speaking, if liberalism is an ideology, and I believe it is, we must ask where its logical conclusion leads. The answer I believe, since it is rooted in secular humanism is, the breakdown of the family, morals, and soon thereafter civilization.
Paleoconservatism is radical liberalism's opposite twin, being equally idealistic. If man could only take the best parts from radical liberalism and paleoconservatism, he would get something like mainstream conservatism, which is really classical liberalism. BUT...without its Christian root, conservatism becomes nothing more than skepticism. Neo-conservatives have let it degenerate to this because they severed Christianity from conservatism.
Both mainstream liberalism and conservatism need vision. Since athiest special interst groups have suceeded in rooting out Christianity from conservatism, the conservative tank was filled by less committed conservatives. However mainstream liberalism still has secular humanism as its vision. Paleoconservatism doesn't have as much reason as mainstream liberalim or conservatism, so it's out of the picture. But mainstream conservatism has just as much reason as mainstream liberalism, but needs it's vision. It needs its severed root back. It needs Christianity.
That's why H.R. 2357 is so important.
It gives back conservatism its vision, and is perfectly compatible with a republic. CRT and paleo ideologies are fine, but no substitute for pure Christianity as the core of conservatism.
-Merc
|
Joseph
Guest
8/08/2003
01:04:33
| RE: Many Conservatisms
IP: Logged
Message:
A republic, as the word itself implies, is still based on the will of the people, it derives all authority from popular consent, not from God or any set principles of right and wrong. I know its a hard fact to face, it was for me, especially for Christians, but the US was born out of a revolution, and the Bible clearly states that a king must be obeyed regardless of character, be he good & gentle or be he harsh. Peter even preached obedience to Nero. The only thing in the Bible that could excuse a Christian of rebellion was if the sovereign commanded something contrary to God--other than that, you must endure and suffer righteously.
None of this, however, applies anymore, nor is considered by most, because Americanism or democracy or popular opinion etc. has become a religion itself, and long ago supplanted Christ as the source of all legitimacy & authority.
Christians could never form a powerful political bloc as of the situation today; they all share one book and cannot even agree on that. There are thousands of different "interpretations"; some even see nothing wrong with having gay bishops (but he was elected, so it's okay right?) or holding a marriage ceremony for Jim & John.
Christians had there chance to lead the nations of the world and they blew it: they shattered apart after allowing countless divisions to grow among them, started interpreting the Word as they each saw fit, and began attacking each other more fiercely than they ever attacked the heathen. Now, most people refuse to submit to any authority at all but their own (or those who fool them into thinking they are 'their own').
|
MercuryMan
Guest
8/08/2003
16:59:51
| RE: Many Conservatisms
IP: Logged
Message:
Joseph,
Not true! It is precisely because churches were silenced in 1954 that all the confusion you mentioned now takes place in our churches.
Christian pastors and priests are citizens too, and should have a voice on where our culture is headed.
Do you think it a fluke that England's Anglican Church just happened to
refuse gay bishops while in America, the Episcopals endorsed one?
Come on! It's obvious English law which doesn't prevent the clergy from speaking out on political issues had some effect on that decision. Especially in a country where church isn't even nearly as popular as in America!
Now imagine if our country which is comparatively speaking, much more church-going, releases the muzzle from the clergy. There is no doubt in my mind we would have a spiritual and cultural revival. It would clear up confusion on homosexual marriages by applying pressure for clergy to follow the status quo Christians. And by default purge the elitists and wolves in cloth.
Once the Christian roots are back, the sexual revolution mudhole will dry up along with much else of liberalism. The ground will be fertile for the truth.
Sounds radical, but its not. We can win this.
H.R. 2357
-Merc
|
Joseph
Guest
8/08/2003
19:06:46
| RE: Many Conservatisms
IP: Logged
Message:
I don't see how that relates to anything I posted. The government had nothing to do with the fact that the Episcopal laity of New Hampshire elected a gay bishop, nor with the church council endorsing him.
Christianity, if it is real, will never be able to win a popularity contest. It is based on following commandments, submitting to a higher power, and giving rather than taking. This is not what "the people" want, they want to vote in politicians who promise them more money, more benefits, more programs & free stuff.
The political culture of the modern time is simply not compatible with Christianity, which offers no quick fix, free ride or the freedom to do whatever you like whenever you like and to whoever you like. To paraphrase the Bible, people have chosen to use their liberty as a cloak for maliciousness. There is a reason why God said not to "meddle with those given to change", after a certain point you simply can't put humpty dumpty together again.
"Monarchy is like virginity. Once it is lost, you can never get it back." -Kaiser Wilhelm II in exile
|
MercuryMan
Guest
8/08/2003
20:31:51
| RE: Many Conservatisms
IP: Logged
Message:
Joseph,
I am trying to convince you that if church clergy were free to speak out on the issues, the posers would be forced out because there are so many good church leaders dying to speak out and change culture.
Of course the people gravitate to the lowest common denominator. That is why people need Christianity. People are vacuums and if aren't filled by Christianity will turn to secular humanism and "Labido dominandi" --Latin for dominated by sexual lust.
Whether or not you agree with Christianity is your choice, but I think you would be fooling yourself if you didn't think the underlying moral code of our forefathers cannot have an effect on today's society.
We just need to free the pastors.
Let me put it this way. Which society would be more accepting of counterrevolution/paleo thought: one steeped in secular humanism or Christianity?
Louis XIV, it is because our country isn't a complete democracy that counterrevolutionary thought can find acceptance. Our republic ensures our country doesn't sway to the lusts and whims of the heard. To be sure, secular humanists have put in their time to get our country to where it is now. Now Christians must do the same.
-Merc
|
Joseph
Guest
8/09/2003
02:18:16
| RE: Many Conservatisms
IP: Logged
Message:
The vast majority of the "Founding Fathers" were not Christians at all, but were part of the enlightenment deist trend that rejected any sort of organized religion. George Washington himself said that, "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."
Clergy have just as much right as anyone to speak their mind. Just looking at the numbers though, how can any church influence people's vote if they cannot even get them into church one day a week? Church attendance has been decreasing rapidly across the Christian world. In most European countries, less than 20% consider religion to be a major factor in their lives. Only around 10% attend services regularly. People have been educated to believe that any formal religion is nothing more than superstition, out of step with our modern, technological age.
People don't want God or any of his henchmen telling them what to do, they only let politicians do that because they are able to convince them that, through elections, it was their own idea. Simple human nature.
"Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint." -Alexander Hamilton
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it." -Andre Gide
|
MercuryMan
Guest
8/09/2003
07:43:16
| RE: Many Conservatisms
IP: Logged
Message:
Joseph,
Where did you get that quote from George Washington? I think you made that up or got it from a faulty source. America was in fact heavily founded on Christian principles. I'd like to know about that quote before I debate further.
-Merc
|
Joseph
Guest
8/09/2003
13:16:49
| RE: Many Conservatisms
IP: Logged
Message:
That quote is a matter of public record. I think you have the wrong idea, I would like nothing more than for America to be a Christian nation, but the facts are it was not, is not, and posseses a political culture that will keep it from ever being such.
It was the Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate in 1797, which read in part: "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." The treaty was written during the Washington administration, and sent to the Senate during the Adams administration. It was read aloud to the Senate, and each Senator received a printed copy. This was the 339th time that a recorded vote was required by the Senate, but only the third time a vote was unanimous (the next time was to honor George Washington). There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty. It was reprinted in full in three newspapers - two in Philadelphia, one in New York City. There is no record of public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.
The Bible used for Washington's oath of office was a Masonic Bible, which I do not consider any more Christian than any other secret society, from the skull & bones to the kkk.
The other "Fathers" were mostly the same, if you will not believe me, here are their own words with sources cited:
Thomas Paine: "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."
From:
The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, pp. 8,9 (Republished 1984, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY)
George Washington never declared himself a Christian according to contemporary reports or in any of his voluminous correspondence. Washington Championed the cause of "freedom" from religious intolerance and compulsion. When John Murray (a universalist who denied the existence of hell) was invited to become an army chaplain, the other chaplains petitioned Washington for his dismissal. Instead, Washington gave him the appointment. On his deathbed, Washinton uttered no words of a religious nature and did not call for a clergyman to be in attendance.
From:
George Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller Jr., pp. 16, 87, 88, 108, 113, 121, 127 (1963, Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, TX)
John Adams wrote that he found among the lawyers 'noble and gallant achievments" but among the clergy, the "pretended sanctity of some absolute dunces". Late in life he wrote: "Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!"
It was during Adam's administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."
From:
The Character of John Adams by Peter Shaw, pp. 17 (1976, North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC) Quoting a letter by JA to Charles Cushing Oct 19, 1756, and John Adams, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by James Peabody, p. 403 (1973, Newsweek, New York NY) Quoting letter by JA to Jefferson April 19, 1817, and in reference to the treaty, Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 311 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, June, 1814.
Thomas Jefferson, third president and author of the Declaration of Independence, said:"I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian." He referred to the Revelation of St. John as "the ravings of a maniac" and wrote:
The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained."
From:
Thomas Jefferson, an Intimate History by Fawn M. Brodie, p. 453 (1974, W.W) Norton and Co. Inc. New York, NY) Quoting a letter by TJ to Alexander Smyth Jan 17, 1825, and Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 246 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to John Adams, July 5, 1814.
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -- Thomas Jefferson (letter to J. Adams April 11,1823)
James Madison, fourth president and father of the Constitution, was not religious in any conventional sense. "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
From:
The Madisons by Virginia Moore, P. 43 (1979, McGraw-Hill Co. New York, NY) quoting a letter by JM to William Bradford April 1, 1774, and James Madison, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Joseph Gardner, p. 93, (1974, Newsweek, New York, NY) Quoting Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments by JM, June 1785.
Ethan Allen, whose capture of Fort Ticonderoga while commanding the Green Mountain Boys helped inspire Congress and the country to pursue the War of Independence, said, "That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words." In the same book, Allen noted that he was generally "denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian." When Allen married Fanny Buchanan, he stopped his own wedding ceremony when the judge asked him if he promised "to live with Fanny Buchanan agreeable to the laws of God." Allen refused to answer until the judge agreed that the God referred to was the God of Nature, and the laws those "written in the great book of nature."
From:
Religion of the American Enlightenment by G. Adolph Koch, p. 40 (1968, Thomas Crowell Co., New York, NY.) quoting preface and p. 352 of Reason, the Only Oracle of Man and A Sense of History compiled by American Heritage Press Inc., p. 103 (1985, American Heritage Press, Inc., New York, NY.)
Benjamin Franklin, delegate to the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, said:
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble." He died a month later, and historians consider him, like so many great Americans of his time, to be a Deist, not a Christian.
From:
Benjamin Franklin, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Thomas Fleming, p. 404, (1972, Newsweek, New York, NY) quoting letter by BF to Exra Stiles March 9, 1790.
|
MercuryMan
Guest
8/09/2003
14:31:26
| RE: Many Conservatisms
IP: Logged
Message:
Joseph you are using misleading quotes. That Washington quote was cleverly cut short of it's true intention. In fact it wasn't even his quote.
I don't care to argue this way.
George Washington himself warned about those misusing parts of Title XI of the Treaty.
He objected to atheists using this quotation and called it "a most flagrant misquotation for evil purposes."
This article explains the truth:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=5
Click on the following link and go to "America's Christian Heritage" for more proof that America was indeed founded on Christian principles.
http://reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/fastfacts.asp
Don't confuse Christian nation as legally enforced religion. I assume you can understand the difference.
The facts are America and Christianity cannot be divorced without suffering consequences. The political structure absolutely allows for America to be a Christian nation as it once was in a time when Americans made not the slightest fuss over Supreme Court references to scripture when weighing in on decisions.
-Merc
|
Joseph
Guest
8/10/2003
01:26:17
| RE: Many Conservatisms
IP: Logged
Message:
Oh brother, just pick another one, their own words are on record. I also would not consider something called "America's Christian Heritage" to be an unbiased source. America cannot be founded on Christianity-it is a republic in the model of pagan Greece or Rome, deriving authority from the will of the people, not the will of God, and was born out of a revolution in the attitude of "Enlightenment" principles which were totally opposed to Christianity. I really wish you were correct on this, but wishing something cannot change the facts of history and does not make it so. For America to be a Christian nation, its entire political culture and world view would have to change in a dramatic way.
|
Louis XIV
Guest
8/10/2003
01:38:26
| RE: Many Conservatisms
IP: Logged
Message:
A republic, as the word itself implies, is still based on the will of the people, it derives all authority from popular consent, not from God or any set principles of right and wrong.
I consider this a very correct statement except for the last part, any set principles of right and wrong.
Every republic has had a set of principles defining right and wrong. The Roman Republic put a strong emphasis upon the principle of virtue. The current Islamic Republic of Iran incorporates right and wrong defined by the ruling clergy. Even the democratic Republic of America has always believed in fundamental values of right and wrong. Tocqueville mentions many of these values in his famous work. Every society believes in right and wrong; some societies are just 180 degrees from what is right. Post-1960's America is a great example of this, where extreme capitalist/hedonistic democracy is the ruling morality and anything that contradicts it is wrong. That's America's current definition of right and wrong, and of course, it is completely absurd.
|
Louis XIV
Guest
8/10/2003
02:12:09
| RE: Many Conservatisms
IP: Logged
Message:
I know its a hard fact to face, it was for me, especially for Christians, but the US was born out of a revolution, and the Bible clearly states that a king must be obeyed regardless of character, be he good & gentle or be he harsh. Peter even preached obedience to Nero.
I wonder why it is that so many Christians, especially Protestants, did support, have supported, and continue to support the American Revolution and subsequent Republic. Most Protestants in the U.S. revere Deists like Thomas Jefferson as God's chosen political Messiah for them, despite the fact that he must be one of history's greatest and most famous enemies of the Christian faith. Joseph, you are in the great minority among your own people.
Some people do have a different interpretation of history, what actually happened in the late 18th century, and who was primarily responsible. My own interpretation of what happened, and who did what, happens to be yours; but why so many people think otherwise is beyond me.
I would like nothing more than for America to be a Christian nation, but the facts are it was not, is not, and posseses a political culture that will keep it from ever being such.
Joseph is clearly the one who is correct on this point. I think it is important to distinguish between Christian, and godly, moral, or "Judeo-Christian." The founders believed in all of the later, but not the former. Certainly the founders believed in Christian ethics, i.e., the principles found in the Bible, even the New Testament.
Mercury, I recommend to you The Gospel According to Jefferson, also known as Jefferson's Bible. This is a re-working of the gospels by Thomas Jefferson (author of the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Founding Father, governor of Virginia, and U.S. President 1800-1808) to edit out all traces of divinity. In his work, Jefferson accepts neither the "annunciation, virgin birth, or even the resurrection."
Jefferson's Bible
Jefferson Bible on-line
Of course, many positive things can be said of Jefferson irregardless of who you are. Even as an absolutist, I think the democratic Republican was a good man who did so many good things. America would be a much better place today if he ruled. He would turn over in his grave today if he saw what his country has become.
The Founding Fathers were gentlemen, intellectuals who believed in morality, ethics, right and wrong, concepts that our generation mocks, even Presidents in the White House. The Founders believed in the morals of the Bible, including both Old and New Testaments; however, they did not believe in the supernatural presented in the Bible, and considered such ideas to be "superstition." Mercury, I hope you understand the distinction.
|
Louis XIV
Guest
8/10/2003
03:25:29
| RE: Many Conservatisms
IP: Logged
Message:
One last thing: I think one reason there may be some confusion over this issue is how one defines the word "Christian." If accepting the morality and ethics of Christianity defines one as "Christian" in a political sense, then certainly the Founders were Christian, in the political sense. They had much in common with Christians politically in the late 18th century, especially Protestants, and so again we can ask what the label "Protestant" means in a political way and many of the founders would qualify there as well. There was opposition to state church, monarchy, aristocracy, belief in religious freedom, the Protestant ethic, and with Jefferson you get small communities, self reliance, individualism, etc.
If you use the labels in a theological sense, divine and human nature, ressurection, virgin birth, salvation, divine miracles, second coming, then of course the founders thought Christianity absurd.
|
Joseph
Guest
8/10/2003
18:29:18
| RE: Many Conservatisms
IP: Logged
Message:
Louis XIV wrote: "I consider this a very correct statement except for the last part, any set principles of right and wrong. Every republic has had a set of principles defining right and wrong. The Roman Republic put a strong emphasis upon the principle of virtue."
But, there are not "set" principles, they change according to the principles of the masses. Roman Republican principles had deteriorated to such an extent that the Emperor Augustus had to launch a "family values" campaign to save Rome from much of the problems we face today (homosexuality, illegitimate births, adultery etc). Iran is also not a very good example as it is more of a theocracy than a republic, though its republican aspects have allowed it to mellow a tiny bit in recent years.
The word "Christian" should be better defined for any discussion such as this. Many who call themselves by the name I would certainly not consider as such. IMHO, much of this can be traced back to the Protestant Revolution, when everything in the religion suddenly ceased to be inviolable and became open to infinite different individual "interpretations". However, the Catholics have certainly had their failings in this area as well, particularly when contradicting past traditions, such as dropping Pope St Pius X's oath against modernism, etc.
|
Louis XIV
Guest
8/11/2003
02:41:01
| RE: Many Conservatisms
IP: Logged
Message:
...much of this can be traced back to the Protestant Revolution....
You mean Protestant Reformation. The events in 16th century Europe were not at all about revolution, but reformation. There is a big difference. In order to maintain honesty and historical accuracy we must make the distinction and use the correct label.
After reading Calvin's Institutes--cover to cover I might add--I was really surprised at how moderate Calvin was (a reformer, not a revolutionary) and how close to Roman Catholicism he was. Do the same and then tell me you don't agree.
Calvin's Institutes
On-line edition
|
Joseph
Guest
8/11/2003
15:35:57
| RE: Many Conservatisms
IP: Logged
Message:
I don't have to read anything to see what is obvious. When you make an institution better, you reform it. When you deny or break away from the institution entirely it is revolt, not reform. Reform happens from within, not by starting an entirely new system. The American Revolution did not reform the British government, it started a new one. Luther did not reform the Catholic Church, he formed the Lutheran church. The Catholic Church reformed what was needed on its own over time. I do use the correct labels, I just can't help it if most historians don't know the difference between reform and revolt.
|
Will S.
Guest
8/11/2003
23:17:49
| RE: Many Conservatisms
IP: Logged
Message:
Not to enter this argument on reform vs. revolt (this ground has been covered before in The Struggle Continues!: http://jkalb.freeshell.org/posts/board/messages/17.shtml), but on one point:
"The American Revolution did not reform the British government, it started a new one."
This is true, but it is a unique situation in terms of the use of that word "revolution", as in all other contexts "revolution" means the overthrow of the existing government in favour of a new one within the boundaries of the same country, hence the English Revolution and the Glorious Revolution, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, etc. IMO, the American Revolution should really be thought of as a War of Secession which also happened to bring about a change in the kind of government the new country would have, rather than as a revolution per se. Similarly, I think of the U.S. "Civil War" more as War of Secession which the South lost, rather than as a Civil War, as usually the term "Civil War" refers to fighting between rival factions for control of the same state, such as the English Civil War, rather than fighting between two different geopolitical entities, as was clearly the situation in the case of the U.S. "Civil War". I don't know why the Official Account of American history mislabels these two wars of secession (one successful, one a failure), except that winners write history and get to name conflicts however they please.
[This sort of Official Revisionist History thing has always irked me, especially two cases in particular. Europeans and Brits and Canadians will tell you that WWII began Sept. 1, 1939, when Germany invaded Poland, then everyone else began reacting; however, American history "educators" and textbooks still maintain that WWII began Dec. 7, 1941, which was merely the date of America's entry into the war which had already been going on two years - what, it wasn't a war till the U.S. got involved?
Similarly, Canadians have maintained, and taught in their schools, that the British won the War of 1812, whilst Americans have maintained, and taught in their schools, that America won. Since neither side gained or lost territory, the most unbiased conclusion would be that it ended as a stalemate, with neither side winning or losing, on balance. But governments in both countries push the view that favours their own side, at the expense of the truth, IMO.
This is one reason, along with many others, why I favour homeschooling for any children I may have in the future - not only would I be able to better shield them from the cultural rot of society, but also from the false propaganda of educators, be it either leftist or rightist propaganda...]
|
Joseph
Guest
8/13/2003
02:12:25
| RE: Many Conservatisms
IP: Logged
Message:
Well, when I took a class on World War II we were taught that the war actually began when Japan invaded China, before Hitler even came to power, but then again, my professor at the time was a Chinese immigrant with a degree from the People's University of Nanxing--might have had something to do with it.
I think you are technically correct about the American Revolution. It is appropriate to draw the connection with the Civil War. If the colonies had lost I think it would have been dealt with as simply a seccession issue, but alas it is the winners who write the history. I think it was Orwell who said, "He who controls the past, controls the future. He who controls the present, controls the past." or, as Napoleon aptly put it, "History is a set of lies agreed upon". No one can accuse me of having an over exalted view of my chosen profession.
I found it interesting in the film "God's and Generals" that General Jackson often called the conflict "our second war of independence", which is exactly what we would have known it as had the south been successful.
And, btw, imho, home or private schooling is definitely the way to go. Government schools are nothing but indoctrination camps, and the universities, I am sad to say, are evn worse.
|
Will S.
Guest
8/14/2003
00:43:00
| RE: Many Conservatisms
IP: Logged
Message:
"Well, when I took a class on World War II we were taught that the war actually began when Japan invaded China, before Hitler even came to power, but then again, my professor at the time was a Chinese immigrant with a degree from the People's University of Nanxing--might have had something to do with it."
Good point; true enough, I hadn't considered the eastern Asian / non-Japanese perspective, but that makes total sense... I suppose one could argue that it wasn't the Second World War until many countries were taking part in it (as happened after Sept. 1, 1939), but perhaps that's hair-splitting; politically correct types might justly accuse me of having a "Eurocentric" bias - oh well!
|
Joseph
Guest
8/14/2003
14:18:58
| RE: Many Conservatisms
IP: Logged
Message:
In my classes I usually frame it as, "World War II began in Europe...World War II began in Asia on...the US entered World War II on...
|
Will S.
Guest
8/17/2003
15:31:32
| RE: Many Conservatisms
IP: Logged
Message:
"In my classes I usually frame it as, "World War II began in Europe...World War II began in Asia on...the US entered World War II on..."
Excellent! I like your just-presenting-the-facts approach to history; would that others in your profession saw their role in the same manner as you...
|
Georigi
Guest
12/19/2003
21:36:47
| RE: Many Conservatisms
IP: Logged
Message:
Coulter is a butch.
|
|
|