Job Discussion Forums

[guest of Japan]

Chancellor wrote:

[Henry_Cowell]

Ouch!

That was a brilliant piece of writing, guest.

[Chancellor]

[Henry_Cowell]

[guest of Japan]

Thank you Henry. That was kind.

Chancellor wrote:

[rusmeister]

(Updated and edited)
There's not much point having a discussion if we don't have a common base. We don't even share the same history, let alone have a common understanding of a shared history.

I would not argue that the founding fathers were not sinful men, and did not do nasty things in their time. So have I, and so have you. We are all sinners (whether this is acknowledged or not). You can say 'human nature', you can say 'selfishness', Christianity calls it 'sin'. I'll bet the word 'sin' brings up emotional reaction! Does that make what they said and wrote less true, much of their writings coming long after their sins (thereby enabling them to learn about human nature and how to establish a government that assumed the sinfulness of human nature)?

Traditional history has bunk in it that glorifies the nation which produced it. Revisionist histories have bunk in them trashing the nation which produces them. Your revisionist histories are just as suspect as any other, begging your pardon. They have some truth and some lies. All we can do is judge whether the works left behind have moral value or not.

Limiting the range of Christianity in early America to Puritanism is to ignore all of the other branching forms of Christianity that came to the continent over the 150 years following the Pilgrims.

Now, as to sourcing the values:

The Declaration of Independence (uncensored - unlike in the revised textbooks which place ... over the parts referring to God)

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds 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 to 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.

George Washington's Inaugural speech of 1796:
http://wilstar.com/holidays/farewell.htm
Some excerpts that indicate the philosophy driving those men:

*my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations...
* ...that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes;
* ...In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own;
* ...No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States.
* Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency...
* ...We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained;
* ... since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquillity, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessings may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend...

and most importantly, his conclusion in his Farewell Speech on September 19, 1796:

"...The name of AMERICAN, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same Religion, Manners, Habits, and political Principles...Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports....reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National Morality can prevail in Exclusion of Religious Principle."

There's so much evidence that America was founded as a nation of religious freedom, yet ON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES, that there's little point in spending hours laying out stuff now. That ought to do for starters.

As to 'knowing the mind' of any historical person, we can only do so to the extent that their writings have been preserved to our time. But to that extent we can 'know' their minds'. To say otherwise is to say that it is impossible to know anything. You do have ultimately have to choose what sources are authoritative.

Now I can't speak for Chancellor's values, but including hard work and self-reliance is like asking for inclusion that the Founding Fathers believed the sky is blue and that eating is necessary for life. I'm not going to waste my time. As to the English language - that was the one they all spoke at the time and there was no reason to talk about whether to use it or not, so they didn't.

The belief that America was founded on godly principles is thought of by some as brainwashing; it can be equally stated that much of what's been expressed here represents brainwashing by the modernist philosophy now imbued in our teacher programs and public education, whose ultimate goal is the destruction of the nation-state, especially ones that acknowledge God, in favor of a "global community" that will ultimately benefit the big business (or should I say 'capitalist') folk that are already swallowing our national governments. Understanding how this has happened is an experience - I would read John Taylor Gatto (who leans toward Buddhism, not Christianity, which may draw a little more respect from you than a Christian writer would) for a good perspective on how the public school system has brainwashed us in a bad way.

Again, on certain issues I am quite the 'liberal' - my family certainly thinks so, so there are a number of areas I would probably find myself agreeing with you folks on. But denying the Christian (largely Protestant, true) heritage of our country is one where I can't.

It ought to be self-evident that a country where the inhabitants share little to nothing in common cannot remain a united country. Witness Kosovo and other areas of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union where nations were artificially welded together by force, and fell apart as soon as that force was removed. Not that they should have EVERYTHING in common. But some things, like language, are basic. What is good and evil is another. If my good is your evil, we will go to war.
Is that not self-evident?

[guest of Japan]

[Henry_Cowell]

Yes, he wrote "nature's God" in the Declaration of Independence.

There goes Christianity out the window. Christians are definitely not among the "real Americans" according to the Declaration.

[RyanS]

Regardless of whether the US was founded on christain principles or not, those christain principles should be rooted out. I don't have no problems with Christains but I don't want to follow Christain laws when im not christain.

[rusmeister]

Good responses, actually!

Guest - I think we agree a lot more than we disagree. (Except for your faith in revisionist history.) I'm not offended at all - your responses are thoughtful.

As to Deism - of course! They already had religious diversity, while still practically all Christian, that was what passed for what we would call 'inclusive' language of that time.

Oh, we is we. You and I.

I also don't want to write books here. I want to get paid for re-digging up all the revisionist bunk that I have been exposed to personally in my lifetime. One tiny example - Revisionism focuses on the vices or failings of those that traditional society lauds as heroes, and underplays or ignores any genuine heroism that the people may have expressed.
As traditional histories downplayed injustices and evil done to the American Indian while promoting the courage of the pioneers, so revisionist histories downplay Columbus's courage while focusing attention on his treatment of native peoples, for example. Your view of the development of history(re:Hegel) is quite optimistic. George Orwell is more on target - people, particularly people in power and those in charge of texts will always focus on what they want to propagate in the schools. It IS the task of the historian to struggle against this, but it's a losing battle.

As to language, I was referring to the overwhelming majority - not to minority groups. German was a minority, the language was (at best) referred to in much the same way that Russians referred to French in the 19th century (see War and Peace, for example). Of course they opted not to.

The Declaration has a lot more to do with Greek and Roman philosophy than medieval. But even the word 'medieval' now is seen negatively, as people make assumptions about that word (have you read G.K. Chesterton? Or C.S. Lewis, for that matter?). Half of everything we have today is medieval, originated or was used in those times.