Green Mtn
location: Observing the Progressive madness with considerably less amusement.
listening to: Grandchildren, the best reason for saving the future.
registered: 2004.04.03
posts: 2617
[view all posts]
[view all posts]
Hello:)
I would like to point out that during the revolution,
George
Washington(among other founders) entreated preachers of the
Gospel for supplies, to preach in behalf of the revolution and
to rustle up recruits. These weren't 5000 member church
preachers living in the lap of luxury. (comparatively, the
poorest of Americans live in that lap today) Many were circuit
riders, and several were prominent blacks.
Herring405 - I think we need to make a firm distinction
between what we mean by "a Christian nation" and "a nation
that has a lot of Christians in it."
You are absolutely correct. Christians especially need to
our
facts straight about this subject. The last couple of years
study have disabused me of a great deal of American
mythology.
For instance, your distinction, is America a Christian
nation or populated predominantly by Christians. In fact,
Constitutionally speaking we are not a Christian nation. And
in fact, following the Constitution of the Republic of Vermont,
the Constitution of the United States of America was only the
second, SECULAR government the world had known(to my
knowledge). That was the revolutionary outcome of our
Constitutional Convention, a secular constitution.
And although Christian preachers such as John Leland
had an
immense influence in bringing about the Bill of Rights, they
specifically were not seeking a theocratic government.
Revolutionary era recent history, which we Christians have
effectively forgotten, illustrated the wisdom of the 18th
century definition of separation of Church and State in the 1st
Amendment reading; preachers of the day didn't want
government establishing religion(of any kind).
Herring405 - I do not want my kids growing up in a theocratic
state.
Nor did the preachers of John Leland's day. Nor do I, but
in
fact the state does instill what might be defined as a
polytheistic gaiacentric secularism.
I believe preachers should speak to their congregants
about
issues of the day, it is part of their duty as shepard of their
flock. But! most made a fatal mistake when they accepted
favor from the state in the form of the IRS Code Section
501(c)(3): non profit status. It's a 20th development that has
subverted a preachers ability to preach the truth, unless it
happens to be acceptable to the state(another critical
distinction).
That's what the Montesquieu quote is really about, how
to
most effectively subvert the body of faith.
Anyhow, in the beginning, people of faith were
instrumental
in bringing this secular government into existence. If we
Christians hadn't forgotten history and most especially, our
first love, America today might still be a Christian culture.
Have you ever thought how much in America is illegal for want
of buying a government permit?
respects
reference:
“A more certain way to attack religion is by favor, by the
comforts of life, by the hope of wealth; not by what reminds
one of it, but by what makes one forget it; not by what makes
one indignant, but by what makes men lukewarm, when other
passions act on our souls, and those which religion inspires
are silent. In the matter of changing religion, State favors are
stronger than penalties.”
- The Spirit of the Laws, Baron de Montesquieu (1748)
Joh 18:36* Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this
world: if
my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight,
that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my
kingdom not from hence.
–--
“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions.” Wm O. Douglas
“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions.” Wm O. Douglas
G
Green Mtn
(view)
Hello:)
I would like to point out that during the revolution,
George
Washington(among other founders) entreated preachers of the
Gospel for supplies, to preach in behalf of the revolution and
to rustle up recruits. These weren't 5000 member church
preachers living in the lap of luxury. (comparatively, the
poorest of Americans live in that lap today) Many were circuit
riders, and several were prominent blacks.
Herring405 - I think we need to make a firm distinction
between what we mean by "a Christian nation" and "a nation
that has a lot of Christians in it."
You are absolutely correct. Christians especially need to
our
facts straight about this subject. The last couple of years
study have disabused me of a great deal of American
mythology.
For instance, your distinction, is America a Christian
nation or populated predominantly by Christians. In fact,
Constitutionally speaking we are not a Christian nation. And
in fact, following the Constitution of the Republic of Vermont,
the Constitution of the United States of America was only the
second, SECULAR government the world had known(to my
knowledge). That was the revolutionary outcome of our
Constitutional Convention, a secular constitution.
And although Christian preachers such as John Leland
had an
immense influence in bringing about the Bill of Rights, they
specifically were not seeking a theocratic government.
Revolutionary era recent history, which we Christians have
effectively forgotten, illustrated the wisdom of the 18th
century definition of separation of Church and State in the 1st
Amendment reading; preachers of the day didn't want
government establishing religion(of any kind).
Herring405 - I do not want my kids growing up in a theocratic
state.
Nor did the preachers of John Leland's day. Nor do I, but
in
fact the state does instill what might be defined as a
polytheistic gaiacentric secularism.
I believe preachers should speak to their congregants
about
issues of the day, it is part of their duty as shepard of their
flock. But! most made a fatal mistake when they accepted
favor from the state in the form of the IRS Code Section
501(c)(3): non profit status. It's a 20th development that has
subverted a preachers ability to preach the truth, unless it
happens to be acceptable to the state(another critical
distinction).
That's what the Montesquieu quote is really about, how
to
most effectively subvert the body of faith.
Anyhow, in the beginning, people of faith were
instrumental
in bringing this secular government into existence. If we
Christians hadn't forgotten history and most especially, our
first love, America today might still be a Christian culture.
Have you ever thought how much in America is illegal for want
of buying a government permit?
respects
reference:
“A more certain way to attack religion is by favor, by the
comforts of life, by the hope of wealth; not by what reminds
one of it, but by what makes one forget it; not by what makes
one indignant, but by what makes men lukewarm, when other
passions act on our souls, and those which religion inspires
are silent. In the matter of changing religion, State favors are
stronger than penalties.”
- The Spirit of the Laws, Baron de Montesquieu (1748)
Joh 18:36* Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this
world: if
my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight,
that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my
kingdom not from hence.
–--
“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions.” Wm O. Douglas
“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions.” Wm O. Douglas
posted 2006.08.20
posted on August 20th 2006
G
Green Mtn
location: Observing the Progressive madness with considerably less amusement.
listening to: Grandchildren, the best reason for saving the future.
registered: 2004.04.03
posts: 2617
[view all posts]
[view all posts]
-
Here's one for you, Pat... – Reg on August 19th, 2006-
Re: Here's one for you, Pat... – PatBrown on August 19th, 2006-
Re: Here's one for you, Pat... – Reg on August 19th, 2006-
Re: Here's one for you, Pat... – PatBrown on August 19th, 2006-
Re: Here's one for you, Pat... – Andrea on August 19th, 2006
Re: Here's one for you, Pat... – edlorah on August 19th, 2006
Re: Here's one for you, Pat... – blockdog on August 20th, 2006-
Re: Here's one for you, Pat... – PatBrown on August 20th, 2006-
Re: Here's one for you, Pat... – Dan on August 20th, 2006-
Re: Here's one for you, Pat... – PatBrown on August 20th, 2006-
Re: Here's one for you, Pat... – blockdog on August 20th, 2006
Pat, you never fail to be interesting... – Reg on August 20th, 2006
Re: Here's one for you, Pat... – Herring405 on August 20th, 2006-
I find that an interesting point as well, Herring... – Reg on August 20th, 2006
Some History – Green Mtn on August 20th, 2006-
Re: Some History – blockdog on August 20th, 2006
Re: Some History – stark raving brad on August 22nd, 2006-
Re: Some History – Green Mtn on August 22nd, 2006-
Re: Some Historical Misinterpretations – messybear on August 23rd, 2006-
Re: Some Historical Misinterpretations – Green Mtn on August 26th, 2006-
Re: Some Historical Misinterpretations – blockdog on August 28th, 2006-
Re: Some Historical Misinterpretations – Green Mtn on August 29th, 2006
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
