Dr Edwards was not claiming that these were christian beliefs or practices. He was being sarcastic and so was DPF. You seriously need to improve your reading comprehension skills.

Certainly if the Declaration invoked Jesus as God and Savior they would have a case. But Jefferson, who authored the Declaration was rather adamant that Jesus was not divine so when he pens the word “providence” he was not referring to Christ. Also note the semantics Matt plays by saying the Declaration “refers to God four times” instead of clear, unambiguous references to God. The closest it comes is to refer to “nature’s God” not the God of nature. Nature’s God is a strange, very unchristian term. The rest of the time we get words like Creator, Providence and Supreme Judge. Words that fit well with the Unitarians and which Deists were relatively happy with but which were most unorthodox and certainly not the language of orthodox Christianity at that time, or at any time since then. You will find a lot of discussions on theology and the Founders here at http://www.positiveliberty.com.

And why is Jesus not mentioned since the central doctrine of Christian theology is that Jesus was god in the flesh. If these men were such hard core Christians, as to found a Christian country, why does this founding document fail to mention this directly? Based on what the Declaration says, and with only that before you, an unbiased reader would have no idea which deity or god they are referring to. Would a Christian document be that unclear about invoking Christ?…I think not.

Christians have been trying to patch Christ into the DOI since the early days….but facts are facts and the most glaring one is that the founders did not place Christ into the foundations of the US.

I do”know” Matt and Madds Andrei….in the sense that we are old sparring partners and I want nothing to do with them….french kissing roadkill holds more appeal.For backstory ask DPF.

Anyway….whats it to do with you girlyman?

What a pratt you must be to express yourself like that to someone you don’t know.

Hardly advances the debate now does it.

How on earth did I miss this little gem of yours.

“First of all you have shown a total ignorance of the status quo you defend. In almost every post you have made, you have shown you do not understand the law. What possesses someone to defend a law they do not understand, I do not know. It is the worst sort of unthinking conservatism”

Really?, wanting things to stay as they are is showing an ignorance of the law? hell David, one would think that McCully is using you to run a National party prospective policy up the pole just like Klark used to do with other sectors of the media.

“I suspect you have never employed someone.”

Wrong, and there are one or two on this site that can prove you are wrong but hey, don’t let that get in the way of your hidden agenda.

This whole thread has got right out of hand David, you seem to have rather a vested interest in shutting down debate or making sure that only your view (or perhaps the line that you have been fed by Neville Key’s people) is the one given prominence, it does make me wonder just how neutral this blog has become.

Actually because I think you’re a bit thick.

As you display again:

“Are you the open minded pro-choice employer you claim to be? I can just imagine you saying to your employee, “Your request to have easter off is entirely dumb from start to finish.”

Try not to be such a silly little hypocrite.”

To be open minded is to allow and express contradictory opinions. If I think my employees are being an idiot I’ll tell them, and I don’t mind them telling me the same.

Its Matt here for some reason I can’t log in under my own account so I have used my wifes.

I guess I should not be suprised to see you still peddling this line despite my repeated refutations over the years.

Two comments.

First your comments re the declaration of independence being Deistic where deism is defined as “belief in some sort of a creator akin to nature itself that set things up and left us alone after that” are demonstrably false. One needs only to read the text of the declaration itself. The declaration of independence refers to God four times. Once it talks of “…a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence….” suggesting a belief in divine providence. Divine providence is incompatible with deism as you define it. Similar it refers to God as “supreme judge of the world” again incompatible with deism as you define it. Moreover it does not equate God with nature it states “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” suggesting God is separate from nature, moreover the reference to “laws of nature” was used at the time to refer to the law of God as is evident from its use in Locke and Blackstone. The declaration also states that this God is a “creator” and “endowed men with inalienable rights” this also contradicts deism because God must have done this when mankind was created which was latter than the physical universe. (incidently the argument about inalienable rights being endowed by God was also common in the political writings of theists such as John Locke who uses it in his second Treatise)

So the declaration refers to a God who is not nature, created the natural world, laws down laws which confer rights on human beings, exercises providence and will judge people for their actions. This is not deism.

Second, contrary to what you say the constitution only forbad the federal government ( it explicitly states “Congress”) from passing any laws respecting the establishment of religion. The word “establishment of religion” was a word used for the then common practice of having state churches. In plain english of the day the constitution states only that the federal government shall pass no law either for or against the existence a state church, it was a matter left to the states to decide for themselves. In fact at the time of the founding many states had established churches and continued to do so for some time latter. It was only until the 14th amendment post civil war that people began arguing that the 2nd amendment applied to states. The founding fathers were dead by then.

This is all laid down well by Stephen Smith in his various articles. His page is available here, http://www.sandiego.edu/law/academics/faculty/bio.php?id=731

April 10th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Goodgod,

Your post was entirely dumb, start to finish.

Because you disagreed with it.

Are you the open minded pro-choice employer you claim to be? I can just imagine you saying to your employee, “Your request to have easter off is entirely dumb from start to finish.”

Try not to be such a silly little hypocrite.

You could not be more wrong, gg, if you are saying that God is a mere creation of the human mind.

No you’ve misunderstood. Another word for “party” could be “fellowship” or even “church”. I’d quote religious verses, but It wouldn’t help to focus the argument on what’s important.

Our country was formed on general Christian principles, whether the whoring sailor was breaking one of the christian god’s rules or not, he was a product of a christian england, and so it goes, right up until the present day. We do and should celebrate or acknowledge Christian heritage festivals such as christmas and easter because not only do they provide a gateway into our founding religion, should someone choose to take it, they provide a gateway into our collective past. The path intot he past illustrates how people assembled themselves into groups and lived their culture.

On the other hand, we now have an alternate culture wanting control – 7 day 365 day a year shopping. This will be enforced by law, but allow a limited range of choice in participation. But here’s where it differs – it does not provide a gateway into a cultural past or illustrate how or why people assembled. It is not an expression of the collective, it is individual.

Now usually as a good right wing disciple that shouldn’t worry me, I mean who would talk of the collective except a brain adled lefty, right?

But there is more to rights and culture than what I want at any given time, what I can make in the market, what I can do for myself. There is a social part to everyone and a social history, it must be expressed and acknowledged. It’s counter productive to live in the past every minute and every day of year, but with a bit of life experience, most would agree that access to a solid unified culture has brought them through tough times. When the average boy becomes a man we are kidding ourselves if we leave it up to McDonalds to help him through. Ronald cannot answer his questions; tell him where his people reside, where they came from and what they believed. He doesn’t know why the boy is the way he is and what role he has within society.

The gateway offered by a liberal commercial culture leads to base human values as default. It asks us to fracture and then if we choose to we can find the pieces to reform ourselves into unity – but not say what or where those pieces are. The somewhat warped, but none the less christian, values wound into our existing culture offers the average joe the opportunity, should he chose, to search for unity and provides the basic legends/myths for him to begin the journey.

The Argument that their should be no church within the state is silly. It is already in the state, within the moral basis underlying our laws. We’re being adolescent to demand the removal of our past to deny it existed to satisfy our latest feminist or liberal fads.

I see.

How do you explain this then?

But the God Jefferson referred to was NOT the God of Christianity…which Jefferson didn’t belive in.He like many of the other founders,Washington, etc were at best deists…..belivers in some sort of a creator akin to nature itself that set things up and left us alone after that.Indeed it was the custom of the day to use “God” as we would use “nature” to describe the same thing…..rather than a specific referance to the Christian “God”.

The founders were quite explicit in stating that religion had no business in the constitution or any part of the goverment of the US…..it was not so much from Government prohibition and interferance with religion that they drew a line between church and state but rather from Government PROMOTION and IMPOSITION of religion on unbeliving others.They acted to protect people FROM state imposed religion…..the religious right of the day knew this and were vicious opponents of Jefferson and the Goddless constitution….they knew that they were being specifically deied the power of the State to push their beliefs on the people.

Indeed early America was not a Christian country by any means…in the 1850′s less than 2% of the population attended Church.The myth of the US as Gods country is just that ….a myth.

Thats aprtly the trouble …we have laws that are wrong and flat out co9ntradict the human rights that law is specifically set up to protect.Laws that violate rights…like the Easter trading ones etc have no moral standing and should be resisted and repealed.Good law is created to protect pre existing natural rights….the ones we all have thanks to nature creating us as species man.

“What is your definition of Liberty? Being able to do whatever you want, irregardless of the law?”

See above…if that law itself violatres my rights then yes I can try and indeed should ignore it. ”

“And where do you draw the line?”

Where the next persons nose begins.All human beings have the exact same rights….Life,liberty,property,pursue happiness…they are absolutes specific to man as our nature as man demands.Rights are moral sanctions to freedom of action in a social context…meaning we can do as we please within the bounds of those rights without needing the permission of anyone else to do so.The only obligation we are under is to respect those same rights in regard to everyone else because they are as equallly human as us and therefore have the same need to have their rights respected.

Genuine human rights do not contradict…only false ones with real ones.

“My definition of liberty might include me not paying taxes. Someone else’s definition (to use your example) might be to be able to rape anyone they want to. He might consider it a violation of his liberty not to be able to have whomever he wants. All laws are restrictions in one way or another.”

But you have mixed your examples.In regard to tax I agree…its a violation of your right to liberty and property to have tax extorted from you by force…its wrong and always has been.This is different to paying for State services which you should do if you want the benefits of those but thats a whole different matter.

Rape is a violation of an unconsenting other so its a rights breach and therefore like murder,theft, etc cannot be a ‘right”.That would require a conflict between the rights of two people and thats a contradiction and thats immpossible…ojective reality doesn’t allow contradictions within it.There no such things as rights to rape,steal or murder….because what happens to the rights of the victims?

All laws should be restrictions on actions that violate rights…nothing else.if they are then they must be removed and replaced with good rights protecting law.

That is a fairly drastic example, but still…

Still waiting for an answer to my earlier question:

Why is it that if one day of forced holiday to prevent (allegedly) forced labour is good that that should not be usefully extended to the entire year? If the state usefully forces everyone on holiday one day a year, shouldn’t it be a great idea one or two days a week in the other 52 weeks of the year? If not, why not?

Here’s the true stupidity of your argument. Let’s imagine workers really are forced to work on Good Friday against their will. Then, and only then, do you get moral equivalence with the status quo.

Status Quo: workers are FORCED to take the day off, for some and perhaps many against their will.

Imaginary Big Bruv world: and perhaps many workers are FORCED to work Good Friday for 1.5 times pay plus day in lieu

Either way, you have coercion – and that’s repugnant. Either way.

Now allow Easter trading. Some workers will opt in, some will opt out, and yes some few will no doubt be needed to work when they would rather not. They will be paid 2.5 times their wage for doing so. Nobody has fewer holidays. Workers gain the freedom to take a holiday at a time that suits them and not the collective. Everybody wins. And that is the solution that minimises coercion.

What’s the problem?

Again, Big bruv, nobody is arguing that workers should have less holidays. Surely you can understand that for some workers taking April 10 off may be much less valuable than having the freedom to take that holiday on another day, e.g. using it as part of a long holiday. Having the state force them to use up a day off on that particular day is unhelpful for those workers. For others, it is fine. They will be the ones, generally (true, not always), who will take Good Friday off.

Nobody is arguing that there should be less holidays for workers and their families. This is about the freedom to choose when. Kill the straw man, thanks.

And the consequence should be, to not have access to any taxpayer provided services.

“Someone else’s definition (to use your example) might be to be able to rape anyone they want to. He might consider it a violation of his liberty not to be able to have whomever he wants. All laws are restrictions in one way or another.”

Your liberty only extends as far as it do not restrict another persons liberty.

Imagine being able to have a four day weekend and not spending it stuck in traffic.