Straight Up with Sherri

Tuesday, February 01, 2005

COMMON SENSE

Warning: There are TWO posts today. Hope you enjoy!!!!


Many people today seem to be impressed that the Constitution is so old, yet so well planned out and perfectly able to be applied to the age of today. Others seem to think that our forefathers were traitors to their country, had no way of knowing what today would be like, and that the Constitution is out dated. This amazes me due to the amount of arrogance one must posses in order to entertain this latter idea. Most elitists seem to think they are more educated, thus they just know more about what is best for us. In dealing with the issue of God in the public spectrum and the phrase “under God” in our pledge, I have heard them debate history. Arguments are made about the intent of our Colonial Patriots.

Let me please just clear a few things up here. Our forefathers knew EXACTLY what they were doing. They knew what they were fighting against, what they were trying to accomplish, and they fully understood the nature of man. How could they have known so much? How could they have possibly created a blueprint for a government that would inspire its people to defend to the death, become the lighthouse to the poor and suffering in the rest of the world, and would withstand the test of time? The answer is actually quite simple. They knew what would work in the future by understanding the events of history.

These wise men were well versed in history. They were very well educated on the issue of government and understood the evils of government. These men were honest, hard working men with a dream of creating a land based on the perfect design of what God intended for us. Fighting against the natural design of the world never works. It will never bring about peace or true happiness. This is why you see the left so frustrated right now and coming apart at the seams. Try as they might; they will never be able to change the divine laws of earth and mankind.

Elitists, such as those in academia, would have you believe that their education leaves them “in the know.” They sit in their nests of “safe idea exchange” and preach to others about our ignorance. In reality, they are the ones lacking. Before the Declaration of Independence was ever signed, the case for independence was being made. The case was based on the fight against tyranny, the firm belief in freedom of religion, and the fact that all of men’s homage paid to royalty and prestige was ridiculous. The real answers are found within the ache in the heart for freedom, the unshakable belief in faith and hope, and the honest admission that the key to everything in life lies in using COMMON SENSE!

I invite you to take some time out today, or sometime this week, to read
Common Sense by Thomas Paine. Once you read this you will realize just how wise our forefathers were. Common Sense was written in order to lay out the case for a revolution to those not as “educated” as the Colonial elites, i.e. the common man. You’ll find that these men truly “got it.” The case is based on example after example of where people in history went wrong. Where they denied the entire foundation of what God intended for us, and every time it lead to disaster. As the left tries to infer that the “Christian” right is interested in shoving OUR religion down everyone else’s throat, they totally miss the point and INTENT of our stand on the issues of government. We may not be able to verbally express it well at times (amidst the labels of bigot, nazi's etc.), but after reading Common Sense, I believe this may change for us. We Christians are not interested in forcing anyone to live by our own personal standards. We are very interested in creating a society that is safe for the prosperity of society. Prosperity is never found in denying reality. We were never interested in sending the government into anyone’s bedroom; we were merely interested in not having anyone’s bedroom dragged into the street. Do what you want in your bedroom, as long as it is among consenting adults. But don’t lug your bed onto Main Street America and expect everyone in America to applaud. We are not interested in handing out free automatic weapons to lunatics, thieves, and gangs. We are interested providing each law abiding individual with the means to protect itself against tyranny; weather that tyranny comes in the shape of terrorists, government, or a night time intruder. We are not interested in propping up a state Church and forcing everyone to attend mass on Sunday and imprison dissenters. We are interested in never losing sight that this nation was founded on the principles and lessons learned in history through Judeo/Christian laws.

Thomas Paine got it right. Living in the most prosperous and glorious nation ever known to man is proof of this. No temper tantrum the leftist kooks can throw will ever change the fact that they are just wrong when it comes to what is best for this country, and what our forefathers intended and envisioned. I can’t imagine their horror if the men who designed and birthed this great nation could visit today, the nation they created. The left is constantly whining about us claiming they are unpatriotic or un-American. Instead of complaining about it, try asking yourselves why we say it. We say it because we believe it. One trip to Planned Parenthood would send the architects of our freedom straight into the Republican camp with a vengeance.

30 Comments:

  • I love the writings of Thomas Paine. Self determination, and the significance of the people. The real meaning of history is the lessons it teaches us about human nature, cause and effect, and the consequences of the decisions that we make. Keep up the great work, Sherri. I truly derive immense pleasure and guidance from your editorials.

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 2:14 PM  

  • Regarding your last comment, I would counter that the Republican Party has its own problems. One trip to a city council meeting where the aging home of an old widow is condemned and confiscated to give the land to a Wal-Mart or Hilton that will pay more taxes will cause these same founding fathers to flee the Republicans.

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 2:47 PM  

  • RWNJ

    One trip to a city council meeting where the aging home of an old widow is condemned and confiscated to give the land to a Wal-Mart or Hilton that will pay more taxes will cause these same founding fathers to flee the Republicans.


    LOL!!!!! Yeah-- sure-- that is a travesty among travesties! You act like this poor women ahs been ROBBED of her home and forced to set up camp in the gutter!!!!!! That is not a realistic picture, is it?? Not to say that Republicans don't have their flaws-- I know a few I would love to clock! But the overwhelming fact is that the Republicans are specifically motivated by their belief in helping people better themselves-- not aiding them in their self-imposed valley of "victimhood!" Especially when you consider that MOST Republicans would never allow their "aging mother" to be at the mercy of ANYONE! See-- their entire belief in the "family" is the key here. WHile some may not practice it-- most of us DO-- AND we cannot be held accountable for those that choose NOT to be lead by the in action by the foundation of their own existence. WHile NO system is perfect, if we truly were to grasp the REAL intent of each party---- Less cases of "falling through the cracks" will be found with the Republicans- than with the Democrats. If you play peat and potatos type ideology and ACTUALLY practice it-- You most likely won't find yourself "victim" of such scenarios. I think someone once told me that we do make decisions that determine our outcome- yet invariably "variences" do occur!!!!!!!!!

    LOL!! Forgive me!!!

    MUAH!!!!!!!

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 3:00 PM  

  • L.S. thinks he's so smart...

    http://www.discardedlies.com/entries/2005/02/bush_doctrine_is_but_an_echo.php#comments

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:27 PM  

  • hey sherri. just came across your site. i agree that "common sense" rocks, so doesn't "age of reason" another thomas paine work. he was truly one of the great, if not greatest founders of this nation. but i think you might be a little confused. admittedly i am one of those "elites" who likes to "read" and "learn" and by your estimation my political views do constitute a "hatred of america."

    i present to you, your beloved thomas paine in his own words:

    "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. My own mind is my own church.

    All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

    -Age of Reason, part I

    jeez. sure sounds like he hates america, well, the version/delusion that you have conjured anyhow. in the future, i suggest that perhaps you intake a little more american history than what is spouted by those who would seek to "enslave" you.

    peace.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:56 PM  

  • Dear "anonymous" from academia,

    WOW! I am so glad you stopped by! I am thrilled to have you enter into the world of Straight up, and even more thrilled by your interest in exchanging ideas!!!

    If you actually take out the time to read Common Sense, you will notice that Thomas Paine considered government, even at its best- was merely a "necessary evil." There is no contradiction to his patriotism (support of the founding of America) and the quote you used of his work.

    In fact- I am so glad you like to read and learn- so do I. One of the best parts of hosting a blog is doing research for each piece. I do farmore learning than I ever do of challenging or teaching of others. This is definitely a one of those things where I win bigger than those I serve. (isn't capitolism great?) I love learning, it is a passion!!!!! (although, I tend to question your commitment to reading and learning considering your inability to use correct puncuation and -- but hey- I am not a master of this task either.)

    FIst off--- I actually invited people to read the ENTIRE piece, instead of choosing a piece out of context and posting it for the benefit of trying to further my own agenda. BUT- since you seem to have done this-- at the end- you will find a piece that I find particularly interesting, and just happens to fit MY paradigm.

    Second, Funny- I don't feel "enslaved" at all by my Christianity! In fact-- I feel released, free, and liberated by it. The idea that Judeo/Christian practices or laws are restrictive or enslaving is purely misleading. Thou shall (shalt, whatever your preference) not steal, means that God wants us to live our lives without fearing someone stealing from us. His laws are not intended to be a law for one group, a guideline for others, and just a cute read for others. It is truly the MANUAL to the universe and how it works best. I challenge you to read through the Proverbs and find anything that contradicts this. Proverbs is a GREAT insight to what works best in life. I DID'T WRITE IT--- I JUST HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT MY CREATER KNOWS BEST!!!!!

    Thirs When you claim "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
    You make it clear that this is your OPINION! Thanks for being honest about this. You are soooo RIGHT! It is an OPINION! Religion, church, politics, medicine, whatever-- they can ALL be used for evil, In fact-- some Christians claim that money is evil- or alcohol is eveil. I submit to you-- It is MAN that is evil. THe love of these things is what manifests as evil.

    We all choose our own Gods. If you choose to be a God of money- your choice. I choose to be "enslaved" to Christ. Not by a church- not by a political party-- but by Christ.


    What is wrong with people gaining profit??? What is wrong with people being paid for a service?? I f I have a better product than you- why deny me the right to profit more than yOU????? I am not a fan of 'survival for the fittest," but I am certainly in favor of challenging people to do the best at what they do.

    I teach my son all the time- if you are going to take up your time doing it, remember, your work reflects on YOU and who YOU are. If it worth your time and effort to do, it is worth doing RIGHT!

    Where you begin to infer that anything that Paine wrote smacks of ANTI-AMERICAN is just beyond me. HE HELPED CREATE US! HE HELPED TO BIRTH US! HE WAS ANYTHING BUT ANTI-AMERICAN. HE WAS ONE OF THE FIRST!

    I am truly sorry if you feel any of these FACTS make you feel like YOU would be put into the "hatred of America" camp; But, hey- you choose your own beliefs, your own camps, and your own condemnation.

    Facts are facts. Paine made it clear where he stood; on several occasions! But thanks for playing!

    BTW-- Here is that piece I mentioned earlier. I am done debating- I will let the "barflies" handle it form this point on. Please come back-- Iron sharpens Iron- and I hope we can both learn form each other!




    As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensible duty of all government, to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith. Let a man throw aside that narrowness of soul, that selfishness of principle, which the niggards of all professions are so unwilling to part with, and he will be at once delivered of his fears on that head. Suspicion is the companion of mean souls, and the bane of all good society. For myself I fully and conscientiously believe, that it is the will of the Almighty, that there should be diversity of religious opinions among us: It affords a larger field for our christian kindness. Were we all of one way of thinking, our religious dispositions would want matter for probation; and on this liberal principle, I look on the various denominations among us, to be like children of the same family, differing only, in what is called their Christian names.

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 7:26 PM  

  • LOL!!! I am so glad that I admitted that I have NOT mastered correct puncuation-- since I can't seem to spell correctly either!! LOL!!! HONEST__ THESE ARE TYPOS!!! LOL!!

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 7:31 PM  

  • Looks like you have picked up a legalist Sherri. Every time you do something "unChristian" they will be right there to accuse and complain. These are the kind of people that likely have hopped from church to church (if they even still attent) when someone offends them and they have righteous indignation. They lurk out there just to point out the speck in your eye and never offer anything but criticism. They were like the Pharisees that Jesus condemed or the money changers. Remember the one that Christ affirmed was the centurian that beat his chest and said God have mercy on me, a sinner. Don't let these legalistic hypocrits affect what you post or how you post it; they are not the ones you answer to and God has created you and knows exactly how you are and He is pleased with you. Hope you are encouraged and not afraid to have fun when you want just as you are serious when you feel like it.

    the real jlfintx

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:30 PM  

  • hi sherry. glad you responded. forgive my initial tone, it was in reaction to the confrontational nature of your essay. i don't think you are "enslaved," those are paine's words.
    i am not an academic. i work in a cafe and play music.
    i have no interest in challenging anybody regarding their divine faith. i respect all forms of theism provided that there are no violent prescriptions in the tenets. so contrary to what "the real jlfintx," claims i am not here to nitpick at your beliefs. but i think that the version of american history that you present is skewed. consider for a moment that thomas paine was in fact a radical for his time. he wrote several essays on religion, many which are highly critical of christianity. for example, from the essay
    "Of the Religion of Deism Compared with the Christian Religion":

    "Here it is that the religion of Deism is superior to the Christian Religion. It is free from all those invented and torturing articles that shock our reason or injure our humanity, and with which the Christian religion abounds. Its creed is pure, and sublimely simple. It believes in God, and there it rests."
    -thomas paine

    paine, like many of the founding fathers, was a deist not a christian. he believed the bible to be a warped intepretation of the beauty and glory of god. creation itself was proof of god's existence, anything else with interference from man.

    do the research. the facts are out there. read paine's own words, not just the ones that prove your argument either. i think you'll be surprised.
    deism.
    check it out. it's not something that alot of american religious leaders like talk about. they like the strictly judeo/christian version better, surprise, surprise.

    by the way, is anyone who suggests that you might be mistaken an "elitist" or "america hater?" you use that word alot, "elitist". who is telling you to treat people like that? i see it alot, popping my head around here and there and i really don't know where it comes from. it seems really childish and distinctly unchristian.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:21 AM  

  • "Facts are facts. Paine made it clear where he stood; on several occasions! But thanks for playing!"

    yes, he did make it clear. he was a deist, not a christian.

    in your initial argument you seem to be suggesting that those who do not think that the nation was founded on "judeo/christian" principles are "unamerican." my point is in showing that the very man you point to as being the bastion of america, was not christian and in fact was highly critial of it. so by your logic he is "unamerican." it is your logical noose, not mine. i think thomas paine was one of the great minds who formed this country and had the forsight and wisdom to remove the church from the government, and the government from church.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:49 AM  

  • Hey there Music Man (is it okay if I give you this nic??)

    We can debate 'til the cows come home on this issue, just as many people already are. It is MY opinion, and that of many, that this nation WAS FOUNDED ON JUDEO/CHRISTIAN LAW. It is also in my opinion that this nation was founded on the notion of FREEDOM of RELIGION, i.e. NO GOVERNMENT CHURCH- much the way France and England were set up. There is nothing in me that would begin to think the government has any right to slam a legitimate religion, sponsor a specific religion, or to even impose that anyone SHOULD believe in ANY religion. I feel the forefathers would very much agree. (actually- it would be better stated that I agree with them, and I feel THIS was their intent.)

    Totally forgiven on the tone thing-- I have been known to do the same thing at times. Most of my pieces will have a bit of a tone that some may take wrong, this is just because this is really how I tlak about htings among those that are like minded, and it helps to spark some passion and debate. I think passionate debate is the way to go-- as long as their is honest and open debate with no name-calling and foul language- I am all for debate and discussion.
    That being said, I find it interesting that those against God being in the open arena across America always throw up the deist thing. I am not sure where that comes into the discussion of the blueprint our great forefathers laid out for us. Honestly, I don't get it. What does that have to do with what our laws were based upon? I thought I pointed out quite well that if your read Common Sense, that you will find Thomas Paine knew the HISTORY of governments and what worked and where things fell apart. He illistrates this far better than I could. Thomas Paine also goes on to address religion and how it should not be a hard line stance. The collective ideas should be accepted, I sooooooo agree.

    My point in the "unAmerican" thing is not that it is unAmerican to NOT be a Christian, but it is unAmerican to try and destroy or distort the intent of the forefathers. THEY are the ones that implemented prayer in the opening of Congress. They are the ones that set the example. They found it necessary and fundamental in recognizes God as the one we should look to as the ruler over us-(another part of Common Sense) not a man! This was their premise for not setting up a monarchy. Again- this is not to say that they felt we needed to shove any certain theology onto anyone. Not at all- they were quite opposed to this, and I think they did a good job of making htis clear. The skewing of their intent is in trying to make the case that they never wanted God to appear in the public square. It is clear by their own actions and writings that this is not the case.

    I actually am thrilled to read that Thomas Paine was not in favor of a state imposed theology. That would STINK! Being a Christian, I find that most Christains are not very clear themselves their own theology. It is embarrasing to see how some of them twist things to fit their own paradigm. I will certainly not try and defend ALL Christians- they tick me off as much as abyone else at times.

    Maybe you can also explain to me what this is all baout with being "offended" by God in the public spectrum. I mean, I get offended at seeing grown men wear WHITE SOCKS with BLACK SANDALS. I get offended by the government passing laws to make them look good- and get votes for proposing these laws or signing them, and then turning a blind eye when these same laws are never enforced! We have some serious problems in our government- -but it is not that God is mentioned on out money. Seeing the Ten Commandments in a courtroom, brings me a great feeling of who we are. It says to me that this nation is dedicated to being strong as hell and kind as Christ.

    This is where some Christians will probably come unglued on me-- but the heck with the Ten Commandments as being the laws for my personal like- to heck with that. I don't need them. I don't need them becasue now that I have a relationship with Christ- I flat out have no desire to break any of them. So the Ten COmmandment are not about shoving religion down anyones throat, it is a symbol of the foundation of which we were buitl on. That STOP sign on the corner means "Thou Shalt not kill!" That's it. That's what it means.

    We live in a society. We are a community. We need some sort of common ground in which to build on- there is no better example than the 10 Commandments for us to build this community upon. Even the Deists believed in them- EVEN THE FIRST COMMANDMENT!

    Bottom line is this, we were founded on these principles. The forefathers knew what they were doing because they knew their history. They never intended to "enslave" us into religion. THeir intent was to bring us freedom and liberty that God intended for us. It really is that simple. And Yes- it is my opinion that trying to twist THAT one point is unAmerican. That doesn't mean being athiest is unAmerican. All I ask of Atheists, Buddhist, Humanists, etc; is to recognize that our forefahters founded us on these principles and they are truly the best guide available to build upon. THis in no way should be interpreted as some sort of mandate that all AMericans should be Christains. You don't have to worship God. You don't have to make HIM your God above all others. Just know that we believe this is the key to a peaceful nation and existence. WE ALL FALL SHORT! Including myself. SOmetimes I spend the day worshipping the clock instead of HIM.

    You don't have to buy into God, but you will fair much better living in America is you lead your life on the notion that Thou Shalt not kill is a pretty good law..........

    Forgive me for the "Thanks for playing" comment-- again-- I fall short many times and this was one of those times.... I am truly a work in progress.

    I am so glad you are interested in debating this, I love being challenged (to think and grow- not just for the sake of an argument- life is too short for that).

    This is the phrase that stands out to me most:

    For myself I fully and conscientiously believe, that it is the will of the Almighty, that there should be diversity of religious opinions among us: It affords a larger field for our christian kindness. Were we all of one way of thinking, our religious dispositions would want matter for probation; and on this liberal principle, I look on the various denominations among us, to be like children of the same family, differing only, in what is called their Christian names. I think YOUR point on Paine's beliefs are very well made clear, in this one statement; yet so are mine. See, I think we agree more than we disagree. I think you have just been exposed to so many legalistic Christians that you may think I have adopted some of their twisted tactics.

    I hope you will come back enough to learn that I do not buy into the dogmatic montra. But I will always defend the fact that we were intended as a nation that honored God's plan for us. This plan starts with the notion that we are all FREE. He gave us FREE WILL. And HE KNEW AXACTLY WHAT HE WAS DOING!

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 8:07 AM  

  • It is also in my opinion that this nation was founded on the notion of FREEDOM of RELIGION, i.e. NO GOVERNMENT CHURCH- much the way France and England were set up.

    OUCH!!!!!!!! That came out wrong.

    I meant it to read that France and England were set up to have a state imposed church--oy! Our forefathers were adamant about NOT doing it like this.

    shouldn't write anything 'til I have had at least TWO cups of coffe....................

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 8:11 AM  

  • Not that I want to jump into the middle of this, but I am sure that you have all seen the following typical article. This specifically pertains to the Constitutonal Convention 55 delegates and did not include Thomas Paine.
    http://www.errantskeptics.org/Fifty_Five_Delegates.htm
    These men struggled with religion. In fact, I would contend, that Thomas Paine frequently struggled with his own concepts of religion, as did Benjamin Franklin.

    I have enjoyed the proceedings of this thread. It is great to review the free exchange of ideas and perspectives.

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 11:00 AM  

  • RWNJ

    LOL!! SInce when do you not want to jump in??

    LOL!! That is part of what I love about you!!

    Please-- enlighten me. I always learn somehting from you sharing your ideas and thoughts.......

    (don't worry, if you and Music Man gang up on me-- I can take it! Plus-- I can get Dr. Liberty to take on the debate if I need to--LOL!!)

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 11:22 AM  

  • The writings of Thomas Paine in his "Common Sense", "The Rights of Man", and "Age of Reason" could easily have been identified as different authors. I think this guy had more different personalities than Sybil (Sally Field, 1976). On the other hand, Ben Franklin tended to be always drifting more toward faith as he aged.

    However, my last point is that I see you and Music Man bantering different views of the same idea. Much the same as had happened between 1770 and 1800, during the "negotiation years" of our nation. There was a lot more agreement than disagreement; it was the details that were the sticking points. As Paine said in 1776 in 'The American Crisis', "These are the times that try men's souls." Compare (Common Sense = 1775, Rights of Man = 1791/2 Age of Reason = 1795).

    I don't want to say anything I should need to defend here. But I do love the topic at hand. After all, all religion is internal to the soul of each individual. It's how we express it (or not) that varies.

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 12:12 PM  

  • the ten commandments has ten provisions, as does the bill of rights. that is about all they have in common.
    the ten commandments are religious in nature and are the prescriptions by god for the conduct of man. the bill of rights is a secular document that spells out the protections of the individual from state tyranny.
    if the founding fathers wanted america to be a christian nation, they would have made it so. they expressly avoided a state religion because they forsaw the turmoil that it would cause (each of the colonies had a state religion and it would have been impossible to reconcile them all).
    it is the bill of rights that is the foundation of the country, not the ten commandments. yes, most of the men who drafted the constitution were christian, no question. but to claim that our constitution and the rights enumerated are based on "judeo/christian" law or the ten commandments is ludicrous. they do not intersect in anyway.

    your argument is "well the founders we christian so therefore america was founded on judeo/christian priciples." seriously, where in the bible does it say that we have a right to bear arms; or the right to a free press and free assembly?
    where does it say in the constitution (or any state law for that matter) that a person should be stoned to death for being a rebellious teenager (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)? wouldn't you agree that stoning someone to death is cruel and unusual punishment? thankfully our bill of rights protects us from these heinous biblical acts. in iran, where religious leaders have seized power, stoning is a regular occurance. thankfully our founding fathers had the ability to understand that religion should be left to the individual's free choice and not have it tenets intertwined with the state.

    i have no problem with "in god we trust" on the money or thomas jefferson using the word "creator" in the declaration of independence. "god" is not a religion or dogma. the ten commandments are and they have no place in the public arena, to do so would be akin to the state taking a religious stand. if you want to erect a giant stone 10 commandments on your lawn, fine, the constitution protects you in making that choice. however, the constitution also protects the government from being the object of religious ambitions.

    see, i don't hate america. i truly love america and think it is the greatest and noble human experiments ever under taken. i just have a differering opinion based on nothing else than the desire to see our constitutional freedoms in america flourish. i would hate to see america co-opted by religious leaders who wish to impart biblical codes into our government. although, now that i think of it a public stoning might be a good time. i'll bring the popcorn!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:48 PM  

  • I MAKE NO ARGUMENT THAT THE FOREFATHERS WERE CHRISTAIN THEREFORE AMERICA IS OR SHOULD BE A CHRISTIAN NATION!What I am saying is that our LAWS were founded upon Judeo/Christian values, sheeshk.

    I don't think we should be a CHRISTIAN NATION! I honestly don't. I think we ARE a Christain Nation- but I say that because we (as a whole) are mostly a Christian nation-- not because of any laws written claiming us to be. I am not interested in MAKING any laws that declair us a Christian nation.

    oy!

    My only problem is people trying to DENY that we were founded on these things and trying to remove God from the public square. That's it. That's all. My point was that when the forefathers CREATED the blueprint of our government- they payed very close attention to the lessons of history throughout the Bible- AND by the lessons of the British Monarchy-- If you READ COMMON SENSE-- that's all it takes ot know this. READ the post again-- I never say anything about the forefathers being Christian- so there- we are a Christian nation.

    Again-- I think we actually agree more than you think we do.......

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 2:14 PM  

  • Has anyone heard from Iron Fist? He hasn't posted for two days - not like him. Sherri, can you ask on LGF? (I'm not registered).
    I was thinking of going to the meetup, but it's quite a drive from Social Circle, GA !!!

    Jeanette.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:20 PM  

  • See, here's a thing that really makes me angry, and your original post and your plea to the General's website for civil discourse are at odds with one another on it.

    People with an education do, in fact, know more than people without one. Someone who has completed college has been exposed to more information than someone who has not, and someone who has completed high school is similarly more informed (in at least some areas) than someone who quit school in 6th grade. When you need a medical opinion, do you ask the clerk at the convenience store? No, you ask a physician, because even though it's YOUR body, you understand that he knows more about it than you do. He learned this -- brace yourself -- through education. And there are a lot of people who have done extensive study in history, and political systems, and semantics, and a host of other subjects with which most of us have only a passing acquaintance. A lot of them disagree with you, and it's not because they're stupid. Some things are a matter of opinion, and some things are just facts.

    Some people, who have a deep and abiding faith in Jesus Christ -- which can only be achieved through faith -- KNOW that their faith is true -- to them. Because they can't make the distinction between "faith" and "knowledge," they assume that people who disagree with them on what are often matters of *worldy* faith, like the origins of the United States, are uninformed, even though they may know a great deal more about, and have read very widely among, the individuals who constituted the Founders than you likely have. (Or me, for that matter.) And because you have certain ideas in your head -- and one of the ones that drives all of us on the Left batty, because it's WRONG -- is that the Founders intended for this nation to be Christian -- you castigate people who, I'm sorry, Sherri, know more about this subject than you do. And you generalize that disdain to include anyone who has an education as being uninformed about "real life," as "not understanding" the truth that to you is a matter of FAITH. A lot of us worked our butts off to get an education; many, many people I know are the first people in their families to graduate from college. We pay the same bills, have the same fights with our spouses, work in the same gray cubicles as "right-thinking, true patriots" like yourself.
    You're one of the unfortunate people who have heard the same, wrong things so many times you think they're true.* And this is the reason it's so very difficult for us to have a conversation across the political divide -- we're not even speaking the same language any more.
    You sound like a very nice person. But I think your idea of dialogue involves making converts to your beliefs, and that's just not going to happen when your facts are wrong.

    *Al Gore said he invented the internet.
    *Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11.
    *John Kerry went to Congress and accused all soldiers in Vietnam of being war criminals.
    *Many scientists are certain that global warming is untrue, and many also know that evolution is just a zany idea.
    Just four or five, without even trying. Admit it -- you believe all those things, right?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:34 PM  

  • LOL!!! No actually I don't believe all those things! LOL!! I think you may be calling the kettle black. I have noticed much more effort from me to empahzsize what we agree upon than you.........

    I have noticed that you had made assumptions of my intent and even put words in my mouth.

    I understand we disagree on quite a few things, but not all things. Maybe you just wanted to pick a fight, or maybe you just needed to vent your frustration with some of the false bantering out there. Not sure which.

    But try as you may-- I think we agree on much more than you want to admit......

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 2:44 PM  

  • To Anonymous who wrote this:


    You're one of the unfortunate people who have heard the same, wrong things so many times you think they're true.* And this is the reason it's so very difficult for us to have a conversation across the political divide -- we're not even speaking the same language any more.
    You sound like a very nice person. But I think your idea of dialogue involves making converts to your beliefs, and that's just not going to happen when your facts are wrong.

    What a crock of crap. The founding fathers, of whom I have read extensively ASSUMED that this would be a Christian nation, not to make the people follow it, it was just assumed. The only taught in schools back than and in fact the only reason for school was to teach the bible. That is why Princeton, Harvard, and many of the other schools were even founded. I have read biographies on all the founding fathers, and with the exception of a few, were very Christian. The liberals that want to rewrite history say differently, but if you look at the founders on journals, it is without question. If you don't like a set of facts you liberals just act like they don't exist or try to change history to meet you own philosophy. Just like with the bible, those of you on the left generally say it is fiction, when in fact most of you have never even read the whole document. How many books would you give a report or opinion on that you have not even read-NONE, yet you chose to make judgements on things you have not read. Then you accuse Sherri of not having learned from a historical perspective, yet you likely make that assumption on not knowing the facts yourself. All you people do is repeat the same old crap from you self-appointed leaders and never think for yourselves. A pathetic lot you are, so don't try and tell us believers the way the world works. I would debate you on any history you wish, but don't come armed with some talking points that you can not defend.

    jlfintx

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:27 PM  

  • This discussion on the religious aspects of our nation tends to miss some significant points.
    1. As the 13 original colonies were British, the jurisprudence system was British. Intimately involved with this legal system was the Anglican Church.
    2. Independence from Great Britain had more to do with taxation and economics, et al., than with religion. However, religion was a sufficiently important issue that it required amendments (ie, the Bill of Rights) to the original Constitution.
    3. Thus, the great debate between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists was not about Democracy, but Liberty. Interestingly, this battle still goes on today.
    4. Yes, one may argue that a number of our early legislative leaders were Diests, but a stronger argument would be that many more of these legislative leaders were Christian. In fact, Madison was greatly influenced both by Presbyterianism and the Separate Baptists.
    5. No, this does not mean that we are a Christian nation, but the desire to worship according to one’s conscience did not mean elimination of God from government.
    6. As already mentioned, although there was no desire for a State religion, it was naturally assumed that worship would be Christian (specifically Protestant). It was the struggle w/in Protestant Christianity (the Anglican Church held a monopoly on religious custom – witness Virginia) that caused the result of religious liberty. Dissenters from the established (Protestant) church wished to worship as they pleased. This proved difficult even after the ratification of the Constitution – witness Massachusetts’ State Church up until the 1850s.
    7. The Constitution specifically prohibited the Federal government from establishing a religion, however, that prohibition did not specifically apply to the States, vis-à-vis Amendment 10.
    8. Thus, one would be accurate in claiming that this nation was founded on Christian principles.

    Dr. Liberty

    By Blogger Dr. Liberty, at 8:20 PM  

  • Yeah the Age of Reason was full of wise men-the same ones who predicted, no more war, no more genocide, etc., because of the greatness of man.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:45 PM  

  • Thomas Paine was a liberal. Check out the site named after him http://tompaine.com/, it is LIBERAL. I think you're very confused if you are referencing him when you're preaching about your conservative beliefs.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:15 PM  

  • Just because he was "liberal" does not mean all his ideas were bad. Sheesh, not all conservatives ideas are good and we do not have to toe the party line if we does not meet with our agreement. One other fact is with the revisionist history that our liberal educators are doing, unless you actually have the actual writings of historical persons, you are not guaranteed to be getting the truth. Even then, you have to be skeptical about what you read. For instance, George Washington was a Christian without a doubt, but one biography tried to say since he was a slaveholder-therefore his faith meant nothing. That is an old tired arguement and if we had to be perfect to be Christians all of us would be without hope. If people would realize that we look to the model of perfection and quit looking at us we would have better results sharing our faith.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:33 PM  

  • People really need to understand the true definition of Liberal and Conservative. (Not the modern day labels that pertain to American politics.)

    It would truly help them to keep from embarrassing themslelves.

    Yes, Thomas Paine was a Liberal. He surely was. And the young people in Iran who want freedom from their tyrannical government are also Liberals. ANd I embrace the ideals, passions, and visions of both THomas Paine and young Iranians desperate for freedom. If you think this is hypocritical or contradictory, it is YOU, MY FRIEND, that is mistaken. Do your homework and back to me......

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 5:07 AM  

  • "8. Thus, one would be accurate in claiming that this nation was founded on Christian principles."

    dr. liberty, please provides examples of christian principles that are to be found in the constitution.
    the constitution is the document solidified the states together as a nation, the document our nation was founded on. please point me to the new testament scriptures which are found in the constitution. i bet i can find just as many that contradict them.

    on another point, you seem to be of the persuasion that the first amendment merely prevents the federal government from establishing a national church, that the states should have, and do have the power to exercise religious authority over the population of a state. your quote:

    "7. The Constitution specifically prohibited the Federal government from establishing a religion, however, that prohibition did not specifically apply to the States, vis-à-vis Amendment 10."

    am i correct? this being the case, if the catholic governor of massachusetts decided to put the state under the authority of the pope it would be constitutionally pemissible? if a jewish majority took control of a state legislature would it be constituional for them to pass a state law requiring it citizen to wear yamulkes? if a muslim majority took control of state legislature would it be constitutional for them to pass a law requiring children in the state to read from the koran during morning prayers towards mecca? what if a muslim judge had taken to posting excerpts from the koran on his courthouse walls, would it be constitutional?

    what i think many of you are missing is the fact that america is now a religious melting pot. you can try and cling to the notion of "judeo-chiristian" principles all you want but the reality is america is much more than just a "christian nation," it is a nation which recognizes the worship and validity of multiple faiths, not just the "judeo-christian" kind.
    so if it your will that religious faith may be imposed on a population provided it is not done at a federal level, then i suggest you prepare youself for the time when christians are no longer the majority. according to a study done by the American Religious Identification Survey, americans who identified as christians dropped from 86.2% in 1990 to 76.5% of the population in 2000. that is nearly a 10% drop in ten years. the fastest growing segment in america (by percentage) is "deist." judaism dropped by 10% and christianity gained just a 5% increase in ten years, not enough to sustain itself in terms of population growth. other denominations with numbers trending upwards are,1990-2000: nonreligious/secular, +110% growth; islam, +109% growth; buddhism, +170% growth; hinduism, +237% growth.

    source:
    http://www.gc.cuny.edu/studies/key_findings.htm

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:41 PM  

  • Anonymous,

    You have completely missed the point. You argue what America is now, I state was America was then.

    What I stated was: “one would be accurate in claiming that this nation was founded on Christian principles.” This is a ture statement. Simply because the Constitution makes no mention of New Testament Scripture, does not negate the veracity of my statement. Please notice that I stated that Massachusetts had a state church until the 1850s. If the Constitution was in effect – how was it possible for a state to have a state religion? It was because the First Amendment was applicable at the Federal level. Per Amendment 10, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” It wasn’t until the 14th Amendment when due process superceded state’s authority that the states became subject to the application of Amendment 1.

    The fact that America is NOW a melting pot is completely irrelevant to the point. I submit that our founding fathers could not prognosticate what America would look like 200 years hence.

    Thus, the premise was that America was founded on Christian principles is a true statement.

    BTW, we have presently have Christian chaplains in both the Senate and the House, paid for by tax dollars…

    Further, your religious data still bespeaks an overwhelming Christian majority.


    Dr. Liberty

    By Blogger Dr. Liberty, at 11:46 PM  

  • Thank GOD for Dr Liberty

    You have far more knowledge AND patience than I!!

    THANK YOU

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 12:24 AM  

  • dr. liberty,

    massachusetts disbanded the state church in 1833, the 14th amendment was ratified in 1866. i don't see the connection. if there is indeed a connection, please point me in the direction of some info that will clear this up for me.

    can we both agree that when you claim "one would be accurate in claiming that this nation was founded on Christian principles," that you are refering to the ratification of the constitution as the founding?
    that would give us a base level on which to establish our arguments.

    secondly, you claim that it is "christian principles" that formed this foundation. i think we need to sort out exactly what this means. to me "chritian principles" are a "basic truth, law, or assumption" (from the 'american heritage' dictionary)that is to be found within the new testament or perhaps the old testament (although if the principle is found within the old testament the argument that our nation was founded on "judaic principles" could be made).

    it seems clear to me that there were in fact members of the constitutional delegation that wanted to include religious language in the wording of the constitution. the framers could have molded the new america into a theocracy, which would have certainly been predicated on "chritian principles."
    they expressly did not. in order to maintain religious freedom for all of the nation's citizens (you are well aware, i'm sure, of the religious discrimination among christians in colonial america) they avoided "christian principles." i suggest rather than "chritian principles," the nation was founded on principles that were oppressed by the Church of England. principles that were to insure the rights of man in contrast to the religious tyranny of the Anglican church.

    the fact that the massachusetts state church existed 30 years after the ratification of the constituion is not a compelling argument, in my estimation, to form the belief that the nation was founded on "christian
    principles." the laws of indivdual states do not apply to the argument of the founding of the "nation." what binds the states together as a nation is the founding of the constitution. the laws of individual states does not apply to your argument. we are debating the federal constitution not the state constitutions.

    i really am open to having this debate. i need a more persuasive argument to change my mind however. the very first article of the constitution expressly disestablished any notion of a "christian nation."
    if you want to go by sherri's definition, that since there are more christians we are de facto "christian nation" that is fine. that is an impossible point to debate. but america has no national church and in historical and politcal definitions cannot be called a "christian nation," and consequently was not founded on "christian principles."

    my reference to the religious population statsistics was in response to sherri and her claim that because of a preponderance of christians we are thereby a "christian nation." my counter argument was that christianity is trending down. is she prepared to declare us a "jewish nation" or a "buddist nation"
    if the statistics ever move in that direction?

    another point, you never answered my question regarding the judge posting the koran in the courtroom. would you support such a move in the name of religious freedom?

    one last question, is slavery a christian principle?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:56 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home