Legislating morality

Originally posted by whodey
Speaking of the British, did you know that the British blamed the Presbyterians for the Declaration? The exact quote by Horace Walpole, who was a member of Parliament, was, "I fix all the blame of these extraordinary proceedings upon the Presbyterians. They have been the chief and priciple instruments in all these flaming measures. They always do and ever ...[text shortened]... eclaration, were agreements between God and man for the glory of God and the welfare of man.

Yeah funny; the Christian British believed that God supported their entitlement to an empire, including the American Colonies. Weird, huh?

Originally posted by whodey
Speaking of the British, did you know that the British blamed the Presbyterians for the Declaration? The exact quote by Horace Walpole, who was a member of Parliament, was, "I fix all the blame of these extraordinary proceedings upon the Presbyterians. They have been the chief and priciple instruments in all these flaming measures. They always do and ever eclaration, were agreements between God and man for the glory of God and the welfare of man.

So what ? here's the beginning of common sense:

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

edit and these are from Age of Reason:
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.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Whodey, it seems to me that you equate law with morality. Can there be an immoral law in your view? It seems to me that this should be a paradox to you since you seem to think that law and morality are synonymous. Why are there two different words if they mean the same thing?

Of coarse the terms law and morality to not mean the exact same thing. However, there is a moral aspect to every law that is made. It is a moral judgement of some kind by the law maker whether you judge that law to be immoral or moral yourself. After all, you must ask why the law is being passed. Is the law not being passed to accomplish some perceived benefit? Is this benefit not perceived to be "good" for a desired goal?

Granted, the law maker may, in fact, view the goal to be immoral, however, the law is deemed "good" to accomplishing that goal. If the law is deemed to be immoral in the sight of the law maker, it would behoove him to conceal this moral judgement via deception of some kind. After all, the laws passed effect those who are governed and those who are governed would, in turn, revolt against those who govern if they perceived them to be treating them "unfairly".

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yeah funny; the Christian British believed that God supported their entitlement to an empire, including the American Colonies. Weird, huh?

In my opinion, the Founding Fathers were well versed in Biblical philosophy via men like Locke who's primary focus was defining right and wrong in reference to Biblical theology as well as being students of the Bible themselves. In my opinion, their legislative philosophy mirrored Biblical philosophy in that their focus was equality among men and freedom of choice among men. They also saw that government needed checks and balances to help counter man's sin nature and the corruption that was certain to occur as they saw occur in the British government. The problem with this sin nature is that it is self serving. Therefore, morality judements that personally benefit those in government can be skewed based upon the fact that they personally benefit. I find it a stretch for the British people to find the means to rationalize their empire based upon scripture. Perhaps they tried as people often do, to use scripture to mirror their personal ambition. In fact, America later fell into the same mind set as they viewed America to be their God given right. I believe the term was Manifest Destiny. The Founding Fathers recognized these flaws in human nature and did their best to counter them.

Originally posted by whodey
In my opinion, the Founding Fathers were well versed in Biblical philosophy via men like Locke who's primary focus was defining right and wrong in reference to Biblical theology as well as being students of the Bible themselves. In my opinion, their legislative philosophy mirrored Biblical philosophy in that their focus was equality among men and freedom of he Founding Fathers recognized these flaws in human nature and did their best to counter them.

The founding fathers were far too corcerned with forming a nation to worry about the morality of the people. And ,in any case, they were more concerned that the government didn't interfere with man's private affairs to be passing laws based on their own view of morality.
The separation of church and state was the best thing they did, they coupled it with free exercise for the simple reason that they didn't want government interfering with the religions and they certainly didn't want religions imposing that , or any other , mythology unto the government.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Christianity co-existed with the "rights of kings" with no problem whatsoever before and after 1776. What do you make of that historical fact?

EDIT: Shocking as it might seem to you, people really don't need an "impetus" to start thinking that they should be free.

Wrong as ever, wrong again. Christianity did not "co-exist" as you attempt to characterize it. Religion co-existed, but Christianity was suppressed. Many political systems (including the current US administration) have attempted to appropriate Christianity as being in support of their agenda... going all the way back to the senate and people of Rome.

Christianity, as Jesus taught, lives under any, under all forms of earthly government. The Christian citizen can be a dual citizen of any form of government instituted by man: there is no threat possible to their spiritual citizenship, regardless of the machinations of man.

That being said, the founders of the US were after a more perfect union, one which acknowledged the god-likeness of man, one which did not acquiesce to the whims of despots. The source of their information was the Bible, not the philosophies of man. Were they informed by the philosophies of man, they would have quoted the same as their source, not (as the record shows) Nature's God.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Wrong as ever, wrong again. Christianity did not "co-exist" as you attempt to characterize it. Religion co-existed, but Christianity was suppressed. Many political systems (including the current US administration) have attempted to appropriate Christianity as being in support of their agenda... going all the way back to the senate and people of R ...[text shortened]... man, they would have quoted the same as their source, not (as the record shows) Nature's God.

You make it sound like Jefferson didn't know the name the bible had for it's god.
Nature's God was the Deist non-interventionist god, period.

Originally posted by frogstomp
The founding fathers were far too corcerned with forming a nation to worry about the morality of the people. And ,in any case, they were more concerned that the government didn't interfere with man's private affairs to be passing laws based on their own view of morality.
The separation of church and state was the best thing they did, they coupled i ainly didn't want religions imposing that , or any other , mythology unto the government.

What they were concerned with was the morality of the laws that governed the people, thus Christian philosophy entered the picture. You are correct in that they did not want the government interfering with the private affairs of men. As I said before, it is a Christian belief that God gave us free will and that man has no right to intervene unless harm is done to another via that free will. I don't think we differ in this conclusion, we just see its philisophical source as being different.

I would disagree that the Founding Fathers intended a seperation of church in state. For example, I see nothing wrong with the Liberty Bell having a scripture written on it. What the Founding Farthers did not want was government to "sponser" any particular religion. The Liberty Bell is in no way sponsoring a particular religion, therefore it existence on public property is not in violation of our laws. The Framers did not want men to be forced to subscribe to any one church or religion, They also did not want politicians speaking for God or members of the clergy speaking for the state. The abuses of such situations were clearly visible in England and is why the Pilgrims came to America.

Originally posted by whodey
What they were concerned with was the morality of the laws that governed the people, thus Christian philosophy entered the picture. You are correct in that they did not want the government interfering with the private affairs of men. As I said before, it is a Christian belief that God gave us free will and that man has no right to intervene unless harm is d s of such situations were clearly visible in England and is why the Pilgrims came to America.

jeez , I hate to disillusion you but:
It was originally cast in 1752 by the Whitechapel Bell Foundry, for use in the Pennsylvania State House (now also known as Independence Hall). The bell had been ordered the previous year by the Pennsylvania Assembly, and the inscription from Leviticus was possibly intended to mark the 50th anniversary of William Penn's Charter of Privileges of 1701.

edit BTW that foundry was in England

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Wrong as ever, wrong again. Christianity did not "co-exist" as you attempt to characterize it. Religion co-existed, but Christianity was suppressed. Many political systems (including the current US administration) have attempted to appropriate Christianity as being in support of their agenda... going all the way back to the senate and people of R ...[text shortened]... man, they would have quoted the same as their source, not (as the record shows) Nature's God.

Freaky, are you familiar with the "No True Scotsman" fallacy? You seem to be using a "Not True Christianity" argument.

Originally posted by whodey
In my opinion, the Founding Fathers were well versed in Biblical philosophy via men like Locke who's primary focus was defining right and wrong in reference to Biblical theology as well as being students of the Bible themselves. In my opinion, their legislative philosophy mirrored Biblical philosophy in that their focus was equality among men and freedom of ...[text shortened]... he Founding Fathers recognized these flaws in human nature and did their best to counter them.

Again, you are simply reading your theology into the Framers without any evidence to support such an interpretation. The argument that Locke's "primary focus was defining right and wrong in reference to Biblical theology" is ludicrous to anyone who's actually read much of his work (as I assume you haven't). You also won't find many references to "Man's sin nature" among the writing of the Framers; in fact, Lockean philosophy was a rejection of the Hobbesian vision (based on Biblical principles in his view) that Man's sinful nature made life in the State of Nature "nasty, brutish and short".

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Wrong as ever, wrong again. Christianity did not "co-exist" as you attempt to characterize it. Religion co-existed, but Christianity was suppressed. Many political systems (including the current US administration) have attempted to appropriate Christianity as being in support of their agenda... going all the way back to the senate and people of R ...[text shortened]... man, they would have quoted the same as their source, not (as the record shows) Nature's God.

Nature's God as used by the Framers was referring to the God who was revealed in Nature and accessible to Human Reason. This is essentially a rejection of revelation purely from the Bible. So you are grossly incorrect.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Nature's God as used by the Framers was referring to the God who was revealed in Nature and accessible to Human Reason. This is essentially a rejection of revelation purely from the Bible. So you are grossly incorrect.

While you are correct in surmising Jefferson's view, you are entirely off-base in assessing all of "the Framers." Episcopalians notwithstanding, the tenor of our founding fathers was decidedly Bible-believing/dependent.

Jefferson was merely attempting to play both sides of the fence, regardless of how indefensible his position. He claimed to acknowledge the "fabricator of all things," and concede this fabricator to be the God of Nature. He also denied revelation, as it would necessarily break the laws of the supposed law-Giver. But what law is there in nature, if not might makes right? Surely such a view flies in the face of the "laws of nature" Jefferson wished to invoke for support of the sanctity of the individual over against the tyranny of government!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
While you are correct in surmising Jefferson's view, you are entirely off-base in assessing all of "the Framers." Episcopalians notwithstanding, the tenor of our founding fathers was decidedly Bible-believing/dependent.

Jefferson was merely attempting to play both sides of the fence, regardless of how indefensible his position. He claimed to acknowled ...[text shortened]... oke for support of the sanctity of the individual over against the tyranny of government!

the same type of tyranny of government that dictated what Christ was, for political purposes?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
While you are correct in surmising Jefferson's view, you are entirely off-base in assessing all of "the Framers." Episcopalians notwithstanding, the tenor of our founding fathers was decidedly Bible-believing/dependent.

Jefferson was merely attempting to play both sides of the fence, regardless of how indefensible his position. He claimed to acknowled oke for support of the sanctity of the individual over against the tyranny of government!

Obviously you have never read Locke. The argument that "might makes right" is the "natural state" of Man, is a Hobbesian one, rejected by Locke and then rejected by the Framers (who were heavily influenced by Locke and later Social Contract theorists). The difference between these views in summed up here:

4(a). Hobbesian Pre-Social Man:

In uncivilized times, in times before government, Hobbes asserted there existed continual war with "every man, against every man." A time of "no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." On this point Locke and Hobbes were not in agreement. Locke, consistent with his philosophy, viewed man as naturally moral.10 The reason man would willingly contract into civil society is not to shake his brutish state, but rather that he may advance his ends (peace and security) in a more efficient manner. To achieve his ends man gives up, in favour of the state, a certain amount of his personal power and freedom.


[TOP]
[TOC]
4(b). Lockeian Pre-Social Man:

Locke maintained that the original state of nature was happy and characterized by reason and tolerance. He further maintained that all human beings, in their natural state, were equal and free to pursue life, health, liberty, and possessions; and that these were inalienable rights.11 Pre-social man as a moral being, and as an individual, contracted out "into civil society by surrendering personal power to the ruler and magistrates," and did so as "a method of securing natural morality more efficiently." To Locke, natural justice exists and this is so whether the state exists, or not, it is just that the state might better guard natural justice.

http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Locke.htm#Human

This is, of course, a brief summary; you really need to read Two Treatises of Government esp. Part II. The second part of Tom Paine's The Rights of Man, particulary the chapter on Society, also is a good summary of the Framers' thoughts on this matter. It is a rejection of the idea of Man having an inherently sinful or depraved nature.