by Michael Giere“But this was not always so. In fact, for much of our history, it has been just the opposite. Godly men and women who were fearless, bold, strong, and savvy have been central to the American experience.”

There has never been anything in history like the US Constitution, signed on September 17, 1787. It is the crown jewel of human advancement and bids freedom not for some but for all. It stands alone, enshrining and paying homage to the core reality of man’s existence – that the dignity and rights of every person and their personal freedom don’t come from the word or works of an impermanent ruler, a mob, or government but from the permanent promise of the Creator.

The Constitution began with a convention and 55 delegates from the newly-free Colonies called to modify the Articles of Confederation. It became a convention that would reshape history. Influential members such as James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington, among others, were convicted that the Confederation needed a stronger national government, and the Convention settled on Mr. Madison’s Virginia Plan as a starting document to replace the Articles of Confederation.

That plan itself was the product of the Colonial experience with English common law and the distilled ideas that flowed through the pulpits of churches for two hundred years that presaged both the War for Independence and the Constitution. In the end, the Convention of 1787 produced a document that carried the birthmarks of Holy Scripture in the framework of the ancient covenants of Sinai (See Os Guinness’s outstanding book The Magna Carta of Humanity), arranged by perhaps the most unique and wisest men history has produced at one time, in one place, for one purpose.

The discussion in 1787 was that of every civilization and every era of history. It’s a debate that can never meet in the middle: it is orthogonal and incapable of resolution.

It is the irreducible conflict between liberty and collectivism, free will and authoritarianism, and the origin of individual rights. Should society be assembled largely by self-interested individuals pursuing their own best purposes and living out their faith, or should the sum of any society be defined and controlled by the power of government for the “common good?”

Interestingly, the political and the religious are frequently presented as distinct and separate spheres of interest that can never be co-mingled in this debate. Yet they were, and are, as close as a tick to a hound dog. The political class can’t scratch an itch without seeking the imprimatur of religious or moral virtuosity. People of genuine faith simply cannot separate themselves from the public affairs of their day lest they cease to be salt and light to the world.

Today, just like political and social conservatives, the orthodox faithful in our churches and synagogues are under withering attack.

The modern church’s institutional weakness and aggressive emasculation make it the perfect target.

In the crumbling Western democracies, the intellectual air is thick with words like fairness, social justice, economic equity, redistribution of wealth, and getting a fair share. These are street slang used in the all-out war on free will, religious freedom, free markets, and individual responsibility. This assault on individual Liberty is so far along that many conservative politicians and orthodox religious leaders have been browbeaten into either adopting the characterizations of the extreme left or simply ignoring them, leaving the “progressive” agenda uncontested.

Without significant resistance, many mainline Christian churches have revived the centuries-old social justice canard, a trend that tragically includes a growing number of churches in the “evangelical community.” And no small number of the “progressive” churches are promoting repackaged liberation theology – Marxist dictum in drag.

So the defense of our most cherished values is reduced to a quiet frustration, and the principles for which over a million Americans died grow increasingly dim – like a fading candle. We’re led by the weakest of the weak.

But this was not always so. In fact, for much of our history, it has been just the opposite. Godly men and women who were fearless, bold, strong, and savvy have been central to the American experience.

The American Founding specifically was intricately woven into the American story in large measure by the hands of courageous clergy and congregants of the early Colonial churches. The battlefields of the Revolutionary War would later drink the sweat and blood of many patriot pastors and their congregations who were among the first to take up arms when the war did come.

The inspiration and grand proposals of the American Founding and, subsequently, the Constitution come in no small measure straight from the pens and sermons of our early colonial clergy. The pastors and ministers educated and shaped the worldviews of several generations of colonists, preaching on the powerful connection between Biblical truth, the inalienable rights of men, and a just and limited government.

Pastors had a dramatic and consequential place in the American story, starting with the first years of the colonial settlements. In Virginia, prominent ministers were instrumental in creating in 1619 the House of Burgesses, the first elected legislative body in North America. In Massachusetts, Pilgrim and later Puritan ministers were at the forefront of establishing elected representative governments. In 1641, the Puritans had a Body of Liberties, a document of individual rights written by Rev. Nathaniel Ward.

Throughout the 1600s, the new colonies, led or influenced by Christian ministers, established elected governments with defined rights. The English-born Anglican-turned-Puritan minister, Roger Williams, came to Massachusetts in 1631, only to be officially banished in 1635 by the Massachusetts Bay Company for his belief in “separatism,” or total religious freedom, and for publicly challenging the Company’s right to regulate any religious activity. He and his followers purchased land from the Narragansett Indians and founded Providence, Rhode Island, in 1636 with an elected government “in civil matters only.” They received a Charter for Rhode Island in 1643.

In 1638, Pastor Williams would start the first Baptist church in North America, becoming a powerful force in the “wall of separation” between the state and religious bodies and the right to worship freely. (Thomas Jefferson would later use his phrase in a famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.) Both Jefferson and James Madison credited Williams as the inspiration for the First Amendment.

Also, in 1636, the Rev. Thomas Hooker and other ministers founded Connecticut with an elected government, and Hooker penned the first written Constitution in the Colonies. It would formalize the written documents used in other settlements that shared the Biblical perspective of liberty expressed through elected legislatures, defined the powers of the government, and established the first protections of individual civil rights and freedoms.

Crown-appointed Governors in New Hampshire, Virginia, and Georgia who ignored or attempted to disband these elected bodies were met with minister-led opposition and fiery sermons on the civil rights of sovereign citizens. When an attempt was made to abolish the elected bodies in Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts and force the Anglican Church on those colonies, ministers and pastors were at the forefront of opposition. In 1687, the Rev. John Wise of Ipswich, Massachusetts, was jailed for leading a protest against taxes imposed without the approval of the legislative body by the crown-appointed Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

Reverend Wise was also the author of critically important essays that spread his stature as a leader throughout the colonies, as he powerfully asserted that liberty and the right to elect representative government was God’s plan in both the church and the state and were core Biblical principles. He was the first to write that “taxation without representation is tyranny” and that “the consent of the governed is the only legitimate basis for government.”

So profound and deep was the shaping of these ideas that would later be found in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that historians could track many of those ideas directly to the writings and sermons of the early American clergy, especially John Wise. Whole phrases and sentences ended up in the Declaration of Independence virtually word for word.

In the early twentieth century, historian Alice Baldwin would portray the Constitutional Convention and the written Constitution as “children of the pulpit.”

While the early colonial ministers helped lay the intellectual groundwork for the future nation (along with the Enlightenment thinkers of the century), the Great Awakening – an empowering evangelical revival that swept the colonies in the 1730s and the 1740s – helped establish the character of the coming Revolution.

Beginning with the powerful preaching of the Rev. Jonathan Edwards, who held the first revivals in the early 1730s at his Northampton, Massachusetts church, the Great Awakening emphasized personal salvation by God’s Grace alone, the authority of Scripture, and personal responsibility for moral living. Edwards’ preaching intersected perfectly with the growing democratic spirit in the colonies. It diminished the influence of ritual and established worship while elevating the role of personal faith, prayer, and moral accountability.

The spiritual revival that Reverend Edwards ignited became one of the most determining events in American history.

Following Edwards’ first revivals – and to the alarm of many long-established church bodies – other ministers carried his message into the colonies. Most importantly, the already famous Anglican George Whitefield – an accomplished open-air preacher in the English revival – returned to the colonies in 1740 (he had been a parish priest in Savannah, Georgia, before returning to England to raise funds for a planned orphanage). He traveled by horseback from New England to Charleston, preaching daily to large crowds, frequently numbering in the thousands.

Rev. Whitefield’s trip concluded at the Boston Commons before 23,000 people – when Boston’s population was only 15,000. (Rev. Whitefield and Benjamin Franklin became good friends. While listening to his friend preach in Philadelphia, Mr. Franklin paced off the distance until he could no longer understand Rev. Whitefield and, ever the scientist, estimated that at two people per square foot, he could be heard in a crowd of 30,000!)

The religious leaders’ importance in educating the public and providing intellectual support for the cause of liberty and fighting during the Revolutionary War was not lost on the British, who called the pastors, ministers, and their congregants supporting Independence the “Black Robe Regiment.” The essential place of pastors and ministers in the Revolution was so apparent that John Adams exclaimed, “The pulpits have thundered.”

Many in England considered the war as the outcome of the nearly two-century-old theological battle between the Presbyterians and Congregationalists and the Church of England. But even that division did not capture the power of the emerging concept in the Colonies that resisting tyranny was both Biblical and moral. When the war came, this idea had even split the Church of England in the Colonies, where up to half the clergy, who had sworn an oath to the Crown upon ordination, left their pulpits, and some Anglican congregations re-wrote their Book of Common Prayer to remove its prayers for the King as head of the church. Many of the loyalist Anglican priests returned to England.

With this amazing inheritance, you would think that America’s current religious leaders would be on the front-lines of the new battle in the 21st century for human liberty and the freedom of religion, speech, and association. Instead, with a few exceptions, religious leaders and religious organizations are irrelevant bystanders in the new America or, all too often, cheerleaders for the devolving culture and the radical left.

The minimal push back from conservative and orthodox religious leaders to the incorporation of cultural Marxism and authoritarian constructs throughout the society, the education establishment, the attack on the First and Second Amendments, and ignoring the profound issues of government-created poverty, hunger, and class warfare, is hard to understand. Equally puzzling is the abandonment of essential doctrines explicit in Scripture and the new fad of kowtowing to the lowest common denominator in our culture in sexuality, marriage, and moral responsibility.

Where are the bold and visionary religious leaders today who are informing, educating, and shaping the worldviews of future generations of citizens? Where is the public preaching on the powerful connection between Biblical truth, the inalienable rights of men, and a just and limited government? Where are the leaders that denounce radical progressive and authoritarian governments as foundationally evil because they employ pride and envy and set one person against another by design? Or do they use covetousness to pit one group against another and inevitably crush individual freedom?

Could it be that the new struggle for liberty in the 21st century won’t be won in Washington or the pulpits – but in our own hearts as we respond to the same God that emboldened a group of ragtag Colonies to resist the most powerful nation on earth, and to set the American story in motion?

Republished with permission from The Bull Elephant.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

62 responses to “Thunder in the Pulpits”

  1. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    They knew that to put God in the constitution was to put man out. They knew that the recognition of a Deity would be seized upon by fanatics and zealots as a pretext for destroying the liberty of thought. They knew the terrible history of the church too well to place in her keeping or in the keeping of her God the sacred rights of man. They intended that all should have the right to worship or not to worship that our laws should make no distinction on account of creed. They intended to found and frame a government for man and for man alone. They wished to preserve the individuality of all to prevent the few from governing the many and the many from persecuting and destroying the few.” ― Robert G. Ingersoll, Individuality From ‘The Gods and Other Lectures’

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Makes me wonder how many who see themselves as Conservatives, Libertarians, not progressives agree with this essay or what they may agree with and what not?

      1. If you’re keeping a tally, you can put one conservative/libertarian in the “disagree” column.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          re: ” If you’re keeping a tally, you can put one conservative/libertarian in the “disagree” column.”

          just trying to understand …. and hoping to hear from others who are not progressives on it.

    2. Yes, and in the 1st Amendment we have the guarantee of freedom from state established religion that many of our founders were fleeing.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Yeah, but they keep trying.

        1. Funny that we got all the religious kooks and Australia got transported convicts. I’ve heard that was because the Aussies had first choice.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            I think it was the convict’s choice. When offered deportation over hanging they request a place having over 200 species of man-killing venomous creatures rather than one having over 200 Christian sects.

            “I have never thought much of the courage of a lion tamer. Inside the cage he is at least safe from other men. There is not much harm in a lion. He has no ideals, no religion, no politics, no chivalry, no gentility; in short, no reason for destroying anything that he does not want to eat.” — George Bernard Shaw

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        If I could be “King for a Day” (given my nom de guerre, Queen), I would announce that the US was going to have an established religion, but that the churches must decide which of them would receive all those sweet, sweet tax dollars on their own. The ensuing bloodbath would end the threat of Christianity for 1000s of years.

  2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “With this amazing inheritance, you would think that America’s current religious leaders would be on the front-lines of the new battle in the 21st century for human Liberty and the freedom of religion, speech, and association”

    Yeah, it is almost like there is no battle at all…

    1. I have to admit that is some pretty good snark.

      Well done.

  3. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    Enjoyed the article. The author heaps a bit too much praise on the New England church leaders. Here in Virginia, the Old School Baptists led the charge for religious freedom in the Revolutionary Era. Colonial Virginia had no tolerance for religious agitators from outside the Church of England. I wrote about it back in January. You can still find Old School Baptists in Virginia, they go by the term “Primitive” now. If a brother from 1772 could appear in a Sunday service today, they would know exactly where there are. Nothing has changed. Same 1611 Bible, same hymns, same sermons, same doctrines, no one is on a church payroll, and a fierce independent streak to keep the outside world away.
    https://www.baconsrebellion.com/in-search-of-the-fountainhead-of-religious-freedom-in-virginia/

    1. Here in Virginia, the Old School Baptists led the charge for religious freedom in the Revolutionary Era.

      And as you noted in your previous posting, they were viciously persecuted for their stance by adherents to the government-supported Church of England.

  4. “It is the irreducible conflict between Liberty and collectivism, free will and authoritarianism, and the origin of individual rights. ”

    Christianity has flirted with collectivism/Marxism since the earliest days. This is well documented in the Book of Acts.

    44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.
    – Acts 2:44-45

    32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
    -Acts 4:32-35

    The above collectivism produced the same result then as it does now. The saints in Jerusalem soon ran out of money and relied on donations from elsewhere to survive.

    Religious “scholars” have invented a drought and famine to explain this, but history shows no such thing. The famine within the early church was self inflicted, as they had sold their means of providing for themselves.

    Eventually the leaders of the church realized that collectivism doesn’t work and hence the seemingly cruel admonition “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.”

    As it says in Proverbs, “There is nothing new under the sun.” With mankind, even within the Christian faith, lessons that have been learned, must eventually be learned yet again.

    Private and communal farming (1623)

    “All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other thing to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.”
    -William Bradford

    https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1650bradford.asp#Private%20and%20communal%20farming

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      “Religious “scholars” have invented a drought and famine to explain this, but history shows no such thing. The famine within the early church was self inflicted, as they had sold their means of providing for themselves.”

      They were probably led astray by this advice: “Sell your possessions and give to the poor.”

      1. That admonition was given to a specific person, an arrogant self-righteous blowhard who thought he was perfect. Jesus showed him, and those present, that he was all show.

        Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

        When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

        Matt 19:21-22

        Vows of poverty and complete dedication to God are right and proper for select individuals within the church. But like celibacy, if done by the entire population, the result is disastrous long-term.

  5. Not Today Avatar

    STAHP! The Constitution never contemplated women or black people (except as property). It did not spring forth, ready and able to protect one and all. It did not enshrine the right to impose worship of or respect for a ‘creator’ either.

  6. Not Today Avatar

    STAHP! The Constitution never contemplated women or black people (except as property). It did not spring forth, ready and able to protect one and all. It did not enshrine the right to impose worship of or respect for a ‘creator’ either.

  7. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    This is a decidedly slanted view of the influence of religion in the formation of the nation. It is a very narrow view and significantly over-emphasizes the importance of the preachers and their religion.

    First of all, John Wise was not the “first to write… that ‘the
    consent of the governed is the only legitimate basis for government.’” That concept was first articulated by John Locke, who published his treatises on government in the late 1600’s. Before Locke, the seeds of the idea had been present in the Roman Republic and were expressed in the English Civil Wars of the mid-1600’s. https://democracyweb.org/consent-of-the-governed-history

    Next is the author’s concept of the “Biblical perspective of Liberty expressed through elected legislatures.” In all the years in which I was being raised in the Baptist church, I never read anything in the Bible about elected legislatures. On the contrary, God chose the leaders. He chose Abraham to establish Israel; He chose Moses to lead the people of Israel out of Egypt; when the people of Israel wanted a king, God chose Saul, etc. The Pope is considered the chosen representative of God. The College of
    Cardinals is not chosen by the members of the Catholic Church; the members are appointed by the Pope. For many centuries, kings ruled, not by virtue of being chosen by their people, but by “divine right.”

    Finally, the author makes much of the strong religious beliefs of the Founders. A professor of religion at the College of William and Mary has painted a different view of the Founders and religion. In his book, The Faiths of the Founding Fathers, David Holmes pictures quite a different picture of the Founders’ religions beliefs. This is how one reviewer summarizes Holmes’ arguments:

    “Holmes then surveys the attitudes of six founding fathers – Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Madison and Monroe – and concludes that all of them would have fallen into the category of Christian Deist or Unitarians, except perhaps Monroe who seemed to be motivated by no religious curiosity at all. Some, like Madison, shifted over time, attending that intellectual redoubt of orthodoxy, Princeton, as a young man, but drifting towards Deism over the years such that when his cousin became a bishop in the Anglican Church, Madison never sought to be confirmed. Washington was a dutiful member of his parish, serving on the vestry, commending divine worship to his soldiers during the war and to his fellow citizens while president, but he never took communion, declined to be confirmed, invoked almost exclusively Deistic terminology when describing God – “the great architect of the universe” and “nature’s God” for example – yet his Deism was not so complete that he thought it foolish to implore the blessings of Providence. For Christian Deists, unlike the hardcore Deists, God was not the watchmaker God who created the world and then left it alone. Still, their god was not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob either.” https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/religion-founding-holmes-faiths-founding-fathers

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      I keep saying it. Jefferson’s long list of (somewhat true) grievances was because for the first time in Christendom we were about to overthrow a king in defiance of Christian teachings at the time. Jefferson knew that to win, he had to silence the pulpits. Even still, many colonists fled to Canada in fear of God’s retribution.

      Oh yeah… You’d know better than I, what was the outcome of the Parson’s lawsuit in which Henry was an attorney in defense of the vestry?

      Can’t imagine why the FFs didn’t want an established church. Yeah, I can. They didn’t like greedy tax-grubbing parsons. Above all they saw two European catastrophes to avoid;
      1) a standing Army is a source of mischief unless it is standing elsewhere, but worse, it’s expensive no matter where it is standing, and
      2) religion is a source of division, more so if one religion is the established religion, but worse, it’s expensive no matter where it is, or is not, established.

      The FFs were, first and foremost, cheap, religiously so. If you could dig them up, take away their quills, shove a large glass of claret in their meathooks, then by the end of the evening and to the man, they’d tell you, “it was all about the Benjamins**.”

      ** so to speak.

    2. “This is a decidedly slanted view of the influence of religion in the formation of the nation. It is a very narrow view and significantly over-emphasizes the importance of the preachers and their religion.”

      One may disagree with the specifics of the author’s article, but it’s hard to overstate the role of religion in the formation of and development of the United States.

      First Prayer of the Continental Congress, 1774

      https://chaplain.house.gov/archive/continental.html

    3. I think this best describes Thomas Jefferson’s thoughts on Christianity, and in his own words:

      In some of the delightful conversations with you, in the evenings of 1798-99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you, that one day or other, I would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry & reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other.

      –Thomas Jefferson, in a Letter to Benjamin Rush dated April 21, 1803

      https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-40-02-0178-0001

      1. Mr. Hall-Sizemore is quick to observe the potential overstatements of the article’s author, but seems to overlook his own.

        The religious beliefs of our founders, and the population as a whole, has had a profound influence on the formation and development of the nation. To argue against that is folly.

        Much/most of that influence has been for the good, but there are also many examples throughout our history of its downsides as well.

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        But then, he wrote his own Bible… truly inspired.

  8. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    “… but from the Permanent promise of the Creator.”

    The author is thinking of the DoI which mentions the Creator. The Constitution says “We The People” in huge letters and mentions a deity not at all.

    In short, this opinion piece is BUNK.

  9. Not Today Avatar

    STAHP! The Constitution never contemplated women or black people (except as property). It did not spring forth, ready and able to protect one and all. It did not enshrine the right to impose worship of or respect for a ‘creator’ on others either. Morality/ethics do NOT march hand in hand with Christianity.

    1. Morality/ethics do NOT march hand in hand with Christianity.

      True. They do adhere pretty closely to the teachings of Jesus Christ, though. Unfortunately, the teachings of Jesus Christ can be, and often are, quite different from “Christianity”.

      1. Not Today Avatar

        TRUTH. I taught our kids to admire Jesus (and other religious lighthouses who ALL say similar things). It’s shocking how little resemblance that instruction has to U.S. Christian dogma.

        1. The late author Kurt Vonnegut, who once called himself a “Christ-worshipping agnostic” had a very high opinion of the teaching of Jesus.

          “[Jesus’] greatest legacy to us, in my humble opinion, consists of only twelve words. They are the antidote to the Code of Hammurabi, a formula almost as compact as Albert Einstein’s E = mc2. Jesus of Nazareth told us to say these twelve words when we prayed: ‘Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.’ And for those twelve words alone, he deserves to be called ‘the Prince of Peace’.”

          Kurt Vonnegut, from his 1999 Commencement Address at Agnes Scott College.

          https://mikefrost.net/irreverent-kindness-kurt-vonnegut-on-the-sermon-on-the-mount/

    2. Do you deny the role of Christianity in the abolition movement?

      Do yourself a favor. Look at when each country around the world abolished slavery. Now look at the religious makeup of the top and bottom ones. Here’s a map.

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cd1019c61773a0fda83d1b1d24a04bcce375a860f2110d7c7f3aaba00a8e48f3.jpg

      Saudi Arabian Slavery Persists Despite Ban by Faisal in 1962

      https://www.nytimes.com/1967/03/28/archives/saudi-arabian-slavery-persists-despite-ban-by-faisal-in-1962.html

      1. Not Today Avatar

        No. I deny the CENTRALITY of Christianity in the abolition movement. It clearly played *a* role. Not sure what your world map has to do with the U.S. Constitution or U.S. history but…good luck with that?

        1. “Not sure what your world map has to do with the U.S. Constitution or U.S.”

          I think you know, but just don’t like the implications.

          It’s clear that predominantly Christian nations, including the U.S., were well ahead of non Christian nations in abolishing slavery.

          Many nations in the Middle East and Africa didn’t do so until the very recent past.

          1. Not Today Avatar

            I absolutely DO NOT KNOW what a world map has to do with the U.S. Constitution. What your detour does not contemplate (because, trifling) is how slavery is practiced worldwide, whether it was an inheritable condition, and how those differences may impact global acceptance of penury (which is, in fact, the root of enslavement).

          2. You for whatever reason refuse to recognize the role of Christianity in overcoming slavery and wish to ignore the obvious implications of where it currently exists and where it does not.

            How many of these nations are predominantely Christian?

            Top 10 Countries with the Highest Prevalence of Modern Slavery (by slaves per 1000 residents) – Global Slavery Index 2018:

            North Korea – 104.6 (10.46%)

            Eritrea – 93 (9.3%)

            Burundi – 40 (4.0%)

            Central African Republic – 22.3 (2.23%)

            Afghanistan – 22.2 (2.22%)

            Mauritania – 21.4 (2.14%)

            South Sudan – 20.5 (2.05%)

            Pakistan – 16.8 (1.68%)

            Cambodia – 16.8 (1.68%)

            Iran – 16.2 (1.62%)

            https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-that-still-have-slavery

          3. Not Today Avatar

            I already said, which you REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE, that abolitionists (largely Menonnites and ‘Friends’) played a role. You’re just making stuff up at this point, mayhap because your own faith tradition is implicated in the maintenance and spread of racism, chattel slavery and white supremacy IN THE UNITED STATES, WHERE WE LIVE. If you want to fight slavery in 2023, might I suggest you move to Sudan?

      2. Not Today Avatar

        Abolitionists were a fringy minority of Christians. The VAST MAJORITY of Christians played an outsized role, indeed were CENTRAL in dominionist/colonist thinking and slavery justification.

        1. Your attempts to rewrite history run counter to the facts.

          Virtually every mass movement starts small, including Christianity itself.

          But this important fact remains…

          Virtually all members of the abolition movement were deeply religious women and men, convinced that slavery violated divine law. Antislavery evangelicals gave bibles to the enslaved, established integrated churches, and preached against the sin of slavery.

          https://www.pbs.org/thisfarbyfaith/journey_2/p_6.html

          1. Not Today Avatar

            Sir, I’ve neither the time nor the inclination to provide what you missed K-12, let alone K-20. Be well.

          2. Not Today Avatar

            Sir, I’ve neither the time nor the inclination to provide what you missed K-12, let alone K-20. Be well.

          3. I have provided facts and references. You have provided only your unsupported opinions.

            Be well.

          4. Not Today Avatar

            I’m plenty well, thanks. I still feel like you might have a case, a landmark one. Folks my parents’ age were lied to and have based their whole worldview on those lies. There might be $$ in them thar hills. Detrimental reliance.

          5. “Folks my parents’ age were lied to and have based their whole worldview on those lies. There might be $$ in them thar hills. Detrimental reliance.”

            I have no clue what you are talking about. If you have something important to say, then say it.

          6. Not Today Avatar

            I cannot help you make up for your missing education. See: https://www.google.com/search?q=detrimental+reliance+contract+law&oq=detrimental+rel&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBwgCEAAYgAQyDQgAEAAYgwEYsQMYgAQyBggBEEUYOTIHCAIQABiABDIHCAMQABiABDIHCAQQABiABDIHCAUQABiABDIHCAYQABiABDIHCAcQABiABDIHCAgQABiABDIHCAkQABiABNIBCDU5MTNqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 The fact that so many folks my Dad’s age relied on the pablum and lies they were taught to the detriment of themselves and others, while a novel/untested legal approach, is NOT without merit.

          7. Not Today Avatar

            You are vastly overstating the number of such persons IN THE US because it’s convenient. It’s also counterfactual. Those edited bibles conveniently omitted ‘books’/chapters that ran counter to white supremacist ideology. Do better. Learn more. Old dogs can learn new tricks. Maybe you can afford some new schooling if you sue your former teachers/schools for breach of contract? They lied to you and you detrimentally relied on that info.

  10. ThomasDixon Avatar
    ThomasDixon

    Where is Sherlock?

  11. LarrytheG Avatar

    In terms of religion in the US, weren’t the Mennonites here when the country was founded, and really do practice strong independence from government STILL today?

    1. Quaker William Penn first invited the persecuted European Mennonites to his City of Brotherly Love in 1683. They and the Amish Anabaptists brought with them: the pretzel. Lord be praised. Also scrapple, from parts of the pig best not mentioned, a treat beloved by Pennsylvanians including author James Michener. Scrapple is a minor plot point in his work The Novel. Mennonites and Amish differ in reconciling with modernity. Solar power okay; but for Old Order Amish, cars still prohibited. No buttons on clothes because it reminds of the Hessian soldiers’ proud glittering uniforms. They have in common the view “Come Ye Out From Among Them,” away from the corrupt English (as they call us). Their independence depends of course, on us. But for our nuclear weapons, Vladimir Putin would be in Lancaster county eating pretzels and scrapple.

    2. Quaker William Penn first invited the persecuted European Mennonites to his City of Brotherly Love in 1683. They and the Amish Anabaptists brought with them: the pretzel. Lord be praised. Also scrapple, from parts of the pig best not mentioned, a treat beloved by Pennsylvanians including author James Michener. Scrapple is a minor plot point in his work The Novel. Mennonites and Amish differ in reconciling with modernity. Solar power okay; but for Old Order Amish, cars still prohibited. No buttons on clothes because it reminds of the Hessian soldiers’ proud glittering uniforms. They have in common the view “Come Ye Out From Among Them,” away from the corrupt English (as they call us). Their independence depends of course, on us. But for our nuclear weapons, Vladimir Putin would be in Lancaster county eating pretzels and scrapple.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        re: ” Their independence depends of course, on us.”

        “limited government” …

        ” It is the irreducible conflict between Liberty and collectivism, free will and authoritarianism, and the origin of individual rights. Should society be assembled largely by self-interested individuals pursuing their own best purposes and living out their faith, or should the sum of any society be defined and controlled by the power of government for the “common good?” ”

        How well do the Mennonites live up to this compared to other religions in the US?

        1. A hard question, because from the Amish perspective it is Godly life, a virtuous life, and a happy one. Other religions, Sunday Christians in particular, fall far short of that. After “Rumspringa” (running around as a teenager) most all young folk return to the Amish. Is their freedom to worship a rigid theocracy? The mistake (they might say) may be our own worship of untrammeled freedom. The Bible is not democratic.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            re: ” Bible is not democratic” nor does it permit representative govt and voting. If the FF were “religious” , then they chose a form of govt that is antithetical to religion, no?

          2. Well, on representative government James Madison might have cited Deuteronomy 1:6-13: “The LORD our God spoke to us at Horeb, saying… Choose wise and discerning and experienced men from your tribes, and I will appoint them as your heads.” How does that explain Congress? Maybe God punishing us for not choosing the wise and discerning, by appointing them anyway.

          3. Well, on representative government James Madison might have cited Deuteronomy 1:6-13: “The LORD our God spoke to us at Horeb, saying… Choose wise and discerning and experienced men from your tribes, and I will appoint them as your heads.” How does that explain Congress? Maybe God punishing us for not choosing the wise and discerning, by appointing them anyway.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar

            Perhaps. But how does that explain what the Founding Fathers actually did choose to do with regard to establishing one-man, one-vote representative government? Were they under the impression that all voters would be “religious” and follow the Bible when voting and not stray? They did not realize that once the individual had a vote that they would exercise “free will” when voting?

          5. Here is the opinion of one of the Founders of our country:

            Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Morality and virtue are the foundation of our republic and necessary for a society to be free.

            –John Adams in his letter to the Massachusetts militia, dated 10/11/1798

            https://www.johnadamsacademy.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=2003858&type=d&pREC_ID=2094472#:~:text=John%20Adams%20said%2C%20%E2%80%9COur%20constitution,a%20society%20to%20be%20free.

          6. LarrytheG Avatar

            re: ” Here is the opinion of one of the Founders of our country:

            Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Morality and virtue are the foundation of our republic and necessary for a society to be free.

            –John Adams in his letter to the Massachusetts militia, dated 10/11/1798

            https://www.johnadamsacadem….”

            right.. that’s what he said.

            Did he put it in the founding documents ?

            Is there a difference between saying something and actually making it law?

            can’t legislate or mandate morality and virtue – that’s the “free will” stuff, right?

          7. It was his opinion.
            Of course he did not put it in our founding documents. What a silly question.

            “…can’t legislate or mandate morality and virtue – that’s the “free will” stuff, right?

            I agree with that. Your defense of “bias reporting systems” indicates that you do not.

          8. LarrytheG Avatar

            re: ” WayneS
            WayneS 12 minutes ago
            It was his opinion.
            Of course he did not put it in our founding documents. What a silly question.

            “…can’t legislate or mandate morality and virtue – that’s the “free will” stuff, right?”

            the point being that opinion versus what one actually puts in a founding document that then becomes the foundation for governance.

            re: ” I agree with that. Your defense of “bias reporting systems” indicates that you do not.”

            be clear and specific. on what basis are you saying this? “capture my comment, then respond”

          9. be clear and specific. on what basis are you saying this? “capture my comment, then respond”

            A comment you made on another thread gleefully postulating that “conservatives” were going to be awfully disappointed when SCOTUS upheld the “bias reporting system” at Virginia Tech.

            If you support bias reporting systems then you support trying to legislate virtue.

          10. LarrytheG Avatar

            no legislation needed, right? What legislation?

  12. walter smith Avatar
    walter smith

    Obviously over the target by the critics and the criticism.
    I particularly like the “they were Deists!” line of attack. In that regard, I think they were orthodox Christians who in light of the Enlightenment struggled with resurrection from the dead. Nonetheless, they were informed by Christian morality and worldview and knowledge of history.
    It is the same struggle today – who is in charge – Man or God. Man acting like God is doomed to failure and I would prefer to avoid it.
    Corruption, lawfare, censorship… all to “Save Our Democracy” is just a modern Tower of Babel, in the form of the currently favored lies of the deceiver, CulturalMarxism. Yes, orthodox preachers of Christianity need to be bold. Unfortunately, there aren’t many of those left. But it isn’t all on the preachers. The congregants need to be publicly bold, as do the non-congregant “allies.”

Leave a Reply