Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Guest post: Harry, on the misanthropy (so, disregard for life) of the lawless elite


UD sometimes hosts guest posts, some by request, some by promotion of comments. This is one of the latter. A key point is his note that the toll of our living posterity in the womb is now two billions (I can readily show 800+ millions and can plausibly support the 1.4 billion statistics I have seen). Similarly, the mismanagement of the Covid-19 pandemic shows sobering disregard for life and duties of care. We need to ask how we have come to this, within living memory of the Nuremberg trials.

Without endorsing beyond “this is food for thought” we need to consider Harry’s concerns and considerations:

>>The outrageous corruption of the godless elite is finally coming into the light of day. It didn’t reach such depths of depravity, such complete lack of respect for human life overnight. The diabolical nature of the present corruption developed into its current nightmarish form over decades, actually over centuries, since it was conceived in the militant atheism that arose with the so-called Enlightenment, and has now matured into a monster that dominates the institutions of what was once Christendom.

We are now at two-billion innocent human lives taken by “legal” abortion worldwide. The greatest holocaust of innocent human life in the history of the world began only a few decades after the Nuremberg Trials established that the state has no authority whatsoever to legalize the murder of innocent humanity; its prosecutors treated “legal” abortion as a crime against humanity; defendants who demonstrated that they had done nothing illegal under Nazi law were hanged. Why? Because the state simply has no authority whatsoever to legalize the murder of innocent humanity. Murder is intrinsically illegal and can’t be made legal.

How did the world, so soon after defeating the Nazis by paying an unprecedented price in blood and tears, and so soon after condemning them at Nuremberg, resume the basic Nazi error? That error was, of course, to deify the state. Only a self-deified state that makes itself into a god claims the authority to “legalize” the murder of innocent humanity. After all, if there is no God then the state, for all practical purposes, is a god with no authority above its own. Such an atheocracy inevitably assumes that if there is no God managing the human herd, directing its evolution, then somebody has to ensure the survival of only the fittest. Self-appointed, godless social engineers in cooperation with the self-deified state must direct the culling of the herd.

Understanding this puts the thwarting of effective treatments for Covid in perspective. One realizes that the godless elite has decided that two-billion lives taken by “legal” abortion isn’t sufficient; they must further cull the human herd. [–> Note, Harry’s inference per fair comment, note Mr Gates’ notorious on camera comment on reducing population starting with by use of vaccines] The ideal human population, according to the population controllers, is around 1.5 to 2 billion people.(1) You, dear reader, are disposable surplus that is causing problems — at least you are that according to the reigning atheocracy.

Again, how was it that the basic Nazi error was so quickly put into practice again? In today’s computerized world it is helpful if one thinks of the Nuremberg Trials as an official declaration that a database was indeed terribly corrupted; the data was corrected, but the root cause of its corruption was never corrected. So the database, of course, quickly became corrupted again. And what was the root cause of the corruption that was never dealt with? John Quincy Adams described the basic cause long ago. In his 1839 Jubilee of the Constitution discourse he repeatedly contrasts “the judgment of the sovereign constituent people, responsible only to God” and the “grossly immoral and dishonest doctrine of despotic state sovereignty, the exclusive judge of its own obligations, and responsible to no power on earth or in heaven for the violation of them.” The latter is the case today under the reigning atheocracy, and profoundly so. Sovereignty rests in the people, not in a godless state. That is what made the American revolution different from all previous revolutions in history; the people didn’t want a new [absolute] king or a new [unaccountable] ruler, they wanted public servants:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness — it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The activities of public servants are constrained by the “consent of the governed.” The activities of the currently reigning atheocracy is constrained by nothing whatsoever. Whatever they have the power to do they will do. Ultimately sovereignty rests in the people, “responsible only to God,” as John Quincy Adams made clear. Americans must reassert this basic principle.

Another point should be made for the sake of those who will dismiss the thinking of America’s founding generation as hypocritical because the revolution didn’t end slavery. Consider the thoughts of Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens shortly before the Civil War actually began:

The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day, (2)

Stephens was right about the founding generation believing that slavery was “in violation of the laws of Nature.” The reason the American Constitution, quite temporarily in the eyes of the founders, “secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last,” was that, as Stephens puts it, “It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with,” and they were convinced it would soon be gone anyway, as Horace Greeley confirmed in 1856:

The old Articles of Confederation having proved inadequate to the creation and maintenance of a capable and efficient national or central authority, a Convention of Delegates from the several States was legally assembled in Philadelphia, in 1787 — George Washington President; and the result of its labors was our present Federal Constitution … It will be noted that the word “slave,” or “slavery” does not appear therein. Mr. Madison, who was a leading and observant member of the Convention, and who took notes of its daily proceedings, affirms that this silence was designed — the Convention being unwilling that the Constitution of the United States should recognize property in human beings. … Contemporary history proves that it was the belief of at least a large portion of the delegates that Slavery could not long survive the final stoppage of the the slave-trade, which was expected to (and did) occur in 1808. (3)

To accuse the founding generation of being fundamentally racist (which is done by critical race theory) because their revolution didn’t end slavery is as ridiculous as it would be to accuse today’s Christians of being pro-abortion because they don’t see clearly how to end “legal” baby murder. We are working on it; and we will continue to work on it, although there is a lesson for us from American history and from Sacred Scripture.

The lesson from American history

The founding generation was right that the evil of slavery would be ended by God’s Providence, although they weren’t expecting that to happen through the unprecedented carnage of the Civil War. Lincoln described the situation as follows:

The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!” [Mt 18:7] If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope — fervently do we pray — that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled up by the bond-man’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.” [Ps 19:9] (4)

“two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil” cried out to God for justice:

Behold, the wages you withheld from the workers who harvested your fields are crying aloud, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts.
James 5:4

So does the innocent blood of two-billion innocent children:

What has thou done? The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth to me from the earth.
Genesis 4:10

In our case the question isn’t “What hast thou done?” but “What hast thou done about it?” After all, God gave “both North and South, this terrible war.” The North hadn’t used their God-given freedom sufficiently to end slavery; apparently God wanted more Abolitionist fervor than he saw in the North as a whole.

In the same way, if “legal” baby murder, “having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove” God may not restrict His chastisement to the godless elite. He asks each of us “What hast thou done?” as in “What have you done about it?”

The lesson from Sacred Scripture

Whether it was the Egyptians, or the Midianites or the Philistines who were oppressing/enslaving God’s people, the reason God allowed it was that it was God’s chastisement for idolatry. God would hand His people over to oppression or slavery by the nation whose false god they had worshiped.

The reason Christianity is disintegrating throughout what was once Christendom is our failure to realistically resist the state’s usurpation of authority over innocent human life that belongs only to God. The state has no authority whatsoever to “legalize” the murder of innocent humanity. To fail to unceasingly resist that usurpation is to render unto Caesar that which belongs only to God. That is idolatry, which, besides being the destruction of Christendom, brings down God’s chastisement upon us.

The Nazis didn’t think they did anything illegal when they culled humanity of those deemed by them to be “unfit.” Nor do contemporary abortionists think they have done anything illegal when they kill wiggling, kicking babies more viable than patients routinely cared for in modern neonatal intensive care units. Nor does the godless atheocracy when it suppresses effective Covid treatments.

Yet murder is still intrinsically illegal. The Nazis couldn’t have been more wrong. Contemporary abortionists couldn’t be more wrong. The population controllers couldn’t be more wrong. And contemporary Christianity couldn’t be more wrong in failing to aggressively resist “legal” murder, which isn’t just killing babies and those refused effective treatment for Covid, it is killing Christianity itself due to the idolatry inherent in signaling to Caesar our approval by our failure to realistically resist it.

The future is up to you.

In order to save Christianity God will have to chastise us. The question is will He hand us over to oppression by the tyrannical atheocracy for generations to get our attention? Or will He allow us to go on as a free people after a chastisement, like He did after the Civil War?

Things are coming to a head because the peaceful means of changing government policy has been removed from us by election-rigging and massive voter fraud on the part of the atheocracy. How are we going to have a peaceful election in November when the majority of Americans believe the current regime assumed power fraudulently? And they don’t plan relinquishing their power peacefully. Things are going to get chaotic.

Make your mind up now to do the right thing no matter what happens, and do so with the fervor of a flaming Abolitionist, and God may yet have mercy on us, and on our children and grandchildren.

(1) http://www.theguardian.com/env…..ul-ehrlich(Some estimates of the ideal world population are much lower, around a half-billion)
(2) Cornerstone Speech; Savannah, Georgia; March 21, 1861
(3) A History of the Struggle for Slavery Extension or Restriction in the United States from the Declaration of Independence to the Present Day; Horace Greeley; New York: Dix, Edwards & Co., 221 Broadway; 1856
(4) Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, 1865.>>

Food for thought. Is Harry uncomfortably near to truth? Has Malthusianism gone mad? Have we fatally undermined the perceived value of life? Is he readily dismissed? What do the ghosts have to say on it? Why? END

PS: A note on the challenge of lawlessness:

Sev, the issue is lawless oligarchy, and the history of the past 100 or so years shows that radical secularist regimes created the all time worst tyrannies. As to state religions, there were and are dangers but the truth be told, the fairly modern history of the UK, Germany, Scandinavia etc shows that responsible liberty can be present with such; just as there have been many monarchies compatible with responsible liberty, anyone care to call Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, defender of the Faith etc a THREAT to liberty? Having a state church is not equivalent to a lawless oligarchy with rulers claiming to be gods or to be God's priests or prophets or appointed etc, or for that matter the vanguard of the bright future for the proletariat or the rescuers of the nation and race stabbed in the back. The issue is the breakdown of the BATNA of lawfulness leading to lawless oligarchy. Where, it is quite clear that across the world for a generation, under false colour of law there has been the mass slaughter of our living posterity in the womb, 800+ millions, mounting at about another million per week, an indictment effectively across the board. KF kairosfocus
The problem is not the widespread existence of religious belief, the problem is a humanity, whether religious or not, which is corruptible by unfettered access to power. We have more than sufficient examples from history and the present day of how oppressive theocratic regimes can be. Jefferson clearly was aware of the risks and sought to prevent anything like that happening here. As long as there is a guaranteed right to believe or not believe as one chooses, then there is absolutely no case for the establishment of a state religion and we should be deeply suspicious of any move towards one. Seversky
In the last paragraph of my last post substitute "religious" for "religion". It tried to edit it but it won't change. [--> tried to correct, Wordfenced] harry
To see how badly Jefferson's remark about the separation of Church and State has been deliberately distorted by the atheocracy see: https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-resolution/397/text A few excerpts:
Whereas in 1777, Congress, facing a National shortage of “Bibles for our schools, and families, and for the public worship of God in our churches,” announced that they “desired to have a Bible printed under their care & by their encouragement” and therefore ordered 20,000 copies of the Bible to be imported “into the different ports of the States of the Union”; Whereas in 1782, Congress pursued a plan to print a Bible that would be “a neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools” and therefore approved the production of the first English language Bible printed in America that contained the congressional endorsement that “the United States in Congress assembled … recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States"; ... Whereas in 1789, the first Federal Congress, the Congress that framed the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, appropriated Federal funds to pay chaplains to pray at the opening of all sessions, a practice that has continued to this day, with Congress not only funding its congressional chaplains but also the salaries and operations of more than 4,500 military chaplains; Whereas in 1789, Congress, in the midst of framing the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment, passed the first Federal law touching education, declaring that “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged”; Whereas in 1789, on the same day that Congress finished drafting the First Amendment, it requested President Washington to declare a National day of prayer and thanksgiving, resulting in the first Federal official Thanksgiving proclamation that declared “it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor”; Whereas in 1800, Congress enacted naval regulations requiring that Divine service be performed twice every day aboard “all ships and vessels in the navy,” with a sermon preached each Sunday; Whereas in 1800, Congress approved the use of the just-completed Capitol structure as a church building, with Divine services to be held each Sunday in the Hall of the House, alternately administered by the House and Senate chaplains; ... Whereas President George Washington declared “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports”; Whereas President John Adams, one of only 2 signers of the Bill of Rights and First Amendment, declared “As the safety and prosperity of nations ultimately and essentially depend on the protection and the blessing of Almighty God, and the national acknowledgment of this truth is not only an indispensable duty which the people owe to Him”; Whereas President Jefferson not only attended Divine services at the Capitol throughout his presidency and had the Marine Band play at the services, but during his administration church services were also begun in the War Department and the Treasury Department, thus allowing worshippers on any given Sunday the choice to attend church at either the United States Capitol, the War Department, or the Treasury Department if they so desired; Whereas Thomas Jefferson urged local governments to make land available specifically for Christian purposes, provided Federal funding for missionary work among Indian tribes, and declared that religious schools would receive “the patronage of the government”; Whereas President Andrew Jackson declared that the Bible “is the rock on which our Republic rests”; Whereas President Abraham Lincoln declared that the Bible “is the best gift God has given to men . . . But for it, we could not know right from wrong” ...
See also: Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892) Where you see "Syllabus Case" click on "Case" Scroll down to "Page 143 U.S. 465" where Supreme Court Justice Brewer begins explaining, using historical documents, that the United States is a Christian nation. That doesn't mean it was ever meant to be a theocracy, or ever meant to have an established state religion (which is what Jefferson was talking about in his remarks to the Danbury Baptists). It also doesn't mean that religion thinking is to be banned from the public square or from public schools, or that objecting to "legal" murder is an attempt to impose a theocracy upon the public. Rule #1 of civilized society is that the powerful can't kill the less powerful simply because doing so serves their purposes. One doesn't need any religion convictions at all to realize that. harry
CD, your hostility is distorting your judgement. There is a huge difference between a general Christian consensus and a power structure that creates a lawless oligarchy dominated by clerics. And you know it. Meanwhile you are ducking the direct evidence that bracketing the US DoI, we find CONGRESS issuing calls to penitent prayer, petition and thanksgiving driven by the known Reformation theology of a dual covenant understanding of nationhood and government under God with consent of the governed. In those calls to prayer a specifically covenantal word appears, blessings. It is associated with liberty and peace. Then, over a decade later, the Constitution begins with the same cluster. Further, a glance at the Westphalia settlement will give a direct precedent for the presence of local unit established churches but no federal church of the United States [as opposed to the germanies]. Where, there are steps taken to assure that freikirke were protected from the Federal state and the landeskirke. As for separation of church and state, that was specifically the protection of dissenters, aka Baptists etc. It has been distorted into the suspicion and hidden anti-religious test that we now see. BTW, the letter that your "jurisprudence" comes from was a letter by a sitting president . . . not a Supreme Court ruling or the like much less a law issued by Congress in violation of Amdt 1 . . . to reassure dissenter Baptists that their freedoms would be respected, it is NOT in the text of the US Constitution which spoke to there not being a federal landeskirk. There has been a lot of tendentious revisionising that distorts fairly clear facts in service to agendas that plainly cannot stand up to even something as simple as calls to national prayer in a context of understanding that nationhood is under God, our creator, Judge and source of goodness; issued by the Congress. Not just once or twice, repeatedly. And as to the text of the DoI, it would be interesting for you to compare it to the Dutch -- predominantly Calvinist -- declaration of 1581 under William the Silent of Orange, relative to Philip II of Spain. Finally, abortion is pivotal to the OP and it is associated with the largest, and ongoing holocaust ever, worse than Mao, Stalin or that laggard Schicklegruber. This is the central horror of our day, well within living memory of those earlier holocausts. The distortions of law, government, policy, courts, law enforcement, professions, education, media etc to sustain it indict us. KF kairosfocus
Separation of church and state is not a 20th century concept, it has been with us from the very establishment of the union
Yet there were state official religions into the mid 19th century. Jefferson’s comment only meant that congress could not establish a national religion and had no effect on the states. The concept of separation was essentially forgotten til 1947 when the Supreme Court invoked it in a decision about busing of children to non-public schools. And Christmas is a federal holiday. jerry
KF is making a distinction without a difference and advocating a de facto Christian theocracy. In fact, some of his notions skate dangerously close to a theonomy. I'm not sure why KF tosses in abortion, a topic which I don't discuss in forums. You can conclude whatever you want by my "silence," but it is irrelevant to the OP topic. As to our friend, Jerry, President Jefferson, in his well-known 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists, wrote:
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
Jefferson's language "building a wall of separation between church and state" forms the jurisprudential basis for virtually every freedom of religion case brought in US courts. Separation of church and state is not a 20th century concept, it has been with us from the very establishment of the union, because Jefferson and Madison made sure that it was there... chuckdarwin
The outrageous corruption of the godless elite (...) After all, if there is no God
And I guess the pope is an atheist. Lol. You guys are ruled by christian elitists. Your presidents and rulers are stounch bible trumpers. The baby holocaust happens because the greatest generation is dead, and all what is left are cowards hiding behind the cross. How many millions more have to die until you say enough is enough? AndyClue
There were several Protestant religions practiced in the colonies at the time of the constitution as well as small communities of Catholics. About 99.99% of the people were Christians. That is why there was no national religion. England while having an official religion allowed the practice of other Protestant religions. One of the absurdities of the Stuart dynasty was that James II was a Catholic and head of the Church of England. There were however, several US states that had an official religion. It was not against the Constitution. Most were Anglican but there were others. These eventually were rescinded but at the beginning there was no secular state anywhere. Separation of Church and State is a 20th century concept. I have not read any of Kf’s or Harry’s post to know exactly what they are advocating. It’s insane to think that any group could establish a state form of religion today. It’s possible to argue that the lack of religious belief is what is causing the current divide. But no one wants a state religion anywhere jerry
PS, I have added to OP, a chart about lawless oligarchy. kairosfocus
CD, your strawman continues. There is a world of difference between a state-church and a nation where the people acknowledge that God is the author of creation, that there are built in laws that are in core part self evident (starting with conscience) and that such reflect the inherent goodness and utter wisdom of the creator. Even, than a nation which -- as the US population and leadership shared the consensus that nationhood is under God and government is also under God towards justice, with the consent of the governed. Where, the core of law is also therefore in key parts intelligible to the eye of the upright person who uses right reason guided by sound conscience. The legitimate concern about lawless oligarchy is not tied to the church [that is an old slander in key part refuted by precisely the history you go along with the suppression of, and by the sad history of the all time worst tyrannies of the past century in such "theocracies"-- not -- as Stalin's Russia, Schicklegruber's Germany, Mao's China etc] but to elites in circumstances where accountability before justice and the people is low. I note that the substance of the First Amendment actually reflects the 1648 Westphalia settlement, modified to republican circumstances, there being nine established churches in the states at that time. There would be no established federal church of the USA as a whole, congress was forbidden from jurisdiction over such, and there would be freedom to exercise one's faith and associated activities such as assembly, press, petition etc. The documents I have pointed to are there and they show the circumstances, regardless of what has been done since to bury those facts. But then, I am simply noting for record, and further note your silence in the face of the ongoing holocaust, among other concerns. KF kairosfocus
KF You just don't get it. First, Harry very clearly implies, if not outright suggests--at least that is the way I read it-- that the best remedy against America's "tyrannical atheocracy" (which I don't think is an actual word) is a Christan theocracy. The obvious corollary to "atheocracy" is theocracy. And, the suggestion of theocracy, IMO, it is one of the most dangerous and anti-American positions one can take. Second, your OP and comments are shot through with calls to Christian theocracy. It couldn't be clearer than in your reference to the "Continental-Confederation Congress" which promoted Christianity as the national religion. It was precisely this sentiment against which both Madison and Jefferson, both deists (as am I), recoiled and which directly led to the Bill of Rights. Madison spent months drafting the first amendment, the purpose of which was to ensure against establishment of a state endorsed or sponsored religion. He placed it first among rights to guarantee that all Americans would have not only freedom of religion but also freedom from religion. The first amendment was heavily based upon the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom drafted by Jefferson in 1776 and endorsed by Madison which was enacted in 1786. This is no strawman, my friend, it is the law of the land and the surest antidote for tyranny... chuckdarwin
FYI: I clip, the calls of 1776 and 1777 by the Congress, bracketing the Declaration as already cited:
May 1776: In times of impending calamity and distress; when the liberties of America are imminently endangered by the secret machinations and open assaults of an insidious and vindictive administration, it becomes the indispensable duty of these hitherto free and happy colonies, with true penitence of heart, and the most reverent devotion, publickly to acknowledge the over ruling providence of God; to confess and deplore our offences against him; and to supplicate his interposition for averting the threatened danger, and prospering our strenuous efforts in the cause of freedom, virtue, and posterity.. . . Desirous, at the same time, to have people of all ranks and degrees duly impressed with a solemn sense of God's superintending providence, and of their duty, devoutly to rely, in all their lawful enterprizes, on his aid and direction, Do earnestly recommend, that Friday, the Seventeenth day of May next, be observed by the said colonies as a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that we may, with united hearts, confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and, by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his righteous displeasure, and, through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness; humbly imploring his assistance to frustrate the cruel purposes of our unnatural enemies; . . . that it may please the Lord of Hosts, the God of Armies, to animate our officers and soldiers with invincible fortitude, to guard and protect them in the day of battle, and to crown the continental arms, by sea and land, with victory and success: Earnestly beseeching him to bless our civil rulers, and the representatives of the people, in their several assemblies and conventions; to preserve and strengthen their union, to inspire them with an ardent, disinterested love of their country; to give wisdom and stability to their counsels; and direct them to the most efficacious measures for establishing the rights of America on the most honourable and permanent basis—That he would be graciously pleased to bless all his people in these colonies with health and plenty, and grant that a spirit of incorruptible patriotism, and of pure undefiled religion, may universally prevail; and this continent be speedily restored to the blessings of peace and liberty, and enabled to transmit them inviolate to the latest posterity. And it is recommended to Christians of all denominations, to assemble for public worship, and abstain from servile labour on the said day. December 1777: FORASMUCH as it is the indispensable Duty of all Men to adore the superintending Providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with Gratitude their Obligation to him for benefits received, and to implore such farther Blessings as they stand in Need of; And it having pleased him in his abundant Mercy not only to continue to us the innumerable Bounties of his common Providence, but also to smile upon us in the Prosecution of a just and necessary War, for the Defence and Establishment of our unalienable Rights and Liberties; particularly in that he hath been pleased in so great a Measure to prosper the Means used for the Support of our Troops and to crown our Arms with most signal success: It is therefore recommended to the legislative or executive powers of these United States, to set apart THURSDAY, the eighteenth Day of December next, for Solemn Thanksgiving and Praise; That with one Heart and one Voice the good People may express the grateful Feelings of their Hearts, and consecrate themselves to the Service of their Divine Benefactor; and that together with their sincere Acknowledgments and Offerings, they may join the penitent Confession of their manifold Sins, whereby they had forfeited every Favour, and their humble and earnest Supplication that it may please GOD, through the Merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of Remembrance; That it may please him graciously to afford his Blessing on the Governments of these States respectively, and prosper the public Council of the whole; to inspire our Commanders both by Land and Sea, and all under them, with that Wisdom and Fortitude which may render them fit Instruments, under the Providence of Almighty GOD, to secure for these United States the greatest of all human blessings, INDEPENDENCE and PEACE; That it may please him to prosper the Trade and Manufactures of the People and the Labour of the Husbandman, that our Land may yet yield its Increase; To take Schools and Seminaries of Education, so necessary for cultivating the Principles of true Liberty, Virtue and Piety, under his nurturing Hand, and to prosper the Means of Religion for the promotion and enlargement of that Kingdom which consisteth “in Righteousness, Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost.”[i.e. Cites Rom 14:9] [Source: Journals of the American Congress From 1774 to 1788 (Washington: Way and Gideon, 1823), Vol. I, pp. 286-287 & II, pp. 309 - 310.]
The Library of Congress commented:
The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men . . . both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity . . . . Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people . . . The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the "public prosperity" of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a "spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens," Congress declared to the American people, would "make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people."
In short, history has already been rewritten tendentiously and needs to be corrected to reflect a more accurate view as drawn out through these considerations. kairosfocus
The United States was founded explicitly and deliberately as a secular republic and any suggestion otherwise is an inappropriate attempt to re-write history.
You do know this is nonsense. Maybe you should stop posting any opinions and just ask an occasional question. jerry
CD, you have set up and knocked over a strawman caricature. Harry pointed to a telling case on the judgement of consequences as highlighted by Lincoln, he said nothing about a so-called theocracy. What he does imply is that God is Lord of all and our insistence on wicked folly can be predictably disastrous. That is not very different from Plato's parable of the ship of state or the live case in Ac 27 of a literal voyage of folly. I defy you to find theocracy in either of those. Now, as a card carrying evolutionary materialist, your defence of our policy of over a billion dead from abortion in living memory of the Holocaust is _______ ? We are curious to hear it. KF PS, US DoI:
When . . . it becomes necessary for one people . . . to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God [--> natural law context is explicit] entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 - 21, 2:14 - 15; note, law as "the highest reason," per Cicero on received consensus], that all men are created equal [--> note, equality of humanity], that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights [--> thus there are correlative duties and freedoms framed by the balance], that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . . . We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions [Cf. Judges 11:27], do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
PPS, while you are at it, kindly explain to us the meaning of a reference to the blessings of liberty in the opening words of the US Constitution given say the Us Continental Congress calls to penitent prayer and thanksgiving in say 1776, 1777 and 1779. I put it to you the US was conceived as a nation under the acknowledged Lordship of the risen Christ, recognised as God incarnate, and as guided by the ethics of Christ, with their understanding of our built in law of our nature as shaped by ethical theism. If you doubt, kindly read Blackstone on same and compare the relevant state documents and calls to prayer. kairosfocus
Quite a rant. The disturbing takeaway from Harry's screed is this:
The question is will [God] hand us over to oppression by the tyrannical atheocracy (sic) for generations to get our attention?
For someone so ostensibly steeped in constitutional history, Harry shows a dangerous view of American constitutional law. The mere suggestion that (an assumably Christian) theocracy would provide some type of redeeming alternative to "tyrannical atheocracy" is anathema to the founding principles of our republic and a direct assault on the First Amendment. The United States was founded explicitly and deliberately as a secular republic and any suggestion otherwise is an inappropriate attempt to re-write history. chuckdarwin
Guest post: Harry, on the misanthropy (so, disregard for life) of the lawless elite kairosfocus

Leave a Reply