Is Democracy a Godless institution?

[jtkalehua88]

I recently came across a video of an old evangelical that was prominent in the nineties. To be completely honest, the dude is nuts. However, in the video I saw he was discussing the difference between a Constitutional Republic and Democracy.

Let me try to put this in typed words as best I can, I have a learning disorder that involves putting my thoughts into written form, so please bare with me if I don’t make since.

America is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy like many claim. A Constitutional Republic, like America, follows a “document” or “set” of guidelines that our laws revolve around. This document would be the Constitution. A document believed to have been based around Christian values and ethics. (I.E. God-given rights to liberty). Why is murder, for example, illegal? Because to end someone else’s life (including unborn) is gravely wrong. Why is it wrong? Who told us it was wrong? Who told us fraud and bearing false witness is wrong? Who told us adultery is wrong? I think we can all agree our Lord in Heaven did. The laws in the constitution, the document all our laws should be based on, is God’s law. Or at least, is based on God’s law. We know murdering someone is wrong because God told us it is. Otherwise, how we would know what’s right and what’s wrong??

A democracy, on the other hand, bases it’s laws on the will of the people. The opinions of human beings. Not based on a set of natural rights and ethics given to us by a higher power. It’s illegal to murder someone because we know it’s wrong because God told us. As opposed to, in a democracy, it’s illegal to murder someone because it’s mean and we think it should be illegal. Which one sounds scarier to you? Hopefully this makes sense. We need a basic document, or Constitution, that our laws revolve around that includes God’s law. If not, we step into a world of the will of the People, and as we all know, the People sometimes don’t have the best will ever.

We have certain liberties and certain restriction endowed by our Creator. Not by other men. We know what’s moral and what’s ethical because of God. It’s illegal to run around naked in the streets because it’s immoral, how do we know what’s immoral without God telling us?

A Godless institution would result in grave changes in our idea of morals and ethics based on the people’s opinions. Darwin’s theory reeks of serious racism. The survival of the chosen, more “developed” races. It was his opinion that Native and African people were the closest to monkeys, because they weren’t chosen or the strongest genetically. The human family goes out the door, and racism steps in. Social Darwinism. Eugenics, Abortion, Population Control, forced Sterilization, etc. All Godless acts that, in the opinion of a growing number of Americans, are all okay.

What do you guys think? Just my two cents…

 

[polytropos]

A major point of disagreement – not always stated – between Christians and nonbelievers is whether any goods/evils are intrinsic or not. The language of the Declaration about rights given by our Creator would suggest that they are, but many liberal constitutional theorists (Dworkin, for instance) would disagree.

Christians believe that murder, for instance, is an intrinsic evil (both against the person murdered and against oneself). Robert George has pointed out that liberals have in recent court cases restricted pornography for minors not because it is intrinsically immoral but because some people may find it offensive. Pedophilia is intrinsically wrong in Christian sexual ethics (stemming from violations of someone of a literally presexual age), while the main justification for it among secularists is that minors cannot give consent.

I am obviously painting with a broad brush here. But it’s an interesting thing to pay attention to. It is sometimes suggested that Christians and non-Christians agree on a lot. And we do. But there is a sense in which our justifications for the beliefs we do share are totally different, and that will be relevant to the way that America’s moral landscape changes over the coming years.

To answer the question, I don’t think democracy is a godless institution. (I don’t care too much for the distinction between democracy and constitutional republic. In practice, I think all “democracies” will institute a system of checks and balances so there is not a complete rule of the majority.) I think Christians have reason to be wary of the founding principles of our country. “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” can in practice be fairly insubstantial. Rights are narrowly enough defined that courts have little issue changing them.

 

[GEddie]

“Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.”

–Unknown

In a direct democracy, there is no protection of the rights of the minority; whatever the majority says goes; therefore the American Founders were careful NOT to institute democracy as such.

The case of Socrates is a classic example of how unpopular viewpoints might be dealt with in direct democracy. Whereas, in the modern system, the “letter of the law” is a protection for those holding to countercultural viewpoints.

ICXC NIKA

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

There’s a lot to chew on here!

The CIA factbook calls the United States a, “Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition.” (Source)

“Constitution-based” (set of foundational principles, but these principles can be altered as they were on numerous occasions e.g., the 14th amendment)

“federal” (shared powers, e.g., local, state and central (or federal) government)***

“republic” (e.g. rule by representatives)

“strong democratic tradition” (e.g. those representatives serving the will of the people, having been elected by said people, additionally things like ballot initiatives are democratic in nature)

*** = when the CIA factbook uses the word “federal” here, they are not referring to the federal government as one would ordinarily think but rather to the principle of federalism which means the sharing of powers between various levels of government.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

No, the institution of the Spanish Inquisition was a Godless institution.

Do bad things happen, yes, but doesn’t make it Godless.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

(Continued)

I rather disagree with the use of the word “basis”/“bases” in the original post.

For example, you state:

A democracy, on the other hand, bases it’s laws on the will of the people. The opinions of human beings. Not based on a set of natural rights and ethics given to us by a higher power.

and:

The laws in the constitution, the document all our laws should be based on, is God’s law. Or at least, is based on God’s law.

Even if democracy bases its laws on the will of the people, that will could still be to follow God’s law or at least their opinion about the law of God and even in if the U.S. Constitution is based on God’s law, it’s still a bunch of people giving their opinion about God’s law. There’s nothing that inherently makes a few people (e.g. the drafters of the Constitution and those citizens allowed to vote on its ratification at the time) inherently more qualified to determine what God’s laws are/aren’t than the people at large.

Moving on, I don’t actually see any real reason to claim that the U.S. Constitution is based on God’s law. Which is not to say it is “ungodly” in any sense, just that it’s neither here nor there, really. I mean, take a look at the U.S. Constitution and tell me what “God’s law” had to do with it.

It doesn’t outlaw murder (presumably because it did not really need to do that, so it had no reason to address the subject), it doesn’t outlaw theft (again, no need to) or rape (again, no need to), presumably most of the drafters would have recoiled at the thought of adultery but again, nothing about adultery needed to be mentioned there, so it wasn’t. And so on and so on.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

(continued)

Also, you say:

Darwin’s theory reeks of serious racism. The survival of the chosen, more “developed” races. It was his opinion that Native and African people were the closest to monkeys, because they weren’t chosen or the strongest genetically. The human family goes out the door, and racism steps in. Social Darwinism. Eugenics, Abortion, Population Control, forced Sterilization, etc. All Godless acts that, in the opinion of a growing number of Americans, are all okay.

Quite a bit to unpack here as well.

Suffice it to say that:

1. Racism long predates Darwin, still exists today among people that reject the *science *that shows the similarities between human “races”,
2. That the theory that species evolve by natural selection is well-supported,
3. That the theory of evolution by natural selection is a statement about reality not about values,
4. That while Darwin may have believed that certain “races” had inherent differences, that was not too far off from much of the science of the day.

 

[ltwin]

However, in the video I saw he was discussing the difference between a Constitutional Republic and Democracy.

It’s important to have precise definitions. Republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive forms of government. In fact, the two systems relate to two different aspects of government. The United States is both a republic and a democracy. The United States has attributes of a republic in the way that power distribution is structured and a democracy in the way office holders are chosen.

A modern republic is usually defined as a form of representative government that is not led by a monarch. Note “representative government” does not necessarily mean “democratic elected by popular vote.” Representative government could be an oligarchy or an aristocracy. The important point is that republics are not led by monarchs or despots. A constitutional republic means rule by a government whose powers are limited by law or a formal constitution.

The United States is a republic. We are not ruled by a king but instead are governed by a President, Congress, and a Supreme Court. All of these branches of government are themselves subject to the Constitution of the United States. The United States is also an indirect democracy. US citizens elect the President and Congressional representatives who then appoint the members of the Supreme Court according to constitutional principles.

In short, the United States is a constitutional republic that operates according to the principles of liberal democracy.

America is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy like many claim. A Constitutional Republic, like America, follows a “document” or “set” of guidelines that our laws revolve around. This document would be the Constitution. A document believed to have been based around Christian values and ethics. (I.E. God-given rights to liberty). Why is murder, for example, illegal? Because to end someone else’s life (including unborn) is gravely wrong. Why is it wrong? Who told us it was wrong? Who told us fraud and bearing false witness is wrong? Who told us adultery is wrong? I think we can all agree our Lord in Heaven did. The laws in the constitution, the document all our laws should be based on, is God’s law. Or at least, is based on God’s law. We know murdering someone is wrong because God told us it is. Otherwise, how we would know what’s right and what’s wrong??

The Constitution may reflect some truth. However, it is not based on God’s law. It’s concerned with establishing a federal government that is strong enough to be effective but not too strong to take power from the states or liberty from the people.

Murder is not even a federal crime, so I don’t understand how that is supposed to figure into the blessings of constitutional government. Most governments consider murder a crime because most governments are interested in fostering order and stability. Murder is disorderly and fosters instability.

A democracy, on the other hand, bases it’s laws on the will of the people. The opinions of human beings. Not based on a set of natural rights and ethics given to us by a higher power.

The US Constitution, however, has an amendment process which is itself democratic in nature. If enough American citizens wanted it and there was enough political will, the Constitution could be amended to eliminate the “natural rights and ethics” found in the Constitution.

Hopefully this makes sense. We need a basic document, or Constitution, that our laws revolve around that includes God’s law. If not, we step into a world of the will of the People, and as we all know, the People sometimes don’t have the best will ever.

Where do you find God’s law in the Constitution?

We have certain liberties and certain restriction endowed by our Creator. Not by other men. We know what’s moral and what’s ethical because of God. It’s illegal to run around naked in the streets because it’s immoral, how do we know what’s immoral without God telling us?

The Bill of Rights could actually be interpreted to support the legality of public nudity.

A Godless institution would result in grave changes in our idea of morals and ethics based on the people’s opinions. Darwin’s theory reeks of serious racism. The survival of the chosen, more “developed” races. It was his opinion that Native and African people were the closest to monkeys, because they weren’t chosen or the strongest genetically. The human family goes out the door, and racism steps in. Social Darwinism. Eugenics, Abortion, Population Control, forced Sterilization, etc. All Godless acts that, in the opinion of a growing number of Americans, are all okay.

There are no godless institutions, only godless individuals. If those who are in power are immoral, untrustworthy, and corrupt, there is no form of government that can restrain them.

 

[Brendan_64]

There are no godless institutions, only godless individuals. If those who are in power are immoral, untrustworthy, and corrupt, there is no form of government that can restrain them.

That is very true.

Individuals carry out acts of evil, not institutions.

Also the notion that a written and rigid constitution is more ‘godly’ than the more ‘flexible’ law-making process of a democracy does not make much sense. What if the Constitution contains articles and ‘rights’ that contribute to evil being done at a later stage?

The notion that the Constitution of the USA was written by Christian men and based on Christian values is false.

Is Christ or the Bible mentioned in the Constitution? Is God even mentioned? Not once. Why not? Surely if this was created by Christian men, based on Christian values, and at a time when Christianity was the norm then why not make reference to Christ, the Bible, God even? In the declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote that the power of the government is derived from the governed. And that was at a time when the norm was that kings rules nations under the authority of God. This was a radical departure at the time.

“No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Why not? The norm at the time was to maintain the preferential status of Christianity and enshrine Christianity as the religion of the State. Why the sudden departure from this norm? Why set up a State where Christianity was not the preferred religion? Was this concept based on Christian values?

The Treaty of Tripoli stated that the United States was “not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion”. That statement was indeed correct.

The reality is that the Constitution of the United States owes more to the ideals of the Enlightenment than it does to Christianity. The founding fathers thought of themselves as radical ‘free-thinkers’ guided by reason and not faith. Their ideals laid down the foundations for the secular society that is the USA.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The reality is that the Constitution of the United States owes more to the ideals of the Enlightenment than it does to Christianity. The founding fathers thought of themselves as radical ‘free-thinkers’ guided by reason and not faith. Their ideals laid down the foundations for the secular society that is the USA.

At the Constitutional Convention, 1787, James Madison recorded the following remarks made by Benjamin Franklin to the president of the Convention:

"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel; We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Government by Human Wisdom and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.

"I therefore beg leave to move – that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.”

 

[Brendan_64]

Well, if you want to play the quote game, here’s a few for you:

John Adams on the divinity of Christ, "Thus mystery is made a convenient cover for absurdity.”

Thomas Jefferson, “And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors.”

Thomas Jefferson, “Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man.”

Thomas Jefferson, "“The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs.”

Thomas Jefferson, “It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet the one is not three, and the three are not one.”

Thomas Jefferson, “There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.”

Benjamin Franklin, “Lighthouses are more useful than churches.”

Benjamin Franklin, “The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.”

Benjamin Franklin, “I looked around for God’s judgments, but saw no signs of them.”

Benjamin Franklin, "“In the affairs of the world, men are saved not by faith, but by the lack of it.”

John Adams, “This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it.”

Thomas Paine, “The New Testament, they tell us, is founded upon the prophecies of the Old; if so, it must follow the fate of its foundation.”

Thomas Paine, “Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst.”

Thomas Paine, “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. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.”

Thomas Paine, “Take away from Genesis the belief that Moses was the author, on which only the strange belief that it is the word of God has stood, and there remains nothing of Genesis but an anonymous book of stories, fables, and traditionary or invented absurdities, or of downright lies.”

Thomas Paine, “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.”

Thomas Paine, “It is the fable of Jesus Christ, as told in the New Testament, and the wild and visionary doctrine raised thereon, against which I contend. The story, taking it as it is told, is blasphemously obscene.”

George Washington, “Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.”

Abraham Lincoln, “The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession.”

James Madison, “It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov’t from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others.”

James Madison, “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.”

Are these really the words of good Christian men endeavouring to forge a constitution and a nation, based on Christian values? These men did not look to Christianity to underpin their Constitution. The Constitution was drawn up by deists (at best) who looked not to the Bible, but to the ideals of the Enlightenment as their inspiration. Their intention was to create a secular society which, although it permitted people to be Christians, pushing Christianity (and all forms of religion) to the margins in terms of its influence.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Well, if you want to play the quote game, here’s a few for you:

Abraham Lincoln, “The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession.”

O.K. you can cherry pick all the quotes you want, I can do just the same. Here is one to answer your quote from Lincoln that the Bible was not his book.

Proclamation Appointing a National Fast Day

The following document has often been confused with Lincoln’s Thanksgiving Proclamation. Lincoln believed that the civil war was God’s judgment on the nation for it’s sinfulness. And in an omimous echo of the words of the King of Nineveh in Jonah 3:7-8, Lincoln made this proclamation of a national day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer.

Washington, D.C.
March 30, 1863

By the President of the United States of America.

A Proclamation.

Whereas, the Senate of the United States, devoutly recognizing the Supreme Authority and just Government of Almighty God, in all the affairs of men and of nations, has, by a resolution, requested the President to designate and set apart a day for National prayer and humiliation.

And whereas it is the duty of nations as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions, in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord.

And, insomuch as we know that, by His divine law, nations like individuals are subjected to punishments and chastisements in this world, may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war, which now desolates the land, may be but a punishment, inflicted upon us, for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole People? We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!

It behooves us then, to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.

Now, therefore, in compliance with the request, and fully concurring in the views of the Senate, I do, by this my proclamation, designate and set apart Thursday, the 30th. day of April, 1863, as a day of national humiliation, fasting and prayer. And I do hereby request all the People to abstain, on that day, from their ordinary secular pursuits, and to unite, at their several places of public worship and their respective homes, in keeping the day holy to the Lord, and devoted to the humble discharge of the religious duties proper to that solemn occasion.

All this being done, in sincerity and truth, let us then rest humbly in the hope authorized by the Divine teachings, that the united cry of the Nation will be heard on high, and answered with blessings, no less than the pardon of our national sins, and the restoration of our now divided and suffering Country, to its former happy condition of unity and peace.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this thirtieth day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty seventh.

By the President: Abraham Lincoln

I could do the same with all the other authors you cite. Jefferson, while not subscribing to any particular denomination, was a great admirer of the teachings of Jesus Christ and counted himself a Christian in the only important sense of the word.

Likewise for John Adams:

“I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen.”

So let’s not get into a spitting contest about whether the Founders were or were not religious, were or were not Christian. O.K.?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Democracy is a word that can be applied in many different circumstances. The main impulse of democracy is to liberate, but at the same time its power, because it can be pervasive, can also also be called upon by people without conscience to constrain our freedoms when men act falsely in its name. Under a dictatorship you know who and where your dictator is. Under a democracy, your dictator can be anywhere and everywhere.

If you would like to know more about the potential catastrophes that can occur in the name of democracy, read Plato’s Republic.

 

[oldcelt]

Democracy is a word that can be applied in many different circumstances. The main impulse of democracy is to liberate, but at the same time its power, because it can be pervasive, can also also be called upon by people without conscience to constrain our freedoms when men act falsely in its name. Under a dictatorship you know who and where your dictator is. Under a democracy, your dictator can be anywhere and everywhere.

If you would like to know more about the potential catastrophes that can occur in the name of democracy, read Plato’s Republic.

Agreed. Depending on the people involved it can a great system or a formula for tyranny. Self-serving people will try to use any system to their benefit at other’s cost.

 

[GEddie]

Democracy is a word that can be applied in many different circumstances. The main impulse of democracy is to liberate, but at the same time its power, because it can be pervasive, can also also be called upon by people without conscience to constrain our freedoms when men act falsely in its name. Under a dictatorship you know who and where your dictator is. Under a democracy, your dictator can be anywhere and everywhere.

If you would like to know more about the potential catastrophes that can occur in the name of democracy, read Plato’s Republic.

Well, ideally the attraction of democracy is that no-one can become dictator. In practice, it doesn’t work that way: a democratic majority can choose a leader who becomes a dictator; more likely, a still nominal democracy can be hijacked by a hidden tyranny that turns all the heads.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Brendan_64]

So let’s not get into a spitting contest about whether the Founders were or were not religious, were or were not Christian. O.K.?

Well perhaps you can agree that when Thomas Jefferson said, “Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man” or when Thomas Paine said , “It is the fable of Jesus Christ, as told in the New Testament, and the wild and visionary doctrine raised thereon, against which I contend. The story, taking it as it is told, is blasphemously obscene” that they weren’t actually expressing their faith in Christ.

The remarks of Richard Dawkins appear moderate and accommodating of our Faith when compared to the comments of America’s Founding Fathers. But despite their blasphemous, anti-Christian views they went about writing a Constitution based on Christian values? Yeah right, historical revisionism if ever there was.

 

[oldcelt]

Well perhaps you can agree that when Thomas Jefferson said, “Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man” or when Thomas Paine said , “It is the fable of Jesus Christ, as told in the New Testament, and the wild and visionary doctrine raised thereon, against which I contend. The story, taking it as it is told, is blasphemously obscene” that they weren’t actually expressing their faith in Christ.

The remarks of Richard Dawkins appear moderate and accommodating of our Faith when compared to the comments of America’s Founding Fathers. But despite their blasphemous, anti-Christian views they went about writing a Constitution based on Christian values? Yeah right, historical revisionism if ever there was.

Absolutely…the founders intended to at very least reduce the power of the churches. They had seen what happened in Europe, and they din’t want a repeat here. King and Church were more often than not allies. The founders got rid of one and highly limited the other.

So, Yes, Democracy is a godless system, or is intended to be.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Well perhaps you can agree that when Thomas Jefferson said, “Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man” or when Thomas Paine said , “It is the fable of Jesus Christ, as told in the New Testament, and the wild and visionary doctrine raised thereon, against which I contend. The story, taking it as it is told, is blasphemously obscene” that they weren’t actually expressing their faith in Christ.

Then you have this from Jefferson:

“To the corruption 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 anyone to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others.”

So which is it? Do you want to keep on spitting against Jefferson? If you do, be prepared to find the spit ending up on your own face because there are other quotes I can bring up by which Jefferson shows that while he is against institutional Christianity, he is not at all against the teachings of Christ.

So can we just agree to disagree and stop this spitting contest?

 

[polytropos]

while he is against institutional Christianity, he is not at all against the teachings of Christ.

I know a lot of Catholics who would regard this as a contradiction. “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.”

 

[Ion]

I recently came across a video of an old evangelical that was prominent in the nineties. To be completely honest, the dude is nuts. However, in the video I saw he was discussing the difference between a Constitutional Republic and Democracy.

Let me try to put this in typed words as best I can, I have a learning disorder that involves putting my thoughts into written form, so please bare with me if I don’t make since.

America is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy like many claim. A Constitutional Republic, like America, follows a “document” or “set” of guidelines that our laws revolve around. This document would be the Constitution. A document believed to have been based around Christian values and ethics. (I.E. God-given rights to liberty). Why is murder, for example, illegal? Because to end someone else’s life (including unborn) is gravely wrong. Why is it wrong? Who told us it was wrong? Who told us fraud and bearing false witness is wrong? Who told us adultery is wrong? I think we can all agree our Lord in Heaven did. The laws in the constitution, the document all our laws should be based on, is God’s law. Or at least, is based on God’s law. We know murdering someone is wrong because God told us it is. Otherwise, how we would know what’s right and what’s wrong??

A democracy, on the other hand, bases it’s laws on the will of the people. The opinions of human beings. Not based on a set of natural rights and ethics given to us by a higher power. It’s illegal to murder someone because we know it’s wrong because God told us. As opposed to, in a democracy, it’s illegal to murder someone because it’s mean and we think it should be illegal. Which one sounds scarier to you? Hopefully this makes sense. We need a basic document, or Constitution, that our laws revolve around that includes God’s law. If not, we step into a world of the will of the People, and as we all know, the People sometimes don’t have the best will ever.

We have certain liberties and certain restriction endowed by our Creator. Not by other men. We know what’s moral and what’s ethical because of God. It’s illegal to run around naked in the streets because it’s immoral, how do we know what’s immoral without God telling us?

A Godless institution would result in grave changes in our idea of morals and ethics based on the people’s opinions. Darwin’s theory reeks of serious racism. The survival of the chosen, more “developed” races. It was his opinion that Native and African people were the closest to monkeys, because they weren’t chosen or the strongest genetically. The human family goes out the door, and racism steps in. Social Darwinism. Eugenics, Abortion, Population Control, forced Sterilization, etc. All Godless acts that, in the opinion of a growing number of Americans, are all okay.

What do you guys think? Just my two cents…

Well basically this is what happened by the winds of the atheism. The Constitution, democratically voted and rooted in christian morals, became the piece of paper with the rules, and any further interference of the morals is considered rooted in religion and thus a source of discrimination.