Is Democracy a Godless institution?

[oldcelt]

I have to disagree with much of what you say here.

First, the constitution in the 1st Amendment protects the right to worship as one pleases. The founders provided this Amendment to insure that the State could not control the Churches. As you probably know, that is precisely what the State is attempting to do under the present Administration. The Church is in the Courts right now attempting to overturn the attempt of the Administration to discriminate against Catholic teachings.

Yes, a democratic system can be inimical to religion, but only if people allow it to be. We have the Courts to address the abuse of government power used against organized religion. There being no state religion, all religions have an equal chance to survive. The people vote with their feet to attend the church of their choice. Ruling classes have not been eliminated in America, unless you mean inherited aristocracy running the government. But even that is in doubt. The aristocracy today is not one of inheritance, but of money. Money talks, babbles even, and certainly rules.

To be honest, I think we may be witnessing the last great hurrah of religion in government. Throughout my life I have seen a gradual increase in religiosity in politics. When the Moral Majority formed it was a blatant effort to see that Christians ruled the nation. That trend has slowed and I think that people are gradually becoming suspicious of those who promote their religion while representing them.

Our nation is simply too diverse to permit any one religion to hold sway in congress. Since religion won’t help politicians win in the future, it won’t be used as a tactic.

As Garry Goldwater said about the GOP:

Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the
[Republican] party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a
terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and
governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting
in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried
to deal with them. ~ Barry Goldwater

That is from a man who had been in the trenches of a representative Democracy and was at one time considered to be Mr. Conservative.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

To be honest, I think we may be witnessing the last great hurrah of religion in government.

I think not. The purpose of religion is not only to save souls, but to build character. The current state of the culture is pathetically minus character. You may not agree, but it is minus character. This is not the fault of religion. It is the fault of the decline of religiosity among the American people. Atheism is wrecking this culture. But the Church has been counted out as dead and gone many times over the last two thousand years. Yet, like Christ, it keeps rising from its tomb. It will rise again when the world has had enough of the current rottenness.

As Voltaire put it:

“The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability….That was how things went with the Roman Senate which was almost entirely composed of atheists in theory and in practice, that is to say, who believed in neither a Providence nor a future life; this senate was an assembly of philosophers, of sensualists and ambitious men, all very dangerous men, who ruined the republic." (from Voltaire’s essay “On Atheism”).

That is precisely what the American government today is doing to America, and it is doing it in every branch of the government. Fortunately, the Founders guaranteed the protection of religious freedom. So the atheists will find that in the First Amendment they have a very hard nut to crack. Right now the Catholic bishops are testing the hardness of that nut in the federal courts. We’ll see.

(By the way, none of the founders were documented atheists.)

 

[oldcelt]

I think not. The purpose of religion is not only to save souls, but to build character. The current state of the culture is pathetically minus character. You may not agree, but it is minus character. This is not the fault of religion. It is the fault of the decline of religiosity among the American people. Atheism is wrecking this culture. But the Church has been counted out as dead and gone many times over the last two thousand years. Yet, like Christ, it keeps rising from its tomb. It will rise again when the world has had enough of the current rottenness.

As Voltaire put it:

“The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability….That was how things went with the Roman Senate which was almost entirely composed of atheists in theory and in practice, that is to say, who believed in neither a Providence nor a future life; this senate was an assembly of philosophers, of sensualists and ambitious men, all very dangerous men, who ruined the republic." (from Voltaire’s essay “On Atheism”).

That is precisely what the American government today is doing to America, and it is doing it in every branch of the government. Fortunately, the Founders guaranteed the protection of religious freedom. So the atheists will find that in the First Amendment they have a very hard nut to crack. Right now the Catholic bishops are testing the hardness of that nut in the federal courts. We’ll see.

(By the way, none of the founders were documented atheists.)

I should have said the last great hurrah of religion for some time. The people in Congress who wear their religion on their sleeve are exactly who Goldwater was talking about and people are catching on that nothing happens without compromise. To get things moving forward, they gotta go.
Years from now, people will forget and they will make another comeback. So far as Voltaire, as with most people who write such things. he thought that he was the only man with virtue.
Of the founders, two would not surprise me…Franklin and Jefferson, but you’re right, no Atheists are documented. I also think Lincoln was Deist or Atheist, but that’s another generation.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I also think Lincoln was Deist or Atheist, but that’s another generation.

Whatever he was, near the end of the war he was making plans to visit Jerusalem after the end of his second term. That strongly suggests a change of heart during the course of the war.

 

[oldcelt]

Whatever he was, near the end of the war he was making plans to visit Jerusalem after the end of his second term. That strongly suggests a change of heart during the course of the war.

Or a man looking for answers we typically ask when horrid things happen.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

“those who live by mystery & charlatanerie, fearing you would render them useless by simplifying the Christian philosophy, the most sublime & benevolent, but most perverted system that ever shone on man, endeavored to crush your well earnt, & well deserved fame”

That was a direct attack on the Church. Jefferson was a Deist who denied the divinity of Jesus. He admired Jesus as a moral teacher, as a mere mortal man. He admired the ‘philosophy’ of Jesus, but viewed Christianity(as a religion) as being the most perverted system ever created.

He wrote his own ‘Jefferson Bible’ that completely excluded any hint of divinity or any miracles. He viewed Jesus merely as a mortal, moral philosopher. He viewed Christianity as being a perversion of the truth (the truth being that Jesus was merely mortal) and a system designed to crush human endeavour.

Well I know a lot about Jefferson and I mostly do not disagree with what you say, but I have to question your agenda here when you purposefully exclude “the most sublime & benevolent” for unclear reasons, but explicitly quote “the most perverted system that ever shone on man.”

I am simply not prepared to say that such a man is anti-Christian. Does he have numerous disagreements with the Catholic Church? Yes, certainly. But anti-Christian? I could not say that.

I would also urge everyone reading such a quotation to consider not only the context but also the definition of the word “perverted,” not necessarily it’s common usage. That is to say, if I said, “the U.S. Constitution is the most perverted document in history,” I am not necessarily calling it a “bad” document. I may be, but I may not be. In this case, Jefferson does not have the intention of saying there’s anything wrong with Christianity per se.

The Constitution was not drawn up by Christian men and based on Christian values, it was drawn up by Deists, Unitarians and Freemasons. It tolerated the right of people to be Christians (as it tolerated the right of people to be followers of other religions). The Constitution was based on the values of the Enlightenment, not the values of Christianity. The values of the Enlightenment are secular values, their basis runs contrary to the values of the Church.

A couple of things to bear in mind:

-Two men you quote often are Jefferson and Paine, but neither Jefferson nor Paine were important figures in the drafting of the U.S. Constitution.

-Two of the signers of the U.S. Constitution were Catholics which is not a large percentage, but still…

-More than half of the signers of the U.S. Constitution identified as Anglicans, and a quarter as Presbyterians. You think they created an anti-Christian document?

The Constitution was based on the values of the Enlightenment, not the values of Christianity. The values of the Enlightenment are secular values, their basis runs contrary to the values of the Church.

My contention is that the U.S. Constitution is neither a Christian document nor an anti-Christian document. It is simply a document.

I would like to hear more about what you REALLY mean by this statement. Are we talking about the “basis” only and if so, what do we mean by that?

Or are we talking about the expression of values that “run contrary to the values of the Church”? If so, which values? It’s hard for me to imagine that you mean anything with regard to the bulk of the document itself, since the bulk of the document itself has nothing whatever to do with values, unless you’re upset about the quasi-democratic representation in government that it provides for.

If, as I imagine, we are speaking only of the amendments to the document itself then I would like to hear which values (if any) you think are contrary to the values of the Church? Freedom of the press? The rights of the accused in a criminal court? Which ones?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The Constitution is by no means an anti-Christian document created by people who had no use for religion. That would have been simply impossible in that day. Nor could it have been affirmed in all the states if there had been any hint of it being such. It is a secular document, whose single most glaring fault is that it endorsed the owning of slaves. Both Christianity and the Enlightenment were documented as movements that, over the long haul, would see to the disappearance of slavery throughout the world wherever that was humanly possible. Nothing else in the constitution specifically opposes the aims of Christianity in particular or religion in general. Indeed, the First Amendment specifically endorses the protection of religion from any assault by government regulation. So even if it were granted that devotees of the Enlightenment exercised a powerful influence on the Constitution, it has to be granted as well that these same devotees were consciously seeking to protect religious liberties along with other liberties. Just as the Enlightenment grew out of a Christian culture, so also the Constitution grew out of both the Enlightenment and the Christian leaven that produced the Enlightenment.

What has happened in the 20th Century is the degeneration both of Christianity and the Enlightenment. Not only have our morals collapsed, but our common sense and our respect for truth have collapsed with our morals. Atheism and Relativism rule. Benedict XVI pointed boldly to the threat of relativism. Francis I began his pontificate by opening a dialogue with an Italian atheist. The rotting of Western Civilization is well underway, and only bold voices willing to speak against it stand in the way of its complete triumph.

 

[oldcelt]

Truthfully, I don’t think that people are any worse than they were 100 years ago. We are just aware of every action by a dramatically larger population. If one sits down and reads the old newspapers you will find virtually the same types of stories as today. In fact, some are quite eye opening.

I think many have a bad case of the “Good Old Days” syndrome.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think many have a bad case of the “Good Old Days” syndrome.

I wish it were so, but it isn’t. If you do not know history, you should know that some ages are worse than others. For all its scientific sophistication, this is a spiritually tragic age. I think at present the devil has us by the throat.

 

[GEddie]

I doubt it.

If there is more evil now, it is because there are more bodies around to commit it; otherwise it balances out.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Portofino]

My comment was about the inconsistency of two propositions:
(1) he is against institutional Christianity
(2) he is not at all against the teachings of Christ
If institutional Christianity is entailed by some teaching of Christ (as Catholics believe, and as has historically been the case–though, certainly, it is a disputed question), then Jefferson’s position was inconsistent. This is to say nothing against people who appreciate the teachings of Christ.

Yes – Jefferson disagreed as to what those teachings of Christ were, and did not conflate “words of Christ as they appear in the Gospels” with “words actually spoken from Jesus’ lips” (nor do I think Jefferson’s logic was, “if Jesus said it, I must believe it”; he did not agree with Jesus teaching because Jesus said it, but because he thought that Jesus was right, but makes no representation – to my knowledge – that Jesus was always right; for him, Jesus was was a fallible human being).

Truth be told, I’m not sure what Jefferson’s position would have been as regards “you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will prevail against it.”
I don’t think he had a problem with institutional Christianity, per se (he supported that form of institutional Christianity known as Unitarianism).

I do know he mistrusted Christ’s biographers, just as one would mistrust Plato as one of Socrates’ biographers. It was not an “all or nothing” proposition for him, though, in terms of either accepting everything written in the Gospels or rejecting everything written in the Gospels (again, just as one can quite comfortably read Plato while being suspicious of some aspects of Platonism that may not have come directly from the lips of Socrates).

 

[oldcelt]

I wish it were so, but it isn’t. If you do not know history, you should know that some ages are worse than others. For all its scientific sophistication, this is a spiritually tragic age. I think at present the devil has us by the throat.

There are epochs in the past where things were worse because forces like nature were playing a major role. Starving people will do just about anything to not starve.The various plagues produced many problems of their own and so on.

What you call spiritually tragic I look at as a new enlightenment. People are casting off the shackles that held their parents back (dramatic isn’t it) and are doing more thinking for themselves. There is a subculture that needs to be addressed but the answers are there, if we only have the guts to use them.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

What you call spiritually tragic I look at as a new enlightenment. People are casting off the shackles that held their parents back (dramatic isn’t it) and are doing more thinking for themselves. There is a subculture that needs to be addressed but the answers are there, if we only have the guts to use them.

We sure do see things differently. I view the present age of political correctness as shackling young people to the thought police. For all their so-called freedom, young people today are presented both in the media and in the schools with a dominantly idiotic leftist agenda typified by the former Speaker of the House saying, about the Affordable Care Act, “You have to vote for it to find out what’s in it.” Now we have found out.

If Hollywood still believed in screwball comedies, this could certainly be one (if it weren’t more so evidence of a spiritually … and intellectually … tragic age).

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Truth be told, I’m not sure what Jefferson’s position would have been as regards “you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will prevail against it.”
I don’t think he had a problem with institutional Christianity, per se (he supported that form of institutional Christianity known as Unitarianism).

When a younger man for a while I flirted with becoming a Unitarian. Then I found out that in the Unitarian Church I attended the majority of members described themselves as agnostics and atheists. It’s doubtful that Jefferson would have been comfortable belonging to such a Church today, as he definitely repudiated atheism. If anything, he was a Deist and as such did not abide much with churchgoing.

 

[Portofino]

When a younger man for a while I flirted with becoming a Unitarian. Then I found out that in the Unitarian Church I attended the majority of members described themselves as agnostics and atheists. It’s doubtful that Jefferson would have been comfortable belonging to such a Church today, as he definitely repudiated atheism. If anything, he was a Deist and as such did not abide much with churchgoing.

You may be right about that, about discomfort with the modern-day Unitarian church. Still – and I don’t mean this to sound as harsh as it may come across – the Unitarian denomination is the only one I’m aware of these days that would take him He did not believe in the resurrection; did not believe in the Trinity (because he did not believe that Jesus was divine); did not believe, to my knowledge, in an immortal soul. He did not believe in sacraments.

I did visit Monticello some years ago and picked up a nice book titled, “The Religious Thought of Thomas Jefferson.”

Ultimately, this may be a semantics issue – if you can deny the resurrection, the Trinity, and that Jesus was God, and yet remain a Christian, then Jefferson was a Christian. If not, he wasn’t.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You may be right about that, about discomfort with the modern-day Unitarian church. Still – and I don’t mean this to sound as harsh as it may come across – the Unitarian denomination is the only one I’m aware of these days that would take him He did not believe in the resurrection; did not believe in the Trinity (because he did not believe that Jesus was divine); did not believe, to my knowledge, in an immortal soul. He did not believe in sacraments.

Yes, the Unitarians might be the only ones who would take him, but that is because they are so liberal they will take almost anyone. That being the case, it is no wonder the Unitarians are so few.

I do believe Jefferson finally believed in an immortal soul. Here is the text of a poem he wrote for his daughter weeks before he died.

A Death Bed Advice from T.J. to M.R.

Life’s visions are vanished, its dreams are no more,
Dear friend of my bosom, why bathed in tears,
I go to my fathers, I welcome the shore,
Which crowns all my hopes or which buries my cares.

Then farewell my dear, my loved daughter adieu,
The last pang of life is parting from you.
Two seraphs await me long shrouded in death,
I will bear them your love on my last parting breath.

The two seraphs referred to are his wife and other daughter, both deceased.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Some say that democracy is a Godless institution. That democracy is godless can only be true if the powers that be in a democracy choose to make it so. The habit of removing the crown from every man’s head, of making no man better than another, can be a habit that gets out of hand. God is not a democrat. He is a king. The habit of wanting no man to wear a crown, if it becomes obsessive, can result in the habit of wanting no God to wear a crown. Or as I think it was Chesterton who put it, pull off the king’s crown and you incidentally pull off the bishop’s mitre.

 

[paziego]

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?

All the teachings of Christ are about institutional Christianity.

 

[Petaro]

Some say that democracy is the tyranny of the mediocre. I tend to agree, but until we find the alternative in our Christ as King, it is the best of a bad bunch of systems to herd the sheep.
A real democracy along the lines of the Greek City States is within the power of our new technology. If we all had a vote on every bill before our parliaments, with the parliamentarians only authorised to draft the legislation to be voted on, we could all log on under a password and cast individual votes.
Think of the hacking the NSA and others could do!
Would this be a better system? Looking deeply into the faces of my fellow travellers on the daily bus and contemplating the face in my shaving mirror, I doubt it.