The Foundation Forum

Did the Founders Mean What They Said? Part One

noreply@blogger.com (Hercules Mulligan) — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:47:00 +0000

While over the past three posts, we have examined the definition of "Christian nation" applicable in the American case, the biblical grounding for our Revolution, and the biblical slogan of our Revolution, we shall henceforth commence the study of whether or not our founding documents themselves are founded on biblical principles -- but first, a word from the men behind those documents.

I would, however, like to remind my readers, that the argument I have been advancing is not to prove that the Founders wanted a union between the organized church and the organized government. To further that kind of argument would be to further the harm of both the church and government, and as a result, the harm of the liberties of Americans.

The argument I am advancing is simply that the principles of our civil government, and the concepts which need to be ingrained in American society in order for free government to be sustained, ultimately come from the Bible. An essay by Kerry L. Morgan, explaining this concept can be read here. It is clear and concise, and well worth a read. If you would like to better understand this blog's approach to the issue, please read it. It is available through the website The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, and is reprinted with permission.

Before we actually begin examining the documents themselves, we must examine the views of those who wrote them. What did they have to say about our identity? What did they have to say about the relationship of our political structure and philosophy to Christianity? And what did they have to say about the role of Christianity in our founding?

Let us therefore examine the words 1) of the Founding Fathers themselves, 2) of the early office-holders of America, 3) of precedent-setting court decisions, and 4) of the historians closest to the time of the Founders. In this post, we will see what the Founding Fathers themselves had to say.

Before I delve into a documentation of the Founders' words, I would like to begin by addressing some of the controversy over what they said. One of the quotations I and others have often used to illustrate the truth of the "Christian nation" claim, comes from a letter that John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson. Here is the quotation:

"And what were these general principles [upon which the Founders achieved independence]? I answer, the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects were united, and the general principles of English and American liberty, in which all those young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence. Now I will avow, that I then believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature and our terrestrial, mundane system. I could, therefore, safely say, consistently with all my then and present information, that I believed they would never make discoveries in contradiction to these general principles." To Thomas Jefferson, 28 June, 1813 (The Works of John Adams, ed. Charles F. Adams; volume 10, pages 45-46 (emphasis original)

Now, let me address some of the controversy concerning this quote. I have presented this quotation from Adams in different places and times, and I have been accused of taking it out of its context, thus distorting the meaning of "the general principles of Christianity." Let me begin my rebuttal to that charge by saying first of all, that when you are putting something back "into its proper context," you must be careful that you do not read a meaning into or out of the text itself. Many times my accusers are guilty not only of the same error, but of trying so hard to explain the plaintext away, that they make the Founders say something that is totally absurd. This case, is a case in point. Here is the larger context of the above quotation:

"Who composed the army of fine young fellows that was then before my eyes? There were among them Roman Catholics, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anabaptists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists, Universalists, Arians, Priestlyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants, and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists, and Protestants 'qui ne croyent rien [Protestants who believe nothing].' Very few, however, of the several of these species; nevertheless, all educated in the general principles of Chistianity, and the general principles of English and American liberty.

"Could my answer be understood by any candid reader or hearer, to recommend to all the other the general principles, institutions, or systems of education of the Roman Catholics, or those of the Quakers, or those of the Presbyterians, or those of the Methodists, or those of the Moravians, or those of the Universalists, or those of the Philosophers? No. The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence, were the only principles in which that beautiful assembly of young men could united, and these principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were these general principles [upon which the Founders achieved independence]? I answer, the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects were united, and the general principles of English and American liberty, in which all those young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence. Now I will avow, that I then believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature and our terrestrial, mundane system. I could, therefore, safely say, consistently with all my then and present information, that I believed they would never make discoveries in contradiction to these general principles. In favore of these general principles, in philosophy, religion, and government, I could fill sheets of quotations from Fredric of Prussia, from Hume, Gibon, Bolingbroke, Rousseau, and Voltaire, as well as Newton and Locke; not to mention thousands of divines and philosophers of inferior fame."

First of all, we see that Adams emphasis of "general principles of Christianity" indicates that he is trying to make sure that his hearers (and readers) understood that he was saying that the principles of the Founding were principles upon which all denominations of Christians could agree upon -- the principles of Christianity were not just according to one denomination.

However, it would seem (and it does indeed seem to those who quote this section), that John Adams is saying that non-Christians (universalists, aryans, deists, atheists, etc.) also embrace the general principles of Christianity. That statement is utterly absurd! Atheists are on the opposite spectrum of the matter, because they reject belief in God. Anyone who knows anything should know that the existence of God is as general a principle of Christianity you can get! I think that John Adams knew that. But for some reason, these secularists don't get it.

Why then does Adams say that all his hearers could unite in the general principles of Christianity? Answer: he doesn't. Read the following carefully (I have added bold for clarity; italics are Adams'):

And what were these general principles [upon which the Founders achieved independence]? I answer, the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects were united, and the general principles of English and American liberty, in which all those young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence.

He says that all those "sects" were united in the general principles of Christianity, and that all the young men were united in the general principles of English and American liberty. Atheists, deists, etc., were not considered Christian sects (of course), so they cannot be said to be united with Christians on the general principles of Christianity. In those days, the Founders and most Americans, used "sects" to refer to Christian denominations, unless the context showed otherwise. In this case, the context and plain common sense (i.e. those who consciously reject the basic teachings of the Bible cannot be said to hold on to the general principles of Christianity) suggest that Adams' reference to "sects" is limited to those of Christian denominations.

Adams also says that "all those young men" were united in the principles of English and American liberty, and that these principles had once united the different political parties in America. Adams is therefore saying that while only those of Christian denominations could agree on the general principles of Christianity (of course!), ALL those listening, Christians and non-Christians alike, could agree on the general principles of English and American liberty. Hence, the "general principles of Christianity" cannot be twisted to mean something else other than the general principles of Christianity.

However, keep in mind, that John Adams said that the principles of the Founding came from BOTH the general principles of Christianity, AND the general principles of English and American liberty. Based on what we have just seen, does the context of his letter destroy the "Christian nation" theory? No. Rather, it supports it. The general principles of Christianity, and the general principles of English and American liberty, go hand-in-hand in the American system, according to the Founding Father, John Adams.

In the following posts (when I find the leisure to write again), we will uncover more of the Founders' opinion on the Christian nation claim.

The Declaration of Dependence

noreply@blogger.com (Hercules Mulligan) — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:04:00 +0000

This is a slight diversion from my serious of posts on the "Christian nation" thesis. I would like to make all my readers aware of a unique opportunity made available to them by one of my favorite blogs, written by Stephen Palmer, a free-lance writer and author, who joined my Friends of Liberty blogroll some time ago. Mr. Palmer has drawn up a "Declaration of Dependence," based on the original Declaration of Independence, but as it applies to the situation of Americans today. Here is the preamble of the Declaration of Dependence:

In the course of human events, it has become necessary for our People to resurrect the Political Bands once established through Divine Inspiration, because we the People failed in our Duties to God and our fellowman, and assumed among the powers of earth rights without understanding corresponding Duties, and have believed that we were entitled to the fruits of another man’s labor, and have ignored the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. Now, a decent respect to Those Who Have Gone Before requires that we Repent and repair our failing Union.

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 require the fulfillment of corresponding Duties and Responsibilities, that among these are Life, Liberty, Property, 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.

I heartily encourage you to read the full text.

But before you consider signing, I would like to give you a very solemn precautionary note. As was the case with our Founders, signing the Declaration was no show. It was a very serious and dangerous commitment. Before you sign, I would ask you to seriously consider the rules laid forth for becoming a member of my Friends of Liberty blogroll. In 1776, our Founders knew their commitment could cost them their lives, and more. Maybe a look at the signature of Stephen Hopkins would give you an idea of what they were feeling at that time. His reported words match his signature: "My hand trembles, but my heart does not!"(1)

Readers of my blog(s) know that it is my strong conviction that a return to our Constitutional form of government cannot alone save America. Freedom does not work unconditionally, because lasting freedom is not the natural course of nations or societies of men. Freedom must be continually preserved and maintained, not by waging wars in the name of democracy, or by voting for "conservatives," or by signing petitions to the government and our school boards. It must be maintained by virtue and morality on the part of the people. The standards of virtue and morality, that is, which are laid out in the Bible.

I would like to close with the some wise insight from the great American patriot, John Adams. Please, pay careful attention to the following:

Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue; and if this cannot be inspired into our people in a greater measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty. They will only exchange tyrants and tyrannies. You cannot, therefore, be more pleasantly or usefully employed than in the way of your profession, pulling down the strong-holds of Satan. This is not cant, but the real sentiment of my heart.
Letter to Zabdiel Adams, June 21, 1776

Part Three: The Motto of the American Revolution

noreply@blogger.com (Hercules Mulligan) — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:07:00 +0000

After an extended absence, I shall now briefly resume the discussion on the subject of whether or not the United States was founded as a Christian nation. After reviewing the definition of a Christian nation (and which definition applies in our case), and the biblical cause of our American Revolution, we shall now examine the motto of the American Revolution.

We know that the Revolution had many mottoes, such as "Don't Tread on Me," "Join or Die," and "Liberty or Death." These were all popular slogans that the Patriots would use to summarize their cause. But there was another motto, equally important, and yet greatly over-looked in our history books, and in the examination of the history of our Revolution:

NO KING BUT KING JESUS!

The significance of this Revolutionary slogan is more fully realized in light of some history of the phrase. The slogan itself seems to have been a takeoff of John 19:15, which records that when the chief priests of the Jews were presuring Pilate to crucify Jesus as a rebel to Rome, and Pilate replied, "Shall I crucify you King?" they replied, "We have no king but Caesar!" Matthew Henry (author of the famed Commentaries on the Bible, which were highly instrumental in the conversion of Rev. George Whitefield) turned the last cry around, to say, "No King but King Jesus!" Henry explained:

Away with them [fleshly lusts], away with them; crucify them, crucify them; for like Barnabas, they are robbers, they are murderers, they are enemies to our peace; we will not have them to reign over us; no, no, we know them to well; we have no king but Jesus. (1)

However, it was not during the American Revolution that this slogan, "No King but King Jesus" was used. It was the motto of the Fifth Monarchy Rebellion, which sought to rid England of her monarchy in the (failed) hopes that the millenium (the 1,00-year reign of Christ) would soon arrive. While their expectations may have been mistaken, nevertheless, their legacy of subjection to the commandments of Christ, rather than the commandments of an absolutist monarch, would be passed on to the Revolutionary generation of America. They explained:

It is every man's duty to SEARCH the scriptures for himself, to learn from them the mind of Christ, for his own salvation, and not to receive IMPLICITLY the doctrines which men teach, or the creed of the civil magistrate. The meanest [most humble or common] subject in the state subject in the state has as good a right to judge, in the matters of religion, for himself, as the prince on the throne. The civil magistrate has no MORE RIGHT to dictate a religious creed to his SUBJECTS, than they have a RIGHT to dictate a religious creed to HIM. By being placed at the head of the civil state, to give law to the subjects of the state, he is not therefore placed at the head of the church, to give law to the body of Christ. If he ever assumes this character and power, he transgresses the just limits of his authority, which is CIVIL, not RELIGIOUS; invades the dominions of ANOTHER prince; and arrogantly claims the power of giving laws to another community, that knows, and ought to know, NO king but Jesus. (emphasis original) (2)

Some preached sermons declaring this message (for instance, Rev. Henry Haggar's No King But Jesus: or The Walls of Tyrannie Razed, and the foundation of Monarchy discovered to the view of all that desire to see it, wherein is undeniably proved that no King is now the Lord's Annointed but Jesus, etc., etc., from 1652), (3) while others were brutally martyred (4).

However, the message was passed on through such religious groups as the Dissenters, Separatists, and Puritans, who came to American for the very purpose of seeing fulfilled in America what they could not accomplish in England. It is no coincidence that the hotbed of the Revolution was Puritan New England. However, as Mark Noll says in his Religion and American Politics,

Nor was New England altogether unique. As suggested by the example of a 1765 Philadelphia Presbyterian crowd calling, "No King but King Jesus" ... The fact that there were plenty of "secular" political treatises that never referred to the covenant, to Antichrist, or to the liberty of grace -- and, conversely, plenty of "religious" discourses that altogether ignored politics -- in no way undercuts this point. (5)

"No King but King Jesus" and similar phrases were similar cries among the Patriots. So strongly was this sentiment voiced, and from so early a time, that it was even brought up in a session of the British Parliament. On April 26, 1774, when the House of Commons was debating a bill concerning how the British government should regulate the government of Massachusetts,

Sir Richard Sutton read a copy of the letter, relative to the government of America, from a governor in America, to the board of trade, shewing that, at the most quiet times, the dispositions to oppose the laws of this country were strongly ingrafted in them, and that all their actions conveyed a spirit and wish for independence. If you ask an American who is his master? he will tell you he has none, nor any governor but Jesus Christ. I do believe it, and it is my firm opinion, that the opposition to the measures of the legislature of this country, is a determined prepossession of the idea of total independence. (6)

Sermons, such as the one by Peter Powers, Jesus Christ the True King and Head of Government (1778) were preached, and a song was written by the distinguished New-England musician and composer William Billings, called Independence. It's words read:

The states, O Lord, with songs of praise shall in Thy strength rejoice,
And blest with Thy salvation raise to Heav'n their cheerful voice.
To the King they shall sing Hallelujah.
Thy goodness and Thy tender care have all our fears destroy'd,
A covenant of peace Thou mad'st with us confirmed by Thy word,
A covenant Thou mad'st with us and seal'd it with Thy blood.
To the King they shall sing Hallelujah.
And all the continent shall sing: down with this earthly King,
No King but God.
To the King they shall sing Hallelujah.
And the continent shall sing: God is our rightful King, Hallelujah.
And the continent shall sing: God is our gracious King, Hallelujah.
They shall sing to the King, Hallelujah.
God is the King, Amen,
The Lord is His name, Amen. (7)

The American Revolution was not a religious movement per se. That is not what I am arguing. However, it was meant to advance certain social and political principles that were grounded in the Bible. The crucial point around which the argument of the Patriots hinged was the fact that law came from God, and not from man. This concept, a purely biblical one, was the concept upon which our government was founded. You can see the evidence for yourself here, on a post I wrote selecting writings of the Founders on this subject.

As we can see, the Revolution was not a movement to free man from the shackles of Christianity or government, but rather to free man from the bonds of un-scriptural political rule. The purpose of the American Revolution was not to establish equality among classes, races, or between the rulers and the ruled, nor was it started to advance a radical socialist agenda. The purpose of the American Revolution was to show to the world that societies can be both free and successful, but not unconditionally. For this reason, the Founders stressed virtue and morality and order, because they knew that only a "moral and religious people" could sustain a free form of government. (8)

As we continue our series of investigations, we will look into this more thoroughly. Stay tuned for information about the government that our Founding Fathers created after the conclusion of the Revolutionary War.

Stay Tuned!

noreply@blogger.com (Hercules Mulligan) — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:37:00 +0000

Dear Readers and Visitors of The Foundation Forum,

Obviously, I have not updated this blog in about two months now. But I do intend to keep this blog running. Hopefully these long periods of absence from blogging will come to an end (very soon), and I will posting on a fairly regular basis. I have not run out of things to write about; far from it! I would urge my readers to stay tuned for posts on the following subjects:

Christianity and the Constitution
Priorities in voting
Education at home and abroad
Comments on books, documentaries, etc.
And more!

In the mean time, I encourage my readers and visitors to browse through this blog's archives. I recently added post labels to this blog, to make navigation by subject easier for my readers. If you plan on continuing to read this blog, you may need to go back through some of these posts to get the "foundation" of my arguments and positions. Some past posts of interest include:

The Purpose of the U. S. Constitution
America's Form of Government
What Is a Principled Government, Anyway?
Let An Association Be Formed, Parts One and Two
Reason v. Revelation, Parts One and Two
Creationism: The Worldview of the Founding Fathers

I would also encourage anyone reading this to use their extra time to study the writings of the Founding Fathers. Volumes of their writings have been made available for free online. My blog The Founders' Bookshelf helps researchers find these databases without wasting tons of computer time searching for them with conventional search engines. I am adding new resources to this website regularly, so if you have any suggestions, feel free to leave a comment. Or if you have any questions or recommendations, again feel free to leave a comment. I will respond to them as soon as I can.

I would also recommend that my readers and visitors to study the Bible, which I believe, along with Noah Webster, is the foundation for good government, and which our Founders generally received their worldview from. Here are some websites about the Bible which I recommend:

E-Sword (download-able program of numerous Bible versions, with commentary and additional resources; Greek and Hebrew dictionary and words)
Lee Strobel's Website
Lee Strobel's Online Videos
Coral Ridge Ministries
Darkness to Light
Early Christian Writings (contains apocryphal works also, of contestable authority)
Biblos (search the Bible in several versions; read the original Greek and Hebrew online!)

I will update with another post in the very near future. In the mean time, check out my other blogs; I recently updated them! Happy reading! And remember, your feedback is more than welcome.

Mulligan's 8

noreply@blogger.com (Hercules Mulligan) — Wed, 14 May 2008 22:16:00 +0000

A new blogger friend of mine, Fida Abbott, tagged me about a week ago. I'm sorry, Fida, that it has taken me so long to respond to your tag! But thank you for tagging me. I welcome the invitation.

Here are the rules for the homework she assigned me:

1. Post the rules of the homework in your Blog (OK, I've done that)
2. Write 8 habits or the reality about yourself (choose randomly)
3. In the end of your writing, write 8 names of your friends who you want to do the same homework
4. Don't forget to tell them so they can read your posting of your homework so they can do the same thing easily
5. Smile as the sign of your satisfied after you are done

OK, now for step #2: Write 8 habits or the reality about yourself (choose randomly) :

1. I love to write, research, decorate, and design. That is why blogging is right up my alley. Blogging is the way I can not only write, do and present research, and creatively design and organize, but can make these things available on the Internet to be of benefit and enjoyment to others.

2. I love music. I mean, I love real music. I'm not much for contemporary ear-blasters, but I enjoy good Christian productions by Delirious, Hillsongs, Twila Paris, Mercy Me and Stephen Curtis Chapman. However, I have a particular fondness for classical/instrumental music. Bach, Beethoven, and Handel are some of my favorites. In the old days, people sure did know how to write music!

3. I love the outdoors. Though I tend to be somewhat sedentary because of my studies, too much of anything is not good for me. There is a time to study, and a time to simply enjoy the great outdoors. And since I live in beautiful central upstate New York, which is largely rural, that comes easily. I believe that the Mohawk Valley is truly one of the most naturally beautiful places in the country. Ordinarily, there are no blizzards, no flash floods, no tornadoes, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions or earthquakes. Our only pestilence is taxation and constant oppression by politicians. But I am grateful for the life I have had here. It is certainly a much easier one than that of many other ordinary Americans.

4. I hope to write at least two books some day. I will probably write more, but I plan to write a book on Alexander Hamilton, whose writings I have studied for a period of several years. In fact, the name of "Hammy," and his words of wisdom and wit have become household sayings in my family, rivaling that of the oft-quoted Ben Franklin. The second book I plan to write is a biography of Samuel Kirkland, who is a local figure in my area of significant state and national importance. To my knowledge, he has no biography around today, and since I live in his old mission field, and near Hamilton College which he founded, I intent to take the matter into my own hands. I think that it is time that a native of the Mohawk Valley and life-long citizen of New York (whose ancestors were Kirkland's contemporaries) should see to it that his life and legacy do not go to waste. If I write any more books after those two, it will probably be something that goes along with the subject matter of this blog.

5. I like learning about people from different backgrounds and different countries. That is why I am friends with Fida Abbott, who grew up in Indonesia, and a reader (of the many) of KimC's entertaining and exciting blog, Life in a Shoe. It is nice to learn about them, how they live, how they think, and what is important to them. I hope that I will meet more people like that in the future.

6. I tend to be very quiet and thoughtful. I am not very expressive, and I am probably not much for company, especially with new people. I usually communicate rather poorly one-on-one, but I think I can communicate well through writing. I tend to be quiet and attentive in personal settings like group discussion or in a classroom, but I can be very interactive in written discussion. Again, blogging falls right into this niche of mine.

7. (*almost done!*) I am currently reading The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowell. I have been reading several books on the case concerning the truth of Christianity lately, and I think I will soon post on my blog Herculean Reflections my thoughts on my readings. I continue to study this subject and to study the Bible. I think that every Christian, especially in the free world, should make this study an important part of their life and their education.

8. I hope to visit another country someday (or the least I could wish for is to visit another state, which I've only done once in my life!). If I had to choose which country, I would probably choose Scotland. Several of my ancestors came from Scotland, and it is a country rich with history and natural beauty and grandeur. If I had another opportunity, I might visit a land where the events of the Bible took place. I guess I'd have to pack lots of sun lotion for that kind of a trip, though!

And now for step 3: In the end of your writing, write 8 names of your friends who you want to do the same homework.

Eight friends? OK, let's see...

1. Our Founding Truth
2. Rob Scott at The Hamiltonian Federalist Forum
3. Brian Tubbs at Defending Christianity
4. HH at Adventures in the life of Upstate New York (hasn't blogged in a while; maybe she won't mind this "homework"!)

I can't think of anyone else! I guess I really do not have great extensions over the "blogosphere" yet! Oh well.

What's step #4? Don't forget to tell them so they can read your posting of your homework so they can do the same thing easily.

OK, will do.

Step 5: Smile as the sign of your satisfied after you are done.

--> :) <--

See? I smiled. :)

Well, Fida, I hope that this post was satisfactory! I know I didn't tag exactly 8 people; sorry! Hopefully, if I ever get another tag, I will have more people to tag!

AHI Inaugural Colloquium on Gerrit Smith and George Fitzhugh

noreply@blogger.com (Hercules Mulligan) — Fri, 09 May 2008 01:09:00 +0000

Hello dear readers. Obviously, I have not been blogging for a while, but I trust I will resume within several weeks. Life during this part of the year is typically busy for me, as with other bloggers. Believe me, I am very far from running out of posts!

But in the mean time, I would like to share with my readers a four-part video series of the first day (er, evening) of the Inaugural Colloquium of the Alexander Hamilton Institute, which took place on April 10th, 2008, which is based in Clinton, New York. It was a great privilege and honor for me to attend this particular gathering, as a guest of Professor Robert Paquette, and to witness the workings of this new but wonderful organization directly. I will post more extensively on this event, but in the mean time, you may enjoy the following videos, and read a descriptive blog post by my blogger friend, Mrs. Mecomber, who also attended the event, and shot some beautiful photos.

Adblock

Inaug. Colloq. - Pt 1 from Alexander Hamilton Institute on Vimeo.

Adblock

Inaug. Colloq. - Pt 2 from Alexander Hamilton Institute on Vimeo.

Adblock

Inaug. Colloq. - Pt 3 from Alexander Hamilton Institute on Vimeo.

Adblock

Inaug. Colloq. - Pt 4 from Alexander Hamilton Institute on Vimeo.

I am very much looking forward to reading the correspondence between Smith and Fitzhugh once it is published. This discussion sparked many questions, which ignited interest. Maybe I will blog on my reading of that too when it comes out (and when I attack the other numerous items on my reading list!)

You can learn more about the Alexander Hamilton Institute, the colloquium, and their past and upcoming events here. I have blogged about the founding of the Institute on another blog of mine here.

UPDATE: The audio sessions of the remainder of this colloquium (which lasted for several days) are now available in mp3 format at the website of the Alexander Hamilton Institute. I encourage my readers to listen to these stimulating discussions. I will blog about them more extensively later.

Good News for Homeschoolers...

noreply@blogger.com (Hercules Mulligan) — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:35:00 +0000

After not having blogged in a while (but don't worry; Hercules Mulligan will be back and at it soon!), I have a special announcement to make!

The BlogNetNews Homeschool page is up! My good friend Dana of Principled Discovery did a great job with it! You can learn more about this page and network here and here on her blog.

I am humbled and honored that four of my blogs are a part of this fabulous network! I guess this means I need to update them a little bit more frequently, which I will do when I have some spare time.

If you are a homeschooler, and would like to connect with other homeschoolers, or find educational links for homeschooling purposes, this is a prime place to go! Have a blast!

Thoughts on Theocracy and America

noreply@blogger.com (Hercules Mulligan) — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 03:52:00 +0000

In the debate surrounding the issue of America as a Christian nation, those opposing the Christian nation thesis, or those who desire a separation of the influence of Christians over the institutes of the state, have accused the "anti-separationists" (those who oppose the contemporary view of "separation of church and state" and advocate that the Founders established this nation as a Christian nation) of proposing a theocracy.

This term theocracy is indeed thrown around very often, so let us examine what it means, and how its real definition applies to the view of America that our Founding Fathers originally had in mind when they founded this country. Many people, when they think of "theocracy," probably remember the Catholic dominance over the kingdoms of medieval Europe. Others who have more knowledge of Biblical history will probably picture the government that the ancient Hebrews had when Moses led them out of Egypt. They will remember that he gave God's instructions, especially the Ten Commandments, to the Hebrews. Those skeptical of Christianity, and therefore of Christian pastors and leaders, would definitely be skeptical of such a government -- in which the clergy dominate the government of a nation, claiming to get their instructions from God, as political representatives of God on earth. Many people term such governments "theocracies," because they loosely fit into the mold of "a government by God" -- the literal definition of "theocracy."

I am skeptical of the justice of the Catholic dominance of Europe, not because I am skeptical of Christianity, but rather of the truth of the Catholics' claims that they were the mouthpieces of God. May I also point out that many in the so-called "Christian nation crowd" are also skeptical of such a government. We instead assert that this nation was founded upon Biblical presuppositions (that man is inherently selfish, and needs restraint; that law, which exists for the purpose of restraining man's selfish tendencies and preserving justice and order, must therefore come from a super-human source, namely GOD, the Creator).

Our government was founded upon the laws of God. Now, this does not mean that our Constitution is a direct enforcement of the Ten Commandments, but rather that in order for the form of government established by the Constitution to be preserved, the Ten Commandments must be respected and observed by the American populous. Our Founding Truth wrote two posts dealing with this subject concisely but thoroughly; I encourage my readers to peruse these articles.

But since our government is based upon God's laws, and they are recognized as supreme over man's laws, can we not say that America is, in the literal sense of the word, a "theocracy"? Since theocracy is the rule of God, and God's laws are the foundation of our government (remember that the Declaration of Independence appealed to the "laws of nature and of nature's God"), we are a government under God's law. God may not send a prophet, as he did in the Old Testament times, saying, "Thou shalt war on Such-and-such a nation," or "Thou shalt pass such-and-such a law," but we are a theocracy in the New Testament sense. In other words, God does not speak to us primarily in lighting bolts or in divine messengers (although He continues to do so from time to time), but rather, as the New Testament book of Hebrews explains:

"God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom He also made the worlds." (Hebrews 1:1-2)

And who is "His Son"? It is Jesus Christ, who, according to John 1:1&14 is "the Word of God ... [who] became flesh." This means that Jesus is the law of God manifested in human form, in the form not only of a person, but of a human being, because Jesus is the fulfillment of the law. He walked the walk.

The summary of all this is that God does not need to give a long list of do's and don'ts, as He did in Old Testament times; the New Testament makes it clear that the Old Covenant was fulfilled, and that the New Covenant is in place. God freely gives to us of His Spirit when we are born again, so that we no longer have the natural inclination to sin and walk contrary to the law of God, but rather have the inclination to do what pleases Him and accords with His law, and such involves more than going to church and wearing Christian T-shirts -- it involves the development of a holy and virtuous lifestyle motivated by the love and fear of God.

Our Founding Fathers acknowledged their dependence upon this concept in their writings and in their speeches. First of all, they acknowledged the supremacy of God's law over any laws of man, and they recognized the importance of electing genuine Christians to office.

John Quincy Adams, the famed son of John and Abigail Adams, and the sixth President of the United States made it very clear that the Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of a government built upon Christian principles. In a public speech he made to commemorate the 61st anniversary of American Independence (July 4, 1837), he declared:

Why is it, Friends and Fellow Citizens, that you are here assembled? ... Is it not, that in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission on earth? That it laid the corner stone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity, and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies, announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Savior and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets six hundred years before?" (1)

John Jay noted the importance of Christians being elected to office, as well that this nation was a "Christian nation," in a letter to John Murray, Jr., on October 12, 1816:

Real Christians will abstain from violating the rights of others ... Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. [emphasis original] (2)

John Adams also wrote concerning the founding of America, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813:

The GENERAL PRINCIPLES on which the fathers achieved independence, were the only principles in which that beautiful assembly of young men could unite, and these principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were those GENERAL PRINCIPLES? I answer, the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects [the Roman Catholics, Quakers, Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, and Universalists] were united, and the GENERAL PRINCIPLES of English and American liberty, in which all those young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence. Now I will avow, that I then believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature and our terrestrial, mundane system. (3)

The Founding Fathers believed that the laws of God were so vital that they believed that Americans should understand and respect them from their youth. Noah Webster was a Founding Father, who served as a soldier during the American Revolution, and who directly influenced the Constitution in some areas by writing letters to the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, and discussing issues with them outside of the Convention. His most well-known contribution to America was his authorship of the first American-English dictionary in 1828, which gave English words standardized American meaning and spelling. He was heavily involved in the education of youth, believing that education in American principles was vital to the survival of the new republic. He once wrote:

Our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New testament, or, the Christian religion. (4)

Since our nation relies upon God's laws to preserve virtue, and since virtue is what makes republican government possible, the Founding Fathers stressed not only virtue, but the true source of virtue: Christianity. Benjamin Rush, who was a very influential Founder and active educator and social reformer wrote:

The only foundation for ... a Republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. (5)

John Adams, during his presidency declared:

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. (6)

Alexander Hamilton, in preparing Washington's Farewell Address upon Washington's request, expressed this truth this way:

In all those dispositions which promote political happiness, religion and morality are essential props. In vain does he claim the praise of patriotism, who labors to subvert or undermine these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest foundations of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public happiness.

Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of moral and religious obligation deserts the oaths which are administered in courts of justice? Nor ought we to flatter ourselves that morality can be separated from religion. Concede as much as may be asked to the effect of refined education in minds of peculiar structure, can we believe, can we in prudence suppose, that national morality can be maintained in exclusion of religious principles? Does it not require the aid of a generally received and divinely authoritative religion?

’T is essentially true that virtue or morality is a main and necessary spring of popular or republican governments. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to all free governments. Who that is a prudent and sincere friend to them, can look with indifference on the ravages which are making in the foundation of the fabric—religion? The uncommon means which of late have been directed to this fatal end, seem to make it in a particular manner the duty of a retiring chief of a nation to warn his country against tasting of the poisonous draught [sic]. (7)

And George Washington expressed those words similarly in his revised version of the Farewell Address.

Alexander Hamilton had earlier written quite emphatically:

The politician who loves liberty ... knows that morality overthrown (and morality must fall with religion), the terrors of despotism alone can curb the impetuous passions of man, and confine him within the bounds of social duty. (emphasis original) (8)

Our nation is not a theocracy to be governed by men, but is a theocracy in the truest sense, so long as we as a nation govern ourselves by the laws of God.

I will add as an interesting postscript, that while today, many citizens are thinking of adding amendments to the Constitution granting to people the rights to free healthcare and free Internet service, Americans of the 1840s were petitioning Congress to make an official recognition of Jesus Christ as the "ruler of the nation" in the Constitution (these petitions were presented to Congress by U.S. Representative John Quincy Adams). These motions were never actually carried out, and were probably thought unnecessary, since the evidence of our being a Christian nation comes from those who have the most governing authority in this nation: the people and their respective state and local governments.

Also, a petition of citizens of Perry and Muskingum counties, State of Ohio, praying an amendment of the constitution, by which the Sovereign of the universe shall be acknowledged as the God of the nation; also, that the Lord Jesus Christ may be acknowledged as the ruler of the nation. (9)

Mr. [John Quincy] Adams offered to present a petition of inhabitants of western Pennsylvania and Ohio, praying an amendment of the Constitution of the United States, so that it shall contain a clear and explicit acknowledgment of the Sovereign of the universe as the God of this nation; an entire and avowed submission to the Lord Jesus Christ as the ruler of this nation; an unreserved reception of his revealed will contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the law paramount, by which all the affairs of this republic shall be regulated--all conflicting State laws being regarded as perfectly null and void; and entreating Congress to rescind all enactments whereby a violation of God's law is authorized, whether by running the mail-stage on his Sabbath, or otherwise. (10)

Also, a memorial of citizens of Licking county, State of Ohio, praying that the Sovereign of the universe may be acknowledged as the God of this nation, and that the Lord Jesus Christ may be acknowledged as the supreme ruler of the nation. (11)

And I'm Back!

noreply@blogger.com (Hercules Mulligan) — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:05:00 +0000

Hello readers. I must apologize for my long delay in writing. My schedule has not allowed me to do much writing (which requires research and concentration) at the present.

But now that my schedule is somewhat relaxed now, I would just like tell my readers to keep their ears (or rather eyes) perked for an upcoming post on theocracy and American government, which I will be posting soon.

Thanks to all my loyal readers for their patience.

Why I Support Ron Paul for President

noreply@blogger.com (Hercules Mulligan) — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 23:36:00 +0000

Ron Paul is a firm and a strict Constitutionalist.

Ron Paul is pro-family, and pro-life.

Ron Paul's stance on the issues is impeccable.

Ron Paul is NOT a God-hating liberal.

Ron Paul is NOT a Christian-hating liberal.

Ron Paul is NOT a member of the Council of Foreign Relations.

Ron Paul is NOT supported by the mainstream media.

Ron Paul is AGAINST the government tagging its citizens.

Ron Paul FIGHTS government fraud and corruption.

Ron Paul supports US SOVEREIGNTY.

Ron Paul OPPOSES the anti-"Patriot Act."

Ron Paul OPPOSES the North American Union.

Ron Paul is NOT a friend of the Clinton and Bush dynasties.

HAPPY REFORMATION DAY!

noreply@blogger.com (Hercules Mulligan) — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:50:00 +0000

Happy Reformation Day! Or, you may call it the "Ninety-five Theses Day" if you wish. The "New Every Morning" online daily devotional by Coral Ridge Ministries has a fitting entry for this day. Check it out!

Friends of Liberty Blogroll

noreply@blogger.com (Hercules Mulligan) — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:46:00 +0000

Among Christians and true patriots alike, there is a great need for Virtue and Truth in these present times that try men's souls.

In the spirit of Samuel Adams, the Father of the American Revolution, and the Committees of Correspondence, Adams' great work among the Colonies, we agree that people of Virtue and Truth are the truest friends of Liberty:

He therefore is the truest Friend to the Liberty of his country who tries most to promote its Virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man... The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy this gift of Heaven, let us become a Virtuous People.

The Friends of Liberty Blogroll is a network of blogs dedicated to promoting Virtue and Truth. We invite people from all walks of life and countries to join the Friends of Liberty Blogroll. Here are the requirements:

1. You understand the concepts of the words Virtue and Truth as primarily and traditionally defined by Jesus Christ in the Holy Scriptures.

Virtue as in "you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength" and "you shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Matt. 22:37-40). Truth as in "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (Jn. 14:6) and "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." (II Tim 3:16)

"To promote true religion is the best and most effectual way of making a virtuous and regular people. Love to God and love to man is the subtance of religion; when these prevail, civil laws will have little to do. ... The magistrate (or ruling part of any society) ought to encourage piety ... [and] make it an object of public esteem. Those who are vested with civil authority ought ... to promote religion and good morals among all their government." John Witherspoon

2. You must post a Friends of Liberty Blogroll button somewhere on your blog, and link the button back to this page, or have a text link linking back to this page. See below for button images and html codes.

3. You must agree with the tenets outlined in the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. These documents are not "living, breathing" documents that change with the times or every whim of man.

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." James Madison

“The Constitution is not a panacea for every blot upon the public welfare, nor should this Court, ordained as a judicial body, be thought of as a general haven for reform movements.” Chief Justice John Marshall

4. You pledge to encourage the godly values of Virtue and Truth in your own life and in your blog.

"The only foundation for... a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments." Benjamin Rush

"Good government generally begins in the family, and if the moral character of a people once degenerate, their political character must soon follow." Elias Boudinot

5. You recognize that the United States has its inalienable rights from God, not from the state or from man. You recognize that the United States form of government and its culture stems from the Christian values of the Old and New Testament, and that the present problems in our government and culture are because the nation has abandoned these values.

"The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scripture ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evil men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible." Noah Webster

"[O]ur citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion." Noah Webster

6. You cannot be an atheist or a humanist.

"Shun, as a contagious pestilence, ... those especially whom you perceive to be infected with the principles of infidelity or enemies to the power of religion. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country." John Witherspoon

"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." Charles Carroll

"... And thus be our motto "In God We Trust." Francis Scott Key

"An oath is an appeal to God, the Searcher of hearts, for the truth of what we say and always expresses or supposes an imprecation of His judgment upon us if we prevaricate. An oath, therefore, implies a belief in God and His Providence and indeed is an act of worship. ... Persons entering on public offices are also often obliged to make oath that they will faithfully execute their trust. ... In vows, there is no party but God and the person himself who makes the vow." John Witherspoon

Ready to join? Just leave a comment with your blog's URL. I will add you to the blogroll as soon as possible.

Here are the buttons and codes. Feel free to download the buttons for yourself and link back to this post. Please be sure to have the button or text link back to this blogroll. Thanks!

Large Button

Image Source: http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd192/CatoofUtica/FriendofLiberty.jpg
Link back to: http://thefoundationforum.blogspot.com/2007/10/friends-of-liberty-blogroll.html

Small Button

Image Source: http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd192/CatoofUtica/FriendofLiberty_small.jpg
Link back to: http://thefoundationforum.blogspot.com/2007/10/friends-of-liberty-blogroll.html

Tiny Button

Image Source: http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd192/CatoofUtica/FriendLibertyTinyButton.png
Link back to: http://thefoundationforum.blogspot.com/2007/10/friends-of-liberty-blogroll.html

FRIENDS OF LIBERTY BLOGROLL

Adventures in the Life of Upstate NY
The Foundation Forum
Meet the Founding Fathers
Alexander Hamilton Patriot
New York Traveler
Our Founding Truth
Brainbiter
Principled Discovery
New York Traveler (website)
The Cause of Liberty
New York Renovator
Mrs. Mecomber's Scrapbook
Fida Abbott New Member!!!
Yeah, Right ... New Member!!!

Please keep in mind that comments are solely for joining the blogroll.