Saturday, July 25, 2009

Did God create the USA?

The Guardian reports: ‘The Christian right is making a fresh push to force religion onto the school curriculum in Texas with the state's education board about to consider recommendations that children be taught that there would be no United States if it had not been for God.’

And the newspaper sneers at the body appointed to oversee the state's history curriculum for including ‘a Christian fundamentalist preacher’ who is alleged to be ‘fighting a war for America's moral soul’.

As far as The Guardian is concerned, of all the Christians worthy of scorn, derision and contempt, there are none who compare to the ‘fundamentalists’, which is Left-speak for ‘Evangelicals’, who are Protestants by another name.

And these rabid, feverish, saliva-spewing bigots simply want lessons ‘to emphasise the part played by Christianity in the founding of the US and that religion is a civic virtue’.

There is, of course, a strict separation of Church and State in the US. But Cranmer finds it difficult to perceive the creation of the United States with anything but a Christian provenance, and a Protestant Christian one at that. David Barton, one of the aforementioned ‘fundamentalists’, observes that the US Constitution ‘was written with God in mind including that "there is a fixed moral law derived from God and nature", that "there is a creator" and "government exists primarily to protect God-given rights to every individual". It follows, for him, that ‘children should be taught that Christianity is the key to "American exceptionalism" because the structure of its democratic system is a recognition that human beings are fallible, and that religion is at the heart of being a virtuous citizen’.

Another of the ‘fundamentalists’, the Reverend Peter Marshall, recommends that children ‘be taught about the "motivational role" of the Bible and Christianity in establishing the original colonies that later became the US.’ He observed: "In light of the overwhelming historical evidence of the influence of the Christian faith in the founding of America, it is simply not up to acceptable academic standards that throughout the social studies (curriculum standards) I could only find one reference to the role of religion in America's past."

He perceives the struggle over the history curriculum to be part of a wider battle: "We're in an all-out moral and spiritual civil war for the soul of America, and the record of American history is right at the heart of it."

And so these men are dismissed severally as being ‘simplistic’, ‘deceptive’ and ‘devious’. It is the ‘religious Right’, you see. It is one thing to recite a pledge of allegiance in class each morning which includes a reference to the US as ‘one nation under God’, but quite another to actually mean it.

The Pilgrim Fathers were pioneers of liberty: one needs no understanding of their Puritanism or grasp of the religious persecution from which they were fleeing.

But the principal issue here is not so much theology as the teaching of history. If one ignores the past, one is doomed to repeat the errors of that past. If one re-writes the past, one is destined to build a delusional future based on falsehood and lies.

It is one thing to have a constitutional separation of Church and State, but quite another to interpret this as a requirement for the eradication of every expression of Christianity from the public realm. The United States is searching for its via media: one which accommodates ‘In God We Trust’ and the liturgical coronation of a president – with hand on Bible and ‘fundamentalist’ in the pulpit – while somehow purporting to remain ‘secular’ and ‘neutral’.

The drive to eradicate God and Christianity from the history of the United States is simply mirroring what is happening in the UK and the EU. God forbid that one should refer to the Protestant Reformed Religion by law established, the Protestant Work Ethic or the part played by Christianity in the history of Europe. No, as far as the secularists who drew up the ‘Constitution for Europe’ are concerned, Europe evolved from the great civilisations of Greece and Rome and proceeded directly to the Enlightenment. The ‘missing link’ is a millennium of Christian insight and, of course, the Reformation. But, in the interests of secular ‘neutrality’, to placate the French and appease Muslims, these are ignored. And so it is in the UK, for what school history syllabus deals with the Christian foundations other than in a negative light? Henry VIII ‘invented’ the Reformation simply to bed the woman for whom he lusted. The Act of Settlement is bigoted, otiose and irrelevant. The history is forgotten, the battles are long gone, and it is time to move on and to ‘modernise’.

And so the public memory is diminished; vernacular history is subsumed to the postmodern need to empathise, and the people become ahistorical. Thus do we have the introduction of ideology; the means of ‘social engineering’. Understanding one’s traditions and culture demands a grasp of their history, and this must include a fair assessment of the role of religion. If this is not to be part of a school curriculum, then that curriculum is corrupted by omission because children are deprived a means of making sense of the modern world.

God made the US in exactly the same fashion as he created the world. It may have taken a little longer than seven days, but he had Americans to deal with... and quite a few of them wanted him out of the picture altogether.


Blogger Gnostic said...

In this benighted, god forsaken country, could/would the Grauniadistas slavishly promote garbage like this?

Imagine, for a moment, what would happen if the koran was at the centre of this "artistic" endeavour...

25 July 2009 at 11:23  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Thank you, Mistress Gnostic, for that link. If it had been the Holy Koran, Lord Ahmed would have descended on the place with a veritable army of irate Muslims.

25 July 2009 at 11:40  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Come to think of it, I wonder what would happen if I and a group of other people scrawled abusive words on a copy of a gay magazine and left it lying around on a public bench outside a gay bar or club?

That would be considered a hate crime. Could I cite "work of art" as a legal defence?

25 July 2009 at 11:45  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Mistress Gnostic—Of all the subject matter that I have seen while visiting His Grace’s blog, nothing has moved me to tears. Until today.

25 July 2009 at 11:50  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...


This thread is about?

25 July 2009 at 11:50  
Blogger Gnostic said...

A Grauniad report, Your Grace?


25 July 2009 at 11:52  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

Before there is any strong fight-back against the unbelievers and devil-worshipers who appear to lead our country, the heads of the Christian churches need to 1) decide if they actually believe in God, 2)decide if they actually believe that Jesus is the son of God. If they can answer yes to these questions, then they need to start to tell people why no other religion is valid; because as a Christian, I can't accept that islam is a proper religion, or any other, with the exception of Judaism because it happens to be the basis of Christianity. It's all very well to be all things to all men, but when this attitude begins to kill you , don't you have a duty to fight back? What about resurrecting 'Onward Christian Soldiers' and the new battle hymn.

25 July 2009 at 11:53  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Archbishop Cranmer (11:50)—The Bible is defaced but His Grace cares only about his precious thread.

25 July 2009 at 11:56  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Johnny Rottenborough,

His Grace is fully aware of the story to which you refer, and is as appalled as any - not least because the desecration is finded by the taxpayer. But this 'precious thread' is not about that matter, and he politely exhorts his communicants to remain on topic, or each and every thread becomes even more of a free-for-all than they already are.

25 July 2009 at 12:01  
Blogger Si Hollett said...

I find it funny that the opponents view the partial blocking of the teaching of evolution as violating Church and State, given that mandatory evolution teaching is in violation of Church and State.

However, I feel that I agree with them that this is maybe in violation of Church and State (despite what being said being broadly true). It's also worth noting that the American revolutionaries didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater - overthrowing tyranny and opression but not also throwing out belief in a deity from public life, unlike the other revolutions of the time (notably the French one).

America's constitution allowed freedom to worship however people wanted and refused to have an established, state, religion. The Pilgrim Fathers were persecuted for not conforming to the Church of England - they wanted to be credo-baptists, congregationalists, presbyterians and so on - still very much Christian, just not Anglican.

The American constitution, despite being written, in part, by deists, is basically based on the idea that man is inherently evil (siding with Luther and Calvin on the key issue of the reformation). You can see the dislike of kings and bishops there and how it's a mix of presbyterianism and congregationalism.

While this resurgence of atheism (the Greek and Roman elites were atheists as they hated the idea of life after death) is protected by the 1st amendment, it's certainly not endorsed by it. The Founding Fathers deliberately and purposefully made it clear that religious views should play a part in public life, just that the state itself cannot persecute those who hold certain views.

American seperation of Church and State is there to stop the state interfering with religion, not to stop religion interfering with the state.

25 July 2009 at 12:29  
Blogger Gnostic said...

With Obama in charge I think that US Christians have a fight on their hands. What must they have thought when they saw the leader of the "free" world (an apparent ex-Muslim) bow before Saudi princes only months after treating another (allegedly Christian) leader of the "free" world (okay it was Brown but we're talking about the principle of the matter here) with such shabby contempt?

Our socialists are wiping their backsides with our Common Law which is based on Christian ethics. Now the great Yank socialist is poised to do the same with the American Constitution if he can.

I hope the Americans are watching very closely because they are about to get a large dose of what we've been putting up with for over a decade.

25 July 2009 at 12:39  
Blogger Giles Smedley said...

Sometimes I think that Churchill was wrong to say that democracy is the worst form of government apart from all the others.

Benevolent dictatorship looks ever so appealing.

And who better to be such a dictator in the United Kingdom, none other than our sovereign, the supreme governor of the Church of England.

Banish the 'state' from the government of our nation, for the state after years of left-wing infection is in need of some rehabilitation before it can be set right again.

25 July 2009 at 12:53  
Anonymous Voyager said...

One might point out that it was The Geneva Bible of John Calvin that the USA is based upon rather than the King James Bible and that the reason Guardianistas are so alienated by independent-minded American Protestants is simply that they are Calvinist and not attuned to seeing The State as the arbiter of moral virtue in society.

The American Colonies were founded by those fleeing persecution in England after The Restoration and probably draw more lineage from John Knox and Oliver Cromwell than Charles II or James II.

The Guardian/BBC Complex is still riddled with the Statist Mentality through being heavily subsidised with taxpayers' money and is contemptuous of Individual Belief and anything opposed to Group Rights and Group Identity

25 July 2009 at 13:10  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Archbishop Cranmer (12:01)—Mr Rottenborough presents his compliments to His Grace and is relieved to learn that His Grace is appalled. May we expect a learned blog?

•Johnny Rottenborough•

25 July 2009 at 13:33  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...


Alas, His Grace has a myriad of other demands upon his ashes.

25 July 2009 at 13:44  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

The United States was created by colonization, coupled with the subjugation and near extermination of the Native Americans. Surely, the answer to the question, ‘Did God create the USA?’ must be, ‘No’.

25 July 2009 at 14:38  
Anonymous Frank said...

Odd. Earlier His Grace’s post “Did God create the USA?” was here, then it wasn’t and is now here again. Curious. Anyway, I have to say that I strongly support the separation of Church and State because history clearly shows, other than that we don’t learn from history, is Church and State amalgams have been some of the most oppressive governments ever known. Why should we entrust the teaching of Christian based subjects to those that may not believe what they would be required to teach or do not believe as we do given the multiplicity of sects and their attendant theologies? But then wholly secular governments have shown that they’re no friend to those of faith. It’s a very complicated, not to mention difficult, balancing act. To entrust the state with the safeguarding and/or propagating of any certain theologically bases curriculum has been and would be disastrous. Leave the teaching of Christian beliefs to the parents teaching such to their children and the pastor/preacher to his congregation.

25 July 2009 at 14:43  
Blogger Jim Bartlet said...

He waited a long time to create the modern version, and it was a bloody and violent undertaking. The savages that were running wild on the continent at the time had some brutal ways about them, but what has actually replaced them is quite unique in it's own magnitude of cruelty and evil.

So although I detect a small amount of smug reassurance in this topic, I think it is sadly misplaced. especially if I am to believe that what we have now is God's gift of grace with regards to protestant faith. Crock of self righteous crap.

25 July 2009 at 15:16  
Blogger OldSouth said...

Once again, an excellent post.

The name 'Peter Marshall' rang a a bell, and I wondered, "Is that the son of the beloved Peter Marshall, Chaplain of the Senate, who passed away tragically young in 1949?'

And, indeed, it is. By referring to the present Rev. Marshall's find:

Son of the late Dr. Peter Marshall and author Catherine Marshall, he graduated from Yale University and Princeton Seminary, and then served as pastor for twelve years. Since 1977 he has devoted himself to a continent-wide ministry of preaching, teaching and writing.

Whether one agrees with him or not, the attempts to characterize him as some sort of semi-literate snake handler are not credible.

In fact, in the confusing array of opinion and affiliation that makes up religious life in the US, he is a conservative Presbyterian, and circulates in the world of the Presbyterian Church in America, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and a few other such small denominations.

A great rift occurred in Presbyterian life in the early to mid 1970's, which would probably help account for his journey from the pulpit to the lecture circuit.

Still a lot of hard feelings circulating out there, I can assure Your Grace.

So, with that said, it remains to be seen if the controversy will be argued on the merits of the proposal, without the usual name-calling the Left so dearly loves.

The technique is known as 'pounding the table'. It's a lawyer's technique:

If you don't have the law on your side, pound the facts.

If you don't have the facts, pund the law.

If you have neither, pound the table.

25 July 2009 at 15:21  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Thank you, Your Grace, for this post. Nail on head; delightful and effective irony.

A major factor in all this is indeed, re-inscription: the mis-representation of both religion and history; and therefore of the evolution of everything that our young people take for granted as 'fact'.

Re your last paragraph - I think many Americans still want God out of the picture. They pound their hearts with the Pledge of Allegiance; but as you suggest, they disconnect from it intellectually. And many who do so are organized crime associates who, we have seen from other strands, affect RCism. In higher education, of course, they add Marxism to their ideological arsenal: and destruction by slander, defamation, and hatred dogs those who resist. Oh, that place is not as your illustration presents it!!! [But that picture, of course, has a strong french accent.....]

They are litigious, however. [btw - thanks Old South!]. Recourse to the law still allows some adjusment of the balance - and even oath-taking ... hand on Bible! Even trial by jury. For how long, though? Oh Lord, how long?

btw: I second that idea about "Onward Christian Soldiers."

25 July 2009 at 16:20  
Blogger Dr.D said...

I urge all communicants to notice where this action is originating: Texas. This is very far, both in physical distance and in psychological distance from the East Coast and from the Left Coast, to the point that it would not be out of place to say it is a different country. Folks in Texas do not think at all like the people on the Coasts, nor evidently like many in the UK. The Christian faith is still quite strong in Texas, and there are a lot of strong-minded, independent people in Texas who are simply tired of being told what to thing by their "betters." (The don't acknowledge "betters.") I'd say the people at the Guardian have just about totally misread things, but it is of no consequence. What they think simply does not concern the people of Texas at all. By the way, there are damn few muzlims in Texas. I wonder why?

25 July 2009 at 16:43  
Anonymous Gus said...

Well that's great news Doc!Glad to hear you doing God Texas style.I guess you're right about folks in Texas not thinking like others.Bet
if the Guardian tried to pull that one over there they'd get a shot gun blast right to the head.You and
some cowboy mates should get on over here to sort the place out.You'll need to bring your own horses and shot guns because the UK
is undergoing an economic crisis at the moment.As for the Texan muzlims,are they the ones that wear
those white sheets?Kind regards to George.

25 July 2009 at 18:56  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have never been in here before, and I doubt if I shall ever return. It is like a Mad Hatter's Tea party, you people are insane. Please tell me none of this counts in the real world, please.

25 July 2009 at 18:58  
Anonymous Rupert said...

My dear,this is better than reality
It is surreality.

25 July 2009 at 19:09  
Anonymous John Malcolmson said...

Frank 14.43

"Leave the teaching of Christian beliefs to the parents teaching such to their children."

The chance would be a fine thing in this country, where the state is systematically taking over children's moral education: they will be given sex lessons from the age of 5, and are now being told that they have the RIGHT to enjoy sex (from what age is not made clear by the protagonists of this initiative).

The day is not long off when parents' responsibility for their children will be restricted to feeding them, clothing them, and perhaps providing them with the latest Playstation. The state will take care of everything else - ensuring that they take on board the "correct" worldviews (which roughly correspond to those of the Guardian) and understand the moral imperative of equality of outcome in every way, shape and form. Any child who shows some independence of mind by questioning these orthodoxies will be suspended from school until having shown that it has seen trhe error of its ways.

25 July 2009 at 19:11  
Blogger Ian said...

This is an excellent post.

I believe what America is now experiencing we must have experienced sometime over a 100 years ago. I have an interest to find out just when the destruction of our country began. This destruction is visibly demonstrated by the rise of socialism. A rise that is very nearly complete in its role.

If America loses this internal war for its soul it only has to look to ourselves for its future. As for our future we are in God's hands now as individuals but as a nation I think the games up.

wv nabless - interesting...

25 July 2009 at 20:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The historic reality is, the First Amend. was a bar only to the establishment of a National Church. Several of the individual States had established Churches:

Massachusetts did not disestablish its official church until 1833, more than forty years after the ratification of the First Amendment; and local official establishments of religion persisted even later.

His Grace, I would hope, will revel in the irony that Jefferson's oft quoted "wall of separation" between Church and State, was made in response to Baptists seeking his help against the established Congregational Church in Connecticut. Jefferson was simply saying, "The Federal Government is forbidden from interfering in state and local churches".
Danbury Baptists' letter to Thomas Jefferson

25 July 2009 at 21:35  
Anonymous len said...

Here is the excerpt from Paul Weyrich's 1999 letter on cultural separation,

But it is impossible to ignore the fact that the United States is becoming an ideological state. The ideology of Political Correctness, which openly calls for the destruction of our traditional culture, has so gripped the body politic, has so gripped our institutions, that it is even affecting the Church. It has completely taken over the academic community. It is now pervasive in the entertainment industry, and it threatens to control literally every aspect of our lives.

Those who came up with Political Correctness, which we more accurately call "Cultural Marxism," did so in a deliberate fashion. I'm not going to go into the whole history of the Frankfurt School and Herbert Marcuse and the other people responsible for this. Suffice it to say that the United States is very close to becoming a state totally dominated by an alien ideology, an ideology bitterly hostile to Western culture. Even now, for the first time in their lives, people have to be afraid of what they say.

This has never been true in the history of our country. Yet today, if you say the "wrong thing," you suddenly have legal problems, political problems, you might even lose your job or be expelled from college.

25 July 2009 at 22:53  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Seem to have got the secularist and marxists upset your grace with this post.

Interesting angle as it requires a bit of thought , there constitution was indeed written by men of christian faith , and were not imagining a society without it .

It is interesting that the first arguments that have been thought of , is that we are now at the stage where we privatise religion to appease the marxists and secularists , they as ever presume the world would be a choice of logic to meet needs , systems of morality that perfectly match state control and economics , the brain an organ that requires a progam devoid of godly purpose.

It is perhaps very difficult to explain to someone who doesnt percieve god what it is like , it is not always joyful , it can be moments of fleeting glimpses and imaginations of beauty and darkness.

Logic perhaps sees such things as primative and we would be better if we cleansed our minds of such things .

It is not so much that we now have telecommunications that can deliver a sort of perfect progamming , but that we as individuals breath , live and die and that life is determined by a sense of this . It is perhaps a mistake to remove the respect for this unique interger of meaning as it is the ultimate relationship .

why do we exist and die can be explained in the logic and biological function , why we understand how society degenerates and us with it , if we do not have laws cannot help but be the realm of God even if you mange to comprehend it as a science , there are questions which cannot be answered as they are too intimate .

25 July 2009 at 23:36  
Blogger RonH said...

The US Constitution mentions God exactly zero times.
I'll say that again.
The US Constitution mentions God exactly zero times.

The words 'under God' were added to the pledge during the Cold War.
The US motto was changed from 'E pluribus unum' to 'In God We Trust' then too.
Remember the godless communists?

There is no need to put 'fundamentalist' in any of its forms in quotes.
It is a well defined term. Look it up.
It is not a synonym for Protestent or evangelical.

You don't think the US could have 'anything but a Christian provenance'.
The Enlightenment was a more proximate influence.

The US Constitution mentions God exactly zero times.
I'll say that again.
The US Constitution mentions God exactly zero times.

26 July 2009 at 02:03  
Anonymous Dave J. said...

"The US Constitution mentions God exactly zero times."

The US Constitution didn't create America. It created the federal government. The Declaration of Independence mentions divine providence and the endowment of Man with unalienable rights by his creator.

26 July 2009 at 03:28  
Anonymous Sparky said...

Your owner needs to take you to a repair shop.There is a glitch in your system.You are repeating lines

America used to produce a quality
robot once.

26 July 2009 at 03:54  
Anonymous Voyager said...

"The US Constitution mentions God exactly zero times."

Does that mean it is identical with the Russian Constitution and The Lisbon Treaty and therefore that the USa is like Russia ?

26 July 2009 at 07:27  
Anonymous Maturecheese said...

Your grace

This desecration of the Bible in the name of 'Art' is just another example of the war that is being raged against Christianity in this country. It is fairly obvious to all of us that this is the case and yet there is no fightback from the Church. Everytime the State impinges on the Church with its anti Christian secular diktats, the Church just rolls over and turns the other cheek, it seems.
I am ashamed to admit that I know very little of the Bible's teachings but surely there must be times when standing up and fighting back is allowed, especially when there is so much at stake. Why can't the Church threaten to have ten thousand Christians marching on Parliament in protest of gay adoptions, for example.
If the Christian Church continues as is, we will become a godless society, decadent and coarse, into which Islam will seize the opportunity to thrive. May God help us.

26 July 2009 at 11:32  
Anonymous Maturecheese said...

Your Grace
Further to my last post I might also add, why are there not mass protests organised by the Church outside this Gallery in Glasgow (Gnostic 11:23) Finally I apologise for being sidetracked by Gnostic's link in both of my posts but I feel they are relevant as it's all about the Christian church under attack by the Godless Left.

26 July 2009 at 11:42  
Blogger RonH said...

Dave J.

The Declaration is war propaganda.
It was aimed at getting support for the cause both internal and external.
Mostly it is a laundry list of George's crimes.
Some founders believed rights were god-given but the god talk in it should really be compared with the god talk from the other side: the divine right of kings.

The Declaration declares that the colonies ought to be 'free and independent states' not The United States. The Constitution declares how The United States ought to be.

Now I know you'll remember: "The US Constitution mentions God exactly zero times."


26 July 2009 at 13:22  
Anonymous sparky said...

There is definitely a touch of the
hay bale about you Ron.Farmer from
the mid west I'd say.Bit of a tease
Probably pelt the Amish with empty
plastic bottles when they ride into
town and poke holes in their straw hats.

26 July 2009 at 16:06  
Blogger RonH said...

I think you're off topic.

26 July 2009 at 16:42  
Anonymous Dave J. said...

RonH, the Articles of Confederation created the United States as a legal entity with corporate personality, an entity which the US Constitution altered the powers and mode of government of, but did not create.

The fact that the federal constitution mentions God zero time is really neither here nor there: the state constitutions adopted by both prior to and immediately following it did with considerable frequency. Religion, like most things, was regarded by the Framers as something to be dealt with at the state level, not by the new federal government they were creating. As has been rightly noted here already, but is rarely noted or even realized elsewhere, the First Amendment's religion clauses were principally adopted to protect the already-established state churches from the either federal disestablishment or the creation of a national church.

FYI, as just one small example, from the oldest written constitution still in effect in the world: "We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new constitution of civil government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, do agree upon, ordain and establish the following Declaration of Rights, and Frame of Government, as the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts."

26 July 2009 at 22:03  
Anonymous Voyager said...

the First Amendment's religion clauses were principally adopted to protect the already-established state churches from the either federal disestablishment or the creation of a national church.

Outstanding point. In fact did not Connecticut have a Church Tax at that time and an Established Church ? Universities were certainly either affiliated to Dissenters like Harvard or Anglican as what is now Columbia was founded in response to the Presbyterian College which became Princeton.

27 July 2009 at 06:33  
Anonymous sparky said...

I think you're off the air

27 July 2009 at 13:56  
Blogger ZZMike said...

"The Pilgrim Fathers were pioneers of liberty: one needs no understanding of their Puritanism or grasp of the religious persecution from which they were fleeing."

That may well be true, but they wasted no time imposing their own persecution in the New Land.

"The drive to eradicate God and Christianity from the history of the United States is simply mirroring what is happening in the UK and the EU."

Not just the history, but the landscape. Our premier anti-Christian organization , the ACLU (Anti Christian Litigation Union) has yet another lawsuit, one which demands that a cross out in the desert be removed - or at least, covered up until removed.

I suppose one could teach American history without reference to religion, but it would surely be difficult. Only Tom Paine (as far as I know) was an avowed atheist.

Every single one ouf our Presidents' inaugural addresses thanked God in one way or another for the bountiful blessings He gave us.

As for "Did God Create the USA?", the question is meaningless, and serves no purpose. The answer to the question "Who created the USA?" must surely be generations of Englishmen, Irishmen, Scots, Frenchmen, Germans, Italians, Huguenots, ....

Most all of whom were Christian, of one sort or another.

If the right question is "Was God a factor in the rise of the USA?", one has only to read de Tocqueville to realize that the answer is "Yes".

RonH seems to be making a point of some sort with "... zero times". (Evidently the result of a misspent mathematical youth.)

The Declaration of Independence:

"...the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them ...
... that they are endowed by their Creator ...
... appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, ..."

Hardly the opinions of atheists or agnostics.

The Constitution, on the other hand, "... declares how The United States ought to be."

Good work! Two marks! Now, for extra credit, recite the First Amendment.

27 July 2009 at 20:51  
Anonymous Dave J. said...

"Now, for extra credit, recite the First Amendment."

This is from memory: Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition their government for redress of grievances.

I may have got a few words slightly off here or there.

28 July 2009 at 03:38  
Blogger Dissenter said...

>>>>>This is from memory: Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition their government for redress of grievances.<<<<

Can we have one too, please?!?!? I'm increasingly worried about freedom of religion and speech

30 July 2009 at 17:45  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older