left biblioblography: MORE NORRIS NONSENSE - 'GOD-FEARING APPLICANTS NEED ONLY APPLY'

Monday, February 05, 2007

MORE NORRIS NONSENSE - 'GOD-FEARING APPLICANTS NEED ONLY APPLY'

Back on the religious gravy train - why am I not surprised? I wonder what Norris' opinions are on Keith Ellison?

Our Founders' recommendations for president

Posted: February 5, 2007

Who would our Founders endorse for president today? What would they look for in elected officials?

I dunno, I'd guess someone who wouldn't lie to get us into a war that's strapping our economy?

On May 26, 1790, I believe we were given some answers to those questions, before an auspicious audience such as Massachusetts Governor, former President of the Constitutional Congress and signer of the Declaration of Independence, John Hancock, and Lieutenant Governor and another signer of the Declaration of Independence, Samuel Adams, as well as the then entire legislature of both governmental Massachusetts' Houses.

So then he cites that lying sack of shit Barton as his source. There goes credibility, right down the toilet.

Rev. Daniel Fosters' inspirational address to these magistrates is a must read for anyone concerned with the future of our country and criteria for properly appointed representatives. Pay particular attention to the end of his message where he speaks to each of those listed above.

Foster was a New Braintree pastor, who was invited to deliver a sermon before the newly-elected officials – a governmental tradition in the founding years of our Republic.

The words he shared that day were not only stirring but reflective of a general consensus and credo of what citizens (not just clergy) expected of their legislative leaders. Its components still contain what I would call a primer for the election of the presidency or any other chosen representative.

Such an elementary leadership text would include, but not be exclusive to, the following:

''Select and prefer Christians''

Say whaaattt? I think this puts paid to that nonsense. Here's a choice sampling:

"Elsewhere, a newspaper article complained that the Constitution could lead to "Mahometans, who ridicule the doctrine of the Trinity" becoming our lawmakers - along with "Quakers, who... make the blacks saucy," and Jews, who might order Americans to rebuild Jerusalem. (One anti-constitutional pamphleteer raised the specter of the pope becoming president.)

"The Constitution's defenders, including a number of Christian ministers, responded to such attacks by stressing how important it is that religion not derive its strength from temporal authority, as well as how dangerous it is for politics to call in the aid of religion. James Madison insisted that any law favoring one religious group over others "degrades from the equal rank of Citizens all those whose opinions in Religion do not bend to those of the Legislative authority."

For Foster and our Founders, government is a ''divine appointment,'' an ordained institution of God, and ''an important mean of delivering us from the evils of the apostasy; and designed to prepare us for the more encouraging restraints the gospel enjoins.'' As such, it too has Jesus Christ, not some nebulous and neutered god, as its head.

It's blaringly obvious that this government, if it were founded as a Christian nation, we'd have a number of items pertinent contained within the founding documents, those being

  1. Mention of Jehovah/Yahweh.
  2. Mention of Jesus.
  3. Mention of the resurrection.

I might also add, that given Christianity's highly dubious record in re: tolerance of other religions, I rather doubt we would've even had a religious clause respecting and prohibiting government involvement.

Subsequently, governmental leaders are to be regarded as ministers or servants of God, unless they refrain from obeying and executing his laws.

Holy crap! Last I checked, this is a nation, not a frickin' church. Get a clue already!

And as magistrates are honored by Christ, and act under his banner, they should be careful to be his glory, and support his religion in the world. ... If they rule for God, and for good to the people, they are to be subjected to, otherwise, "we ought to obey God, rather than men.''

This kind of Christofascist folderol gets right up my nose. Whatever happened to 'my kingdom is not of this earth'?

Foster warned, ''If religion is not honored and supported by men in places of public trust, the glory of the Lord will soon depart, and the fire of God be scattered over the city.''

So let's skip the part in the Constitution that says 'No religious oaths shall be required to hold public office'.

Though the Framers opposed the reign of kings or priests, they advocated and intermingled their Christian faith and politics. As John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, wrote to Jedidiah Morse on Feb. 28, 1797, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

Well, it's a nice change of pace, seeing John Jay quoted properly. Of course, he wasn't prescient, was he? Probably never foresaw the fact that Christian white kids would be shoulder-to-shoulder with Hindu kids, Asian kids, etc.

The text leads us to speak of civil government, as ordained of God, in the hands of the mediator; of civil rulers, as holding their commission and authority under Christ; of their duty and dignity as his Ministers, and of the duty and privilege of the people under their administration.

Wait, hold on a minute: didn't he say earlier that the Framers opposed the reign of kings or priests? And now elected, they are by the transitive properties, actual ministers? What pain medication is this guy on?

Unlike today, no politician then would have ever even thought of Foster's words as religiously pejorative or prejudice, for Christianity was the only religion upon which our Republic was founded. It was clergy, not imams, who were called to speak before legislatures. Even Jefferson did not propose a separation between mosque and state, just as he could never have imagined a democracy in which its congressmen were sworn into government upon a Quran.

And there we go again. He's obviously unfamiliar with the Treaty of Tripoli, article 11, which states "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." I have also given a source that states otherwise as well. Of course, the statements will be disputed (I loathe allegory: don't you?), via weasel wordage.

According to Foster, in order to rule rightly, governmental leaders are to maintain three chief obligations:

  1. It is their duty to uphold the kingdom of Christ, which consists in "righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."
  2. It is the duty of Christian rulers, to preserve and secure to the people, their liberties and properties. (Which I'm certain included their national borders!)
  3. The Christian ruler will hear the complaints, and redress the grievances of the people he governs.

I really don't give a fig from the cursed tree about what some pastor said three centuries ago. We're still in the 21st century. Get up to date, willya?

Can you imagine if our present governmental leaders were obliged to these codes of conduct? Civility just might be obtained by civil government!

Yeah, and I can see the civil carnage that would result from it: blasphemy laws reinstated, religious bigotry run rampant, and the dungeons of Inquisition resurrected.

The attention Christian rulers pay to religion in their hearts, and in their government, will be their support when they are called to lay down their commission, and their lives; it will brighten the scene before them, and embalm their memories when they are dead. ... Religion is, and ever has been, considered the glory of a people; as it insures the favor and protection of Heaven.''

What it ensures, my friend, is racism, bigotry, and there is ample evidence that shows that religion is ANYTHING but the 'glory of a people'. The ancient Israelites, as Lewis Black noted, were about 'ten hairs away from a baboon.' Do me a favor, spare me the rhetoric, and do some actual reading on history. You folks have a shitty track record.

Who should be our next president?

Foster's message was welcomed with a rousing reception among this esteemed Massachusetts' collection of America's Founders, 14 years after the Declaration of Independence and the same year that Rhode Island completed the 13-state, three-year ratification of the United States Constitution.

Collection of Founders? There were only two of them.

The spirit of those proceedings, as well as the remaining Founding Fathers, still beckon us to raise our criteria for electing governmental leaders beyond charisma, articulation, education, and background experience. They call us to appoint godly men and women.

And nobody else. Exclusion is the enemy of liberty. Wait: remaining Founding Fathers? Some of those fellows are still about, are they?

As a guest host on Fox's ''Hannity & Colmes'' a couple weeks ago, I made known my desire for Newt Gingrich to run for president, a prospect WND reported on a few years ago. Many since have asked me, ''Why Newt?'' In short, because despite personal past shortcomings, I believe Newt is a Republican as they used to be and, even more, meets the criteria established by men of old, evidenced in his books, ''Rediscovering God in America'' and ''Winning the Future.'' He's by no means a perfect man or candidate, but I think one of few true conservative Republicans remaining. I don't condone his indiscretions of the past, but, as with other leaders even in Scripture, I also don't condemn him from ever running for an office again because of them.

Newt Gingrich? I'll tell you something: Gingrich's done some good things, and some bad things, but if he were a Democrat with the same damn record he holds, Norris would not be nominating him.

In an age where the left are going right and the right going left, we need someone at the helm of our country who holds to old-fashioned values but can still lead into a bold new age. I believe Newt or someone like him could fit the bill. At this point, I'd love to see him run. And if not? I'll be measuring the candidates by ''Our Founders' recommendations for president.''

Hey, dude, the egregious crap you spewed was said by a pastor: it hardly qualifies as 'Our Founders' recommendations for President.' Jeez loweez, did you get kicked in the head once too often?

In the words of Rev. Foster, ''This is the way to have the presence, and blessing of God with them, and upon their administration.''

Let's see what the Founders actually DID say, shall we?

"Is it not the glory of the people of America, that whilst they have paid a decent regard to the opinions of former times and other nations, they have not suffered a blind veneration for antiquity, for custom, or for names, to overrule the suggestions of their own good sense, the knowledge of their own situation, and the lessons of their own experience? To this manly spirit, posterity will be indebted for the possession, and the world for the example of the numerous innovations displayed on the American theatre, in favor of private rights and public happiness. - James Madison, Federalist No. 14, November 30, 1787

"Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever persuasion, religious or political." Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

"The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens.
-- Thomas Jefferson, note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465

And that's that.

I get really tired of these people who seem to think they're channeling the Founders' spirits: it's absurd, it is. 'A return to traditional values' is a blinkered effort to turn back the clock, or as Flanders put it so well: ""I wish we lived in a world more like the America of yesteryear, that only exists now in the minds of us Republicans".

Till the next post, then.

Stumble Upon Toolbar

6 comments:

Mesoforte said...

The answer to what lies at our foundation needs only the preamble of our constitution with some familiarity with the social contract. Nowhere is a diety of any kind mention, and I for one hopes it stays that way.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Hey MF - problem is, these yobbos seem to think the country belongs to them, it was stolen, & they need to take it back.

beepbeepitsme said...

Religious people always want to believe that their leaders are doing the work of god then whatever the leader does, must be god's will, no matter how insane it is, it must be ok.

These people want certainty, and the only way they can get it is by believing in an absolute authority. Even if the absolute authority is just a figment of their frightened imaginations.

This leader worship thing that the US has - adoration of the leader under all circumstances, is really quite worrying. If the leader is appointed by god, then the leader must be right in all respects. Then whatever the leader tells us to do must be the will of god. (Scary stuff.)

The US started going down the shit tube when "Under god" became part of the public mentality. (Sorry if this offends, just my thoughts on the matter.)

Krystalline Apostate said...

Hiya BBIM - no offense taken.
These people live in their own little monochromatic world - 'good vs. evil', 'right vs. wrong', no middle ground, no negotiating (hey, that's weakness! De debbil's whisperin' in their ears!).
This comic book drama's gotta stop.

Aaron Kinney said...

Hey be careful, KA. I heard that Chuck Norris can roundhouse kick you in the face so fast that it will happen last week!

I also heard that Chuck Norris was the 4th wise man, and that he gave Jesus the gift of beard, which he proudl wore the rest of his life.

I also heard... ahhh, nevermind. Chuck Norris sucks, no matter how funny those Norris jokes are.

I cant believe he's a WND writer. When I was a kid I once got an autograph from him! >:(

Krystalline Apostate said...

Hey, Aaron. I also heard he can kick you so hard, it'll alter your DNA so much that your descendants will walk around wobbling, saying "What the hell was that?!?!?"
Hey, I used to respect the guy too. Anybody willing to go rounds (even in a movie) w/Superfoot Wallace & Bruce Lee is (I thought) worthy of a modicum of respect.
I sent him an email AND left a post on the WND forums.
& I'm composing a post that will deep-six this 'standards of the Founders' crap pretty nicely.