It's interesting to me that you connect the censorship of religious forms by government school institutions with moral ailments within our society. I personally agree with this connection on one level (not ubiquitously). But it's also interesting to me that the banning of Christian input into government education was precisely what R.L. Dabney predicted when he wrote his almost "prophetic" essay arguing against the government-institutionalizing of education. Dabney thought that Christians would be opposed to education falling under the auspices of the state because of the inevitable secularization process: "[T]he Jeffersonian doctrine of the absolute severance and independence of church and state, of the entire secularity of the State, and the absolutely equal rights, before the law, of religious truth and error, of paganism, atheism, and Christianity, has also established itself in all the States; and still the politicians, for electioneering ends, propagate this State education everywhere. By this curious circuit "Christian America" has gotten herself upon this throughly pagan ground; forcing the education of responsible, moral, and immortal beings, of which religion must ever be the essence, into the hands of a gigantic human agency, which resolves that it cannot and will not be religious at all. Surely, some great religious body will arise in America to lift its Christian protest against this monstrous result!" [Dabney, Discussions, Vol. IV: Secular, 548]. I quoted this from the Chalcedon site, if you're interested. Here's Dabney's treatise in booklet form.

I honestly don't know precisely where I fall on book banning. If you don't mind, I'll see if I can use this thread to process through some of my thoughts to a conclusion. I tend to think in terms of sphere sovereignty, i.e., there are three spheres of which we take part - family, church, state. Each sphere has its own responsibilities and areas over which it is sovereign. Incidentally, this is where the idea of separation of church and state comes from in the first place. However, there are areas of overlap, too. And that's where it gets tricky. There are pitfalls all around. First, you have the various views of supremacy, i.e., there are some things over which the family has supreme auspicees, others the state, others the church (although this last one has radically fallen out of fashion in the last few generations). I personally think that to pit one sphere against another or even to think that one has supremacy over another (in "every" area) is one of our nation's (world's?) biggest thinking problems. Next, of course, is the question of what categories, etc, are the duties of which spheres, and which overlap. For reasons I can't get into here, I happen to think that education is primarily the responsibility of the family. That's not to say, of course, that the family can't use means outside the home for instruction, just that it's the family's "responsibility" to be sure it's done according to their wishes. One might argue that education is a function of justice, and that, therefore, it's the state's responsibility to be sure that it's provided for everyone within their borders. However, I always go back to Scripture for my starting point, and I haven't yet been persuaded of that argument. So, my position on book banning at this point (i.e., I'm willing to be directed, here), ends up being an absurdity. And here it is (I guess) - A family, having sovereignty (and therefore responsibility) for the education of the children, has the "right" (I've come to hate that word) to "ban" books - for the safety and protection of the children. They have the right/responsibility (the two go hand-in-hand) to shepherd their child and shape their minds. Having said this, I then think about the state as a collection of families, comprised of the families within its realm. How much voice does that collective group exercise for itself in the area of education? And, since I believe that a magistrate is (ultimately) appointed by God - even through the electoral process - what sorts of duties, then, does that magistrate (rep of the state) have regarding the education of the families within his/her borders? 'At this point' (again), I don't think the magistrate has a responsibility, corporately speaking, for the education of the children within families. [The children don't belong to the state. They belong to the families. If they belonged to the state, God would have arranged for them to arrive via the US postal system rather than a mother's womb]. So, perhaps they ought not use the resources of their coffers to provide libraries in the first place(!?) After all, libraries as a service of government is a fairly new phenomenon, no? On the other hand, communities, comprised of mutually inter-dependent families, can (ought?... neh) garner their resources to provide for the stocking of a community library. If they did, though, I'd say they had the "right" to ban or include whatever books they chose. And "if" the state has the right/responsibility to provide a public library, I'd suppose it would also have the right to ban whatever books it thought would be to the detriment of its citizens and, therefore, subversive to its own welfare. Ultimately, then, I don't guess I think banning books is so very bad. But to do so would require amazing quantities of wisdom - wisdom that, perhaps, no single person has. But perhaps communities would be able to access a corporate wisdom which, right or wrong, would be able to have its own selection standards. Hmmm. I'm open to suggestions for my thought processes, here. Any Biblical input would be nice. 'Cause I think the church has an obvious role in instruction of its families as well. I say "role," not meaning to imply that it's primarily the church's duty. I guess that's where we need wisdom - which duty belongs "primarily" to which sphere and, then, how do the other two spheres contribute to supplement the originating sphere's responsibilities?

I always threatened to name my first son Nebuchadnezzar ("Nebby" for short). But that never seemed to find a sympathetic reception. So, I'm not really qualified to help.

Alrighty then, here are some sources that might be useful: I glanced at your children's ages, which made me think G.A.Henty might be a good supplement for the raw material. He was an Englishman who wrote a series of historical fiction books that are choked full of solid history. Very fine historian. Amazing breadth. The fictional characters are accurately contextualized and provide the viewpoint from which to "meet" and learn something of the historical personages. He wrote "With Lee in Virginia." On the other hand, he was very pro-South, and spent overmuch time (I think) trying to demonstrate that slavery was not the main issue, but aside from that, I'd say he's a good way to capture the imagination of young persons and foster their interest in the subject. As far as source material: Jefferson Davis, R.E.Lee, and Lincoln all gave very clear reasons for why they fought the War. Davis in his farewell address to the senate and also his Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. Lee in his letters (which may not be readily accessible if you want the information handily). Lincoln's inaugural address, March 4, 1861: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Also, you might take a look at the bibliography of Kennedy's book, The South Was Right. The book itself has an extremely pro-South slant, and so read accordingly. But the research is solid and it is well footnoted. It will also provide an easy overview of the issues from a southern perspective. Another, probably easier, book that will provide this is The Politically Incorrect Guide to the South, by Clint Johnson. It also has a pretty good bibliography. (An aside - this whole series has promise. I especially appreciated the books of this series on 1) Islam and 2) English Literature[!!!]). I'm sure there are other, better, sources, but I don't have them readily at hand. I'll track them down, though, if you don't think these will suffice. Other tangential works: Jay Willam Jone’s Christ in the Camp, A History of the Old South by Clement Eaton (shows economic side of issues). Stonewall Jackson’s wife compiled his life and letters - every young man needs to read the words of this amazing man of God. Same for RE Lee's letters. Robert L Dabney wrote a very good biography of Jackson. One last thought: The reason RE Lee's perspective is important is because his father was Richard Henry Lee, one of the fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence, much beloved of Washington and of immense importance in that conflict. Robert E. was a true son of his father and shared his ideals, which, as arguments go, were the same as Washington's. Many leading Southerners believed they were fighting the War for Independence all over again. But having said this, as with any war, the "motives" are multifarious and difficult to untangle, especially from the perspective of the common man. We can take some good guesses based, for example, on the sociological evidences. Still, the prominent figures involved have left sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the issue of slavery cannot be the reason for the War's beginning. Even most liberal historians agree and this myth is quite out of fashion in most universities today, though perhaps it still hangs about internet forums.:001_smile: I've got more thoughts on this topic, of course and I'd be happy to explore it, but it may be considered a side issue of this thread, and possibly a distraction to other readers. Thoughts?

I wouldn't disagree with that.... except on the history of the Reconstruction. Very hard to find balanced and fair representation of that.

There's lots of good stuff out there. I'll pass some along. Just remember, the victors get to write the history books and put their heroes' faces on the coinage.

The War of Northern Aggression did not begin over the issue of slavery, no. Mr. Lincoln didn't make that an issue until two years after the War began. Certainly the Cajuns of Louisiana and the Texan-nationalists didn't fight over the slavery issue, and Texas sent more soldiers, proportionally, to the War than any other state. So, if you believe that the fear of losing the institution of slavery was the South's primary motivation to secede, then, yes, I'd say you've been reconstructed. Being a Southerner, I sympathize. We fought the War to preserve our right to self-government and, much like the War for Independence, in order to escape tyrannical taxation and the North's attempt to manipulate our economy for its own benefit - but most predominantly, to defend our families from invasion. Yes, if anyone, you should be very relieved.

Well, then, I guess we need to figure out what we are talking about before we talk about it, eh? :tongue_smilie: I thought you were implying that the South fought the war for secession in order to preserve the institution of slavery. So, I previewed my position with the information that Louisiana, one of the southern states, had already freed its slaves. I thought the implication of this would be obvious for any claim that the primary issue of the War was slavery. To answer your immediate question, no, MS did not free its slaves before the War began. To answer all the questions that might arise in readers' minds about my position - no, I'm not pro-slavery. In fact, I go further than most in my thoughts on the matter - I believe that South was judged by God through the War and Reconstruction (and perhaps is still being judged) for its stubborn and ungodly practice of racial slavery and the prejudices against humanity that characterized such a practice. So, there you go.

Let's see... If I lived in Alaska (which would be nice, I fancy), and then Alaska seceded, yes, I would put Alaska before the US. But, since Alaska did not secede, and I'm governor (which goes against my expressed convictions, as per this previously posted link) I would still be living in Alaska, and so I would still put Alaska first in my heart and loyalties, and the US as a whole, second, world-third...

redundant

Throw this tidbit in your processor before you decide whether you want to start in on this: Louisiana had already freed its slaves before the War began. Still want to give it a go?

I appreciate the warning. I interpreted (rightly, I believe) Bill's post to be an attack, carrying the accusation that I am pro-slavery because I believe that true patriotism requires community first, etc. I'd say that's pretty inflamatory, which is doubly inflamatory to me because Bill also accused me of being inflamatory. So, I was "inflamed." Bill accomplished what he set out to do. Shame on me. But if he wants to have it out again, I wanted him to know I'm ready.

After the US? Or is this a trick question.

Do you really want to start it up again with me? Right away, I can see the fog of historical reconstruction like a green smog around your already dimmed vision.

It's a question of degree. Jesus 1st, then family, neighbor, community, inter-dependent community [i.e., state] (within reasonable geo-spacial human limitations), then country.

:iagree: I'm a native Mississippian and my great grandfathers died fighting for the right of self-government. Implicit in the idea of sec***ion is that local community comes first. And I'm all for that. This does not mean we can't have broader loyalties, even world-wide loyalties.

Hey, I want to use this opportunity to agree with you wholeheartedly, :iagree:

OOOHHHH! I love PG Tips! and have consumed lots of it. :thumbup:I think, though, (and this may be heretical for tea purists) that Harney and Sons English Breakfast may be even better.

We all need to be stretched sometimes. But I'm generally thought of as a very rational person. Paying taxes to caesar is an individual's duty before God. It is a form of honoring the governing authority and it is a sign of allegiance - quite appropriate for any citizen. But this is also the very reason Jesus was asked whether a citizen of the Jewish nation should pay taxes to caesar - they feared they were giving their allegiance to caesar in the payment. Jesus responds, in essence, that to honor the ruler of the land is not to dishonor God. This priniciple applies to individual Christians, but not to the church as a corporate body. The church, as a corporate humanity, owes no allegiance to caesar and owes all allegiance to God in Christ. That is why the church does not pay taxes, and never has. In fact, historically, where Christianity was culturally dominant, it was the state who paid tithe to the church, not the other way around. The church is its own organization. It is not political. It is not a business. It is not anything else. It is the church. It has its own rules and its allegiance - as a church - belongs to Christ alone, not to any government anywhere. For a civil body politic to require taxes of the corporate church of God is a legitimate occasion for the church to be civilly disobedient. When it comes to politics, everything is a moral issue. If a candidate is immoral, the church gets to point that out and apply its moral influence in whatever nation it resides, even if the "laws" of the nation dictate otherwise. This has always been the way the church has operated in whatever land it has been. I'm not sure what you think is the essence of Bill's and my debate. He asserted that our founding fathers were mostly non-Christian. I demonstrated that this is an absurdity. I've asked for the evidence you are referring to. Thomas Paine's writings and Jefferson's writings are the only two examples I've been (implicitly) given. I consent to Paine fitting that category, but also alluded to the other founders' insistent distinction between their agenda and Paine's (as he exemplified in France). My quotes of Jefferson disqualify him for the label "deist," which was Bill's category for him. I, on the other hand, pointed out that all of the 200+ other Founding Fathers (who could be identified very specifically as such) besides a very few were Christians. Do you know of any of them that were not members in good standing of their churches? If you or Bill cannot provide such evidence, then to call the validity of their faith into question verges on slander - something Bill, I'm told, would find very disrespectful to a political leader. They were more uniformly identified with their Christian faith and heritage than the historically re-constructed assertions that you suggest or than Bill make them out to be. "What were they not of one mind about?" is the question. Of course it must. Even in the "legal sense," justices have liberty to buck precedence if they perceive it to be unconstitutional (which much is!) "God gives" being the operative phrase. Therefore our "free will" must be exercised in submission to His revealed will. I'm not sure what your definition of theocracy is. The only example I know of is when God ruled the nation of Israel directly. I'm not sure what's so bad about that situation or why any Christian should reject His rule should He decide to bless a people with such a direct rule again. However, God will never again rule without mediation. Now He mediates all rule through His Son, who is King of Kings and ruler of the nations. All Christians want (or should want) Jesus to be honored by every nation and every civil magistrate. They want Jesus' morality to be the standard of morality legislated in any civil sphere. What's wrong with that? To compare Jesus' legislated morality (which "most" of our laws early on were a manifestation of) to sharia law is merely comparing the real deal to the pretender. Of course you don't want other nations to be under sharia. Good for you.

You know, this is really an important cultural question. Colors and other attire, including hair styles, do take on meaning in a culture and when we choose to ignore such cultural messages, it's important to do it thoughtfully. Black is definitely sophisticated. On the other hand, there's a prevalent goth culture that's full of it's own meaning.

The principles of civil disobedience and active resistance are two of the Christian principles that make up the fabric of our country. And the reason they are legitimate principles is precisely because a nation's "legal" system is not a people's source of moral authority. A Christian's moral feeling ought be to eskew any civil legislation that either is not a legislation of Christ's morality or is contrary to it. Are you asking for source material? :confused: If not, then I'm assuming you've read all the posts of this thread pertaining to this particular question. If we want to be true sons and daughters of our fathers, we should eliminate all laws that are contrary to their allegiances. I'm not the one trying to ignore precedence here. But in the end, even precedence must surrender to a higher standard.

Sitting in church may not make you a Christian, but your argument is an argument from silence, while mine is a argument based on evidence. Besides the quotes from the so-called "deists" (as per Bill) TJ and BF, and the clear proofs of GW's piety, they were all members of churches. The benefit of doubt should be given to the ostensible proof, not to the skeptic's piddling. I've offered proof. Those who want to claim our founding fathers were "mostly" non-Christian need to offer proof to the contrary. Anybody can be a skeptic. It doesn't take brains or effort. As far as suggesting the only "certain[ly]" Christian founding father was Samuel Adams... all I can say is if the men you rely upon are authoritative sources for your historical knowledge and have such a narrow view of "Christian," I can see why it might be difficult to swallow what I'm saying. Ask them about John Witherspoon. Maybe they'll let you add just one more to your list. Again, a little effort may be necessary to get my point. I've tried to be careful in presenting my case. I and the other readers would appreciate some care in responding. Please see if you can discern that I suggested that Mel Gibson was an historical expert or recommended his movie as a source for historical knowledge. Would you have the same problem if I said, "Did you see the movie 'Elizabeth?' Did you know she was really the queen of England?" :001_unsure: Skepticism never gives answers. It only asks questions. And then it wants you do live according to its preferences and pretend it's the wisest way. Ah, but to ask the question and search out the answer - that is the refreshment of kings. Were our founding fathers overwhelmingly Christian? You say prove it. I say prove otherwise.

Six people? That hardly constitutes "most!" You must know that there were fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence. You've listed only four of the signers here. The unitarians were John Adams and Robert Treat Paine (whom you did not list), and the "Deists," Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. The other fifty-two out of fifty-six were Christians. Shall I list their church affiliations? I don’t know about Ethan Allen being a “founder,” but it’s amazing that an “atheist” (as you suggest) would have said what he said to Delaplace at Fort Ticonderoga: When insisting that Delaplace surrender the fort, Delaplace said, “By what authority?” Allen lifted his sword(!) and said, “In the name of the great Jehovah and the Continental Congress!” I’d say we could use more atheists like him. I have nothing nice to say about Thomas Paine, though I appreciate his reasoned arguments. And so did George Washington, but Washington (and others) would have nothing to do with Paine when he got involved with the French. That is why we should insist on calling America's war the "War for Independence" and not the "American Revolution." It was not a "revolution," properly speaking, and had nothing in common with the abominable French Revolution. Furthermore, Washington, long called the "father of our country," was absolutely not a deist. He was a faithful Episcopal in good standing. His Christian faith is evidenced throughout all his writings and his practice. How does one know what's in someone's heart or head, you ask? Jesus says we can tell by, among other things, what comes out of a person's mouth (Lk 6.45). Washington wrote, "It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the Providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor" (Thanksgiving Proclamation, Oct 3, 1789). [Hardly the words of someone who believes in our version of separation of church and state]. He set two religious precedences at his inauguration - swearing upon the Bible and the addition of the words "so help me God" to the presidential oath of office. He then bent down and kissed the Bible(!) and then immediately led the congressmen and the other attendees from Federal Hall to St. Paul's Chapel for a two hour worship service to commit the new nation to God, where he took the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Two of the other deists you listed, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, were hardly the version of deist many seem to imagine. I quote Franklin, who rose during a controversial session of congress to say something most of our "Christian" congressman today wouldn't dare: "I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that 'except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.' ... I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service." And even TJ wrote, "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are a gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." "God governs in the affairs of men" (BJ) / "[God's] justice cannot sleep forever" (TJ) - These are hardly the words of deists. One of the tenets of Deism is that the god who created the universe is not personally involved in its workings. TJ also said, "Almighty God hath created the mind free ... the plan of the holy Author of our religion." Maybe he was a deist, but even he was much further over the "line" than would be accepted in today's political environment. (And who, pray tell, did he mean when he said, "Author of our religion")? If you think that Franklin's and Jefferson's words are striking, then you should read some of what the Christian signers wrote. I've already mentioned the influence of the presbyterian minister, president of Princeton and only minister to sign the Declaration - John Witherspoon. Among his students were nine signers of the Declaration, one president, nine cabinet officers, twenty-one senators, thirty-nine congressmen, three justices of the Supreme Court, and twelve governors. Another signer, Samuel Adams actually said, "The rights of the colonists may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament." Referring to the Declaration, he said, "We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven, and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come." I.e., Messiah the Prince, Jesus Christ - who has the crown rights of heaven and earth. Come on, man. Most of our founding fathers.... heck, not even most - the vast, overwhelming majority of them - were Christian men. :patriot: There were 204 "Founding Fathers" of the United States who either signed the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution or served as senators or reps in the First Continental Congress. The vast majority were Christian (maybe five weren't?). Such uniformed and wildly incorrect claims to the contrary are not helpful to anyone.

I broke a finger a few years back playing red-rover! It swelled, but I could still move it. It was just a fracture, but it hurt and remained swollen for months. Watch out for the rover!

This should have been sent in a private message. Apologies to the troll-sniffers.