"These [the Bereans] were more fairminded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so." (Acts 17:11; NKJV)
Thursday, July 4, 2013
One Nation under God
Today, of course, is Independence Day here in the U.S., the anniversary of the day in 1776 when the Continental Congress formally adopted the Declaration of Independence. The past three days have also been historically significant: they marked the 150th anniversary of the epochal Battle of Gettysburg, the largest battle ever fought in the Western Hemisphere and the turning point in the long and bloody Civil War.
Later that Fall in 1863 President Abraham Lincoln would come to Gettysburg to dedicate the cemetery there and deliver what is probably his most memorable speech. Lincoln began by referring back to the Declaration adopted "four score and seven years" before, and pointed out that the nation was "conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." He went on to say that the Civil War was a test of whether "any nation so conceived, and so dedicated can long endure." He noted the sacrifices of the brave men who "gave the last full measure of devotion," and then concluded by challenging those who remained alive to ensure "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
What did Lincoln mean by the phrase "under God"? Was it a mere rhetorical flourish? Possibly. Lincoln was increasingly prone to embellish his speeches with religious language as the war became a moral crusade to end slavery. But in a speech noted for its brevity and succinctness we can well imagine that Lincoln chose his words carefully. And whether he intended so or not, his words convey an important truth.
Can a government of the people, by the people, and for the people long endure? That was the question of the hour. If it is true, as Jefferson averred in the Declaration, that governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed," and that "it is the right of the people to alter or abolish" their government, then how can such a government exercise any real authority? How can it even long maintain its own existence? This was, in fact, exactly the question posed by the secession of the southern states from the Union.
Conversely, if the Union is indissoluble, what is the prevent the majority from running roughshod over the rights of the minority? That was the very real fear felt by many Southerners at the time.
The answer to this dilemma is found in the phrase "under God." All of us as human beings are bound by a higher law – we answer to a higher Authority than any human government. That higher Authority both gives a human government its moral right to govern, and yet limits that right at the same time. And political freedom is possible only where the people exercise self-restraint, and are willing to obey laws as a matter of conscience. Where there is no fear of God the firing squad will have to suffice to maintain order. At the same time the government itself is accountable to God for its actions, and must never be permitted to trespass certain limits.
As George Washington put it in his Farewell Address, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens."
And yet subvert the pillars of human happiness is exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court has done. Over the course of the last fifty years the Court has systematically removed morality as the ultimate foundation of law. First abortion, and now homosexuality, have received the endorsement of the Court. Our family structure has already collapsed. It remains to be seen what lies ahead. But if history is any guide we can expect to enter a period of social chaos followed by the introduction of an authoritarian regime.
Thus came to a tragic end the greatest republic in the history of mankind.
To see last year's Fourth of July blog post, click here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thus came to a tragic end the greatest republic in the history of mankind.
ReplyDeleteThis is going to look rather silly in 8 minutes time.
And even sillier in 8 months time.
And ever sillier in 8 years time.
The End Times just keep failing to show up.
Besides, how exactly is gay marriage supposed to bring on all the oogity-boogity with the chaos and the mysteriously vague "regime"?
What's the mechanics of the operation?
Time frame?
If you keep it all vague and wispy and date-shifty, then you can't be proven wrong; either to yourself or to others.
Say what you like about Harold Camping. At least he gave a firm time frame.
New video has come out. It covers almost everything you and I have talked about over the last couple of years.
ReplyDeleteAtheism 101: The Null Hypothesis
I did watch the video and thought it was a very good presentation of the atheist viewpoint. His argument certainly holds true with some questions, such as "Did Jesus really rise from the dead?" We ordinarily do not see human beings rising from the dead (the Bible itself presents it as an extraordinary occurrence) and therefore the burden of proof clearly lies on the Christian apologist to show that it actually did happen. The null hypothesis, of course, is that no such thing occurred.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, when it comes to the question, "Does God exist?" there is really no "null hypothesis." The problem here is that we are faced with the inescapable fact that reality exists, and we must account for it somehow. Each person will inevitably form some sort of worldview ("theory," if you will) that explains the phenomenon of the universe. One theory, and only one theory, must be true. All others must be false. And when we observe the order and complexity of nature, and further observe that there is a clear difference between order and random chaos, and that we don't ordinarily see order where there is no intelligent being to create it, the atheist worldview / theory appears exceptionally weak. The appearance of design is evidence of design. I contend that the only plausible explanation is some form of monotheism.
Beyond that there were a couple of flaws in the video's argument. He asserts, without demonstration, that reality can only be know through sense perception. He also states that an acceptable proof for the existence of God would be for Him to come in human form and heal somebody. Jesus, of course, did exactly that, and that is why there is Christianity today.
Each person will inevitably form some sort of worldview ("theory," if you will)...
ReplyDeleteNope.
"I have no idea" is a perfectly reasonable answer to a difficult question.
Just making stuff up 'cause you feel like you should give some kind of an answer is silly however.
...the atheist worldview / theory appears exceptionally weak.
This worldview that you are strangely unable to describe in any detail whatsoever?
(Hint: There is no atheist "worldview")
(... awkward silence...)
No really. There's nothing.
No worldview. If there was, I'd be trying to sell you it, yeah?
Only I'm not.
Nobody else is either.
Kinda wierd to have a worldview that you don't try to explain or describe or promote in any way, right?
Yeah......that's because it doesn't exist.
It can't.
Logically, atheism is only the absence of belief in a deity (deities). There's no worldview that flows from that.
It stops cold with the "Nu Uh, I don't get your belief in your magical friend. Sounds nuts to me"
It's exactly like you and your absence of belief in Baal.
You probably don't spend much time thinking about Baal or your not worshiping of Baal.
I'm sure you have a worldview but...the whole Baal thing doesn't really factor in with that much.
When you get why you don't accept Baal, you'll get why someone else doesn't accept your god.
The appearance of design is evidence of design.
Nope. Things can look designed but that does not mean they are designed. Snowflakes are not created by tiny super elves. They look fantastic under a microscope but there's no design.
The Giant's Causeway? Yeah, um, not actually built by giants.
The appearance of design is evidence of design. I contend that the only plausible explanation is some form of monotheism.
Which will only lead you to a vague form of Deism.
Your own geographically specific brand name is a no-show.
He asserts, without demonstration, that reality can only be know through sense perception.
Well, if you have a better idea, then by all means demonstrate it.
(shrug)
Jesus, of course, did exactly that, and that is why there is Christianity today.
Do you remember that conversation you abandoned when you tried to compare the existence of Jesus with Julius Caesar?
The Bible is the claim. It's not evidence for the claim.
(I would really appreciate it if you would not do the "I think the real question is..." thingy.)
Unless you are some kind of disembodied spirit (and I have never met you personally, so I don't really know for sure) then you must somehow function in reality. And somewhere along the way you must have gained some notions about how reality functions.
ReplyDeleteNow, granted, most people don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about this. The average man in the street probably works with something that looks like a crude form of Scottish Common Sense Realism. And his "worldview," if we may call it that, is likely to be riddled with contradictions. He will probably tell you that he believes in God, but then rarely, if ever, attends church, reads the Bible, or prays. And yet again, when he dies, his friends and acquaintances will console themselves with the thought that the deceased went to a "better place," even though he never showed much interest in the better place while he was here on earth. So his worldview may be nothing more than a confused jumble.
But what about people who have studied science and logic? Even if they have just a passing acquaintance with the history of western thought, they had to have given at least some thought to the question of reality, unless they happen to be complete morons -- but we entertain better hopes for the readers of this blog.
A good presuppositionalist would argue that, once you reject Christian theism, whatever alternative one may wish to come up with will have inconsistencies, and they will never be able successfully to put it into practice.
A good presuppositionalist would argue that, once you reject Christian theism, whatever alternative one may wish to come up with will have inconsistencies, and they will never be...
ReplyDeleteWhich is silly.
It's just a shifting of the burden of proof.
Whatever theistic claim (Christian or whatever) has to stand or fall on it's own merits.
Making a claim? Then you have to support it.
Nothing else works.
It doesn't matter about the other guy and what he says or does not say.