TheRealMafoo said:
Sqrl said:
TheRealMafoo said:
@Sqrl
Sorry, but there is a difference in saying our founding fathers were for something they weren't, and being to tired to realize your saying 57, and not 47. Are you suggesting that Sarah was to tired to know what the founding fathers thought, or that Obama really didn't know how many states we had?
While I think a cable news organization landing a former governor as a political analyst is great for the news organization, regardless of who that former Governor is (so I disagree with theprof00), I do have to say he is absolutely right that her religious views are unworthy of debate.
She is a religious nut job.
|
In regards to your question: I'm sorry you missed it but I clearly stated what I believe in regards to Obama and the 58 states gaffe.
As for them being different, I must contradict you. First to correct you on the founding father's though:
Religion was a huge part of the founding of this nation, you can believe otherwise if you'd like but you do so at odds with all historical fact. Her gaffe here was in not knowing when the Pledge was written and that it was changed later to add the bit about god, but her point is still valid. Namely that our founding fathers saw the Nation strengthened by religious beliefs and that those values were good enough for them at the time and thus good enough for her now. The validity of the conclusion can be questioned certainly (that the nation is strengthened) but not the historical correctness of their belief in it. For that one simply has to look at one of the most important lines of the Declaration of Independence:
"We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."
The document also talks about "nature's God", the "creator", etc.....it is clearly a major part of their beliefs and plays a fundamental role in the founding of the nation. This is even more evident from the letters and correspondence between the key players involved at the time. Her thought that they would approve of the "under god" portion of the Pledge is hardly a stretch when one understands the meaning of the Divine Providence language in the declaration of independence.
As for whether they are different, they really aren't. They are human errors of a different sort to be sure, but they are human errors that partisan individuals with an axe to grind try to make into a mountain despite their blatantly being little more than a mole hill. They are little more than political footballs that people who cannot or will not engage on serious issues use to sound like they are talking about important issues.
|
There is a reason the word god is not used, or ever used. It was not because "Divine Providence" is clearer, or easier to say. It's because while they were religious people, they felt strongly that religion should not be a basis for our government. To somehow think today that because they believed in God (and a lot of them did not), that attaching it to a national pledge would be ok, is to not know what they stood for.
If she had said "founding fishes" and not fathers, then that would be along the same lines. I do think today, she feels out founding fathers would have enjoyed more references to God in out documents.
If they wanted that, they would have done that.
Now I agree 100% that she is not a moron, and has been victimized by the media, but there are real things about her to worry about, and this comment in my opinion is one of them (not because she didn't know when it was written, but because she thinks religion should play a larger roll in politics).
|
They do use the word "God", read the Declaration.
But really you missed the point of divine providence if you think the founding fathers didn't see a role for God in government. The entire concept of Divine Providence is built on the notion that the concept of a higher power is essential to safeguarding the most important aspects of our democracy. Specifically that the rights of men are unalienable because they are endowed with those rights, not by men, but instead by their creator. And thus those rights, having been endowed by a higher power, are beyond the right of one man to strip from another.
They aren't saying 'All hail the christian god'. They are saying 'Whatever higher power you believe in..thats where your unalienable rights come from.'. Hence why they would wholeheartedly agree with "Under god"...even the ones who didn't believe in god. Because the notion of rights being beyond reproach was so vitally important that ascribing their endowment unto the citizenry to a power beyond the grasp of mankind was essential to protecting them.
Some of the founders go further than this:
"We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that 'except the Lord build the House they labor in vain who build it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring Aid, we shall succeed in this political Building no better than the Builders of Babel"
This was said by Benjamin Franklin before the continental congress, does it sound familiar?
I'm sorry but Sarah Palin was right, you on the other hand are wrong. Do some historical reading and you will find more of stuff like this:
"The general Principles, on which the Fathers Achieved Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite…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"
This was written by John Adams to Thomas Jefferson in 1813.
Much of what has been made of the supposed athiesm of many of these men are from quotes having to do with their very astute and correct observations that you cannot institutionalize religion as part of the government because it inevitably leads to abuse and problems. In this respect they certainly walked a fine line, but an essential line nonetheless as evidence by how crucial they viewed divine providence.
The fine line they walked was to make people understand that religion wouldn't rule the government but that a higher power laid the ground rules for which the government must operate within. Those ground rules being summarized as the right to life, liberty, and property.
