I am disgusted!
- Thread starter Wamba
- Start date
ChristisKing
New member
Time for de-programing
Time for de-programing
The Hebrew Republic was est'd by God and it was not a monarchy. Men stepped in and ruined it when they insisted on kings.
Cromwell had to bring down a monarchy, cut off a tyrants head and run-off tyrants out of Parliment. We can thank him for ending monarchies in western civilization for ever!
The American Republic was founded on the Declaration of Independence which states our rights come from God and not the state, therefore only God could take our rights away and not the state. It was pure genius! But Scripture always is!
Sounds live you guys have been indoctrinated by our "great" public school system and taken too many revisionist history 101 classes?!? Well it's time to get de-programed. :dizzy:
Time for de-programing
Caledvwlch said:
The Hebrew Republic was est'd by God and it was not a monarchy. Men stepped in and ruined it when they insisted on kings.
Cromwell had to bring down a monarchy, cut off a tyrants head and run-off tyrants out of Parliment. We can thank him for ending monarchies in western civilization for ever!
The American Republic was founded on the Declaration of Independence which states our rights come from God and not the state, therefore only God could take our rights away and not the state. It was pure genius! But Scripture always is!
Sounds live you guys have been indoctrinated by our "great" public school system and taken too many revisionist history 101 classes?!? Well it's time to get de-programed. :dizzy:
Caledvwlch
New member
Number 1: I was homeschooled by my Christian parents until fifth grade. Until graduation I was at a protestant Christian school. So the only indoctrination was the same indoctrination that you've been put through.ChristisKing said:
Number 2: These United States as they stand today, are not governed by the Declaration of Independence. (On a short side note, the theology in the Declaration of Independence is questionable at best from a Christian standpoint, as Thomas Jefferson was a deist) These United States are governed by the Constitution. The Constitution derives it's power from the people. The Declaration has no governing or legal authority.
Number 3: How did Cromwell maintain control? With his army. It was a military dictatorship. You said it yourself. He drove people out of Parliament. With what? A baseball bat in his tank-top?
Number 4: (Sorry I went completely backwards) What about Israel's government made it a theocracy? (I'll admit your differentiation before and after the kings) As far as I can tell from reading the Books of the Law, the only government prescribed was a hierarchal civil court system. There doesn't seem to be any provisions for ENFORCING God's laws. Besides of course, dragging someone before the town elders in sort of a mob-style court. How often did these elders simply allow someone to be stoned because the crowd desired it? The only thing I guess you could say is that God personally enforced his laws. According to the Books of the Law (and Judges, and Joshua), God only judged the nation as a whole for idolatry. There aren't too many instances of personal sanctions applied by God. But maybe these requirements are enough to declare it a theocracy... You win this time... but I'll be BACK!!!
Oh yeah, but I still hold to my arguments pertaining to Cromwell, these United States and my upbringing.
Peace :mrt:
Caledvwlch
New member
I don't think so... but the rest of us will take any excuse to argue, be they old threads or new. It's fun... isn't it? :hammer:Mr. 5020 said:
ChristisKing
New member
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened...
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened...
I said it "sounds" like you got your revisionist indoctrination from our public schools, if not there, where?
Ok, well anyway lets just work on the United States first and then we'll explain why Cromwell's elimination of a monarchy form of government from western civilization was so important. By the way, when you say the Declaration of Independence has no authority you lose credibility. The Declaration of Independence is our "articles of incorporation," it formed us. Of course it has authority, its our birth certificate.
Many have called our government a model from the "Hebrew Commonwealth" and have seen our present constitutional model of government as based on this ideal. In fact, a sermon preached in 1788 had the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in mind: The Republic of the Israelites An Example to the American States by Samuel Langdon. Langdon was prominent in securing the adoption of the Constitution as a delegate to the New Hampshire state convention in 1788.
The New Hampshire Congregationalist minister argues that Deuteronomy 4:5 is a model for our American republic. Thus, in the words of Langdon, we have proof that some representatives who ratified our Constitution were men who believed that: "the Israelites may be considered as a pattern to the world in all ages; .... Let us therefore look over their constitution and laws, enquire into their practice, and observe how their prosperity and fame depended on their strict observance of the divine commands both as to their government and religion."
The Old Covenant basis for the representative congress, the senate, the judicial system, the order of military, the religious and ceremonial observances, the different and weaker forms of government which succeeded that commanded by Moses, and the complete revelation supplied by Jesus Christ, are all expounded on by Langdon and then applied to the newly birthed American Republic. There are comparisons between Moses as Israelite general and Washington as our military leader, the twelve tribes and our thirteen colonies. Soon after this sermon was published the U.S. Constitution was ratified by New Hampshire.
Although it is true that there was a strong deistic influence at the time of the signing of the Declaration, there is no question that there were the residual effects of strong Puritan influence. The American Revolution could not have occurred without the 150-year-old Puritan foundation in America.
Thomas Jefferson, a man described by his contemporaries as "a French infidel in respect to religion," was indebted to the Puritans for his model of civil government. The evangelical explosion of the Great Awakening in Puritan New England provided the seeds for the first Baptist churches to be planted in Episcopal Virginia, which held to a Covenantal theology and a congregational form of church government. Jefferson gained his first clear idea of a republican government from seeing the congregationalism of a Baptist church in his vicinity. It was good politics, too, since he strengthened his state party's stance among the people through an alliance with the Baptists and all friends of religious freedom. (Joseph Tracy, The Great Awakening (Tappan and Dennet, Boston, 1842), pp. 419-420.)
Thomas Hooker was a leader in the area of government as well. In May of 1638 he was asked to address the General Court of Connecticut, which apparently had been given the responsibility of drafting a constitution. It was there he preached his famous sermon on Deuteronomy 1:13: Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you. "In this sermon he laid down three doctrines. Doctrine I. That the choice of public magistrates belongs unto the people by God's own allowance. Doctrine II. That the privilege of election which belongs unto the people must not be exercised according to their humor, but according to the blessed will of God. Doctrine III. That they who have the power to appoint officers and magistrates, it is in their power also to set the bounds of the power and the place unto which they call them." In January 1639 the "Fundamental Orders" were adopted, serving as the constitution of Connecticut. Historians have recognized Thomas Hooker’s leadership and influence in the final document.
Modern theonomists can neither completely defend the rigidity of the Massachusetts Bay Colony nor completely disparage the attempts towards a godly separation of powers by Roger Williams and the Rhode Island colony. A more honest approach would be to settle on the example of civil liberty found in the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut. (Another example for you)
The United States Constitution owes allegiance to Thomas Hooker, more than any other man, for providing a working model of decentralized government, one which had not appeared on the face of the earth since the time of the ancient Hebrews.
The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut was the first biblical covenant in modern times, which founded a federal government. The Mayflower Compact was not a constitution, in that it did not define and limit the functions of government. The Magna Charta had the nature of a written constitution because it described the rights of the people, but it did not create a civil government.
This constitution states that Connecticut is submitted to the "Savior and Lord." There are none of the patronizing references to a "dread sovereign" or a "gracious king" nor the slightest allusion to the authority of British government or any other government over the colony. It presumes Connecticut to be self-governing. It does not describe church membership as a condition for suffrage. In this federation, all powers not granted to the General Court remained in the towns. Each township had equal representation in the General Court. The governor and the council were chosen by a majority vote of the people with almost universal suffrage.
In his sermon to the General Court, May 31, 1638, Hooker said, "The foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people...the choice of public magistrates belongs unto the people by God's own allowance...they who have power to appoint officers and magistrates have the right also to set the bounds and limitations of the power and place unto which they call them."
John Fiske, a Harvard historian: "It was the first written constitution known to history, that created a government, and it marked the beginnings of the American republic, of which Thomas Hooker deserves more than any other man to be called the father. The government of the United States today is in lineal descent more nearly related to that of Connecticut than to that of any of the other thirteen colonies."
Unless law is anchored in moral absolutes, Supreme Court Justice John Marshall's statement that the government of the United States is a "government of laws and not men" makes no sense. If there is no consensus as to what constitutes the law, often called the "Higher Law," and where it can be found, then we are governed by men and not laws. The colonists believed that this "Higher Law" was a definite thing and could be found in a particular place, namely the Bible, under whose commandments all would be equally subjected: "The right of freedom being a gift of God Almighty, ... the rights of the colonists as Christians ... may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the Great Law Giver ... which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament," wrote Samuel Adams, the great revolutionary organizer, in his 1772 classic of political history, The Rights of the Colonists.
I know this is getting long so I'll stop now but if you like I can walk through both the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and demonstrate where all the concepts and ideas in these documents originated from the Protestant Reformation and Calvinism, which of course is really just basic biblical Christianity.
Please just let me know.
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened...
Caledvwlch said:
I said it "sounds" like you got your revisionist indoctrination from our public schools, if not there, where?
Ok, well anyway lets just work on the United States first and then we'll explain why Cromwell's elimination of a monarchy form of government from western civilization was so important. By the way, when you say the Declaration of Independence has no authority you lose credibility. The Declaration of Independence is our "articles of incorporation," it formed us. Of course it has authority, its our birth certificate.
Many have called our government a model from the "Hebrew Commonwealth" and have seen our present constitutional model of government as based on this ideal. In fact, a sermon preached in 1788 had the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in mind: The Republic of the Israelites An Example to the American States by Samuel Langdon. Langdon was prominent in securing the adoption of the Constitution as a delegate to the New Hampshire state convention in 1788.
The New Hampshire Congregationalist minister argues that Deuteronomy 4:5 is a model for our American republic. Thus, in the words of Langdon, we have proof that some representatives who ratified our Constitution were men who believed that: "the Israelites may be considered as a pattern to the world in all ages; .... Let us therefore look over their constitution and laws, enquire into their practice, and observe how their prosperity and fame depended on their strict observance of the divine commands both as to their government and religion."
The Old Covenant basis for the representative congress, the senate, the judicial system, the order of military, the religious and ceremonial observances, the different and weaker forms of government which succeeded that commanded by Moses, and the complete revelation supplied by Jesus Christ, are all expounded on by Langdon and then applied to the newly birthed American Republic. There are comparisons between Moses as Israelite general and Washington as our military leader, the twelve tribes and our thirteen colonies. Soon after this sermon was published the U.S. Constitution was ratified by New Hampshire.
Although it is true that there was a strong deistic influence at the time of the signing of the Declaration, there is no question that there were the residual effects of strong Puritan influence. The American Revolution could not have occurred without the 150-year-old Puritan foundation in America.
Thomas Jefferson, a man described by his contemporaries as "a French infidel in respect to religion," was indebted to the Puritans for his model of civil government. The evangelical explosion of the Great Awakening in Puritan New England provided the seeds for the first Baptist churches to be planted in Episcopal Virginia, which held to a Covenantal theology and a congregational form of church government. Jefferson gained his first clear idea of a republican government from seeing the congregationalism of a Baptist church in his vicinity. It was good politics, too, since he strengthened his state party's stance among the people through an alliance with the Baptists and all friends of religious freedom. (Joseph Tracy, The Great Awakening (Tappan and Dennet, Boston, 1842), pp. 419-420.)
Thomas Hooker was a leader in the area of government as well. In May of 1638 he was asked to address the General Court of Connecticut, which apparently had been given the responsibility of drafting a constitution. It was there he preached his famous sermon on Deuteronomy 1:13: Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you. "In this sermon he laid down three doctrines. Doctrine I. That the choice of public magistrates belongs unto the people by God's own allowance. Doctrine II. That the privilege of election which belongs unto the people must not be exercised according to their humor, but according to the blessed will of God. Doctrine III. That they who have the power to appoint officers and magistrates, it is in their power also to set the bounds of the power and the place unto which they call them." In January 1639 the "Fundamental Orders" were adopted, serving as the constitution of Connecticut. Historians have recognized Thomas Hooker’s leadership and influence in the final document.
Modern theonomists can neither completely defend the rigidity of the Massachusetts Bay Colony nor completely disparage the attempts towards a godly separation of powers by Roger Williams and the Rhode Island colony. A more honest approach would be to settle on the example of civil liberty found in the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut. (Another example for you)
The United States Constitution owes allegiance to Thomas Hooker, more than any other man, for providing a working model of decentralized government, one which had not appeared on the face of the earth since the time of the ancient Hebrews.
The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut was the first biblical covenant in modern times, which founded a federal government. The Mayflower Compact was not a constitution, in that it did not define and limit the functions of government. The Magna Charta had the nature of a written constitution because it described the rights of the people, but it did not create a civil government.
This constitution states that Connecticut is submitted to the "Savior and Lord." There are none of the patronizing references to a "dread sovereign" or a "gracious king" nor the slightest allusion to the authority of British government or any other government over the colony. It presumes Connecticut to be self-governing. It does not describe church membership as a condition for suffrage. In this federation, all powers not granted to the General Court remained in the towns. Each township had equal representation in the General Court. The governor and the council were chosen by a majority vote of the people with almost universal suffrage.
In his sermon to the General Court, May 31, 1638, Hooker said, "The foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people...the choice of public magistrates belongs unto the people by God's own allowance...they who have power to appoint officers and magistrates have the right also to set the bounds and limitations of the power and place unto which they call them."
John Fiske, a Harvard historian: "It was the first written constitution known to history, that created a government, and it marked the beginnings of the American republic, of which Thomas Hooker deserves more than any other man to be called the father. The government of the United States today is in lineal descent more nearly related to that of Connecticut than to that of any of the other thirteen colonies."
Unless law is anchored in moral absolutes, Supreme Court Justice John Marshall's statement that the government of the United States is a "government of laws and not men" makes no sense. If there is no consensus as to what constitutes the law, often called the "Higher Law," and where it can be found, then we are governed by men and not laws. The colonists believed that this "Higher Law" was a definite thing and could be found in a particular place, namely the Bible, under whose commandments all would be equally subjected: "The right of freedom being a gift of God Almighty, ... the rights of the colonists as Christians ... may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the Great Law Giver ... which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament," wrote Samuel Adams, the great revolutionary organizer, in his 1772 classic of political history, The Rights of the Colonists.
I know this is getting long so I'll stop now but if you like I can walk through both the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and demonstrate where all the concepts and ideas in these documents originated from the Protestant Reformation and Calvinism, which of course is really just basic biblical Christianity.
Please just let me know.
Mr. 5020
New member
CIK, ever heard of commandment #6? [Click here]
Caledvwlch
New member
Long as it was, CIK, your post saw great. It was exactly the kind of researched, informed opinion I was hoping someone would step up and deliver. While I can't agree with every one of your points, you are obviously not just throwing the "because God said so" card at me, and I greatly appreciate it. Now if you don't mind giving me some time to read and ponder, I'll see if I can come back with some couterpoint.
ChristisKing
New member
Mr. 5020 said:
Thx for pointing this out, I didn't know this rule existed...but I did feel like my post was getting too long.
Caledvwlch
New member
Ok, I'm going to give it a shot, CIK, but this is off the cuff...
I have no problem accepting the fact that the people of the early Unitde States governed themselves upon the guidlines of the Bible and Biblical Law. That much is obvious. Where I get hazy is how this makes it a working theocracy. Or so I don't use the wrong term, a working model of biblical government. It seems to me that all your examples were justifications of limited, representative government. Which, again, I have no trouble agreeing with. Indeed, the economic success of the early United States can be attributed to the limited authority granted to them by their various constitutions and the US Constitution as a whole. While they may have derived part of their government model from the "hebrew Republic", they did not adopt the Books of Moses as their codified law. They adopted a principle of individual liberty and self government, and wrote constitutions to ensure that the government would always be our servant, not our master. Maybe, this does satisfy your definition of a theocracy (or a republic governed by God's word). To me, I see a republic limited in it's authority, which allowed people to govern themselves as they pleased, as long as they did not infringe on the equal rights of others. But the Law of God, as it was codified in the books of Moses, was never applied as the law of the United States.
When I originally got tangled up in this debate I was trying to make the point that in order to consistently apply God's law we would be forced to cut off women's hands, burn priests daughters alive, and stone incorrigible children to death in the town square. And if these things no longer apply, then who gets to decide which law to apply and which laws do not to apply? Man does. Maybe a representative in Congress, maybe a general, maybe some maniac with his finger on a button.
I have no problem accepting the fact that the people of the early Unitde States governed themselves upon the guidlines of the Bible and Biblical Law. That much is obvious. Where I get hazy is how this makes it a working theocracy. Or so I don't use the wrong term, a working model of biblical government. It seems to me that all your examples were justifications of limited, representative government. Which, again, I have no trouble agreeing with. Indeed, the economic success of the early United States can be attributed to the limited authority granted to them by their various constitutions and the US Constitution as a whole. While they may have derived part of their government model from the "hebrew Republic", they did not adopt the Books of Moses as their codified law. They adopted a principle of individual liberty and self government, and wrote constitutions to ensure that the government would always be our servant, not our master. Maybe, this does satisfy your definition of a theocracy (or a republic governed by God's word). To me, I see a republic limited in it's authority, which allowed people to govern themselves as they pleased, as long as they did not infringe on the equal rights of others. But the Law of God, as it was codified in the books of Moses, was never applied as the law of the United States.
When I originally got tangled up in this debate I was trying to make the point that in order to consistently apply God's law we would be forced to cut off women's hands, burn priests daughters alive, and stone incorrigible children to death in the town square. And if these things no longer apply, then who gets to decide which law to apply and which laws do not to apply? Man does. Maybe a representative in Congress, maybe a general, maybe some maniac with his finger on a button.
Caledvwlch
New member
I think he was just surprised that we're still at it after all these pages.Imrahil said:
ChristisKing
New member
DAN 2:35 ....and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled t
DAN 2:35 ....and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled t
Sure, and pls allow me to say once again that our founders had a lot of depth and therefore the prinicples, concepts and ideas embedded in the DOI and Constitution were not their "original thoughts," but rather they were built upon concepts and ideas of Biblical thought experienced throughout all of history which they literally "bathed in." The immediate source, and believe me it goes back all the way to the Hebrew Republic, of these theonomic concepts were from the following famous Calvinistic theonomic writings, and functioning laws and constitutions that our founders devoured, saw practiced and even practiced themselves!
A Short Treatise on Political Power, John Ponet, D.D. (1556)
How Superior Powers Ought to Be Obeyed by Their Subjects, Christopher Goodman (1558)
The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, John Knox (1558)
The Right of Magistrates Over Their Subjects, Theodore Beza (1574)
De Jure Regni apud Scotos, George Buchanan (1579)
Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, or, A Vindication Against Tyrants (1579)
The Dutch Declaration of Independence (1581)
Politica, Althusius (1603)
Mayflower Compact (1620)
The First Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England, Sir Edward Coke (1628)
The Petition of Right, Sir Edward Coke (1628)
The Constitution of Plymouth Colony (1636)
Essay Against the Power of the Church To Sit in Judgement on the Civil Magistracy, John Winthrop (1637)
The National Covenant (1639)
Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (1639)
The New Hampshire Compact (1639)
Declaration to Justify Their Proceedings and Resolutions to Take Up Arms (1642)
The Establishment of the United Colonies of New England (1643)
The Solemn League and Covenant (1643-44)
Lex Rex, Samuel Rutherford (1644)
Areopagitica, John Milton (1644)---Cromwell's Secretary by the way
On Liberty , John Winthrop (1645)
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646)
An Agreement of the People (1647)
An Agreement of the Free People of England (1649)
The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates (1650) by John Milton
The Instrument of Government (1653); The Constitution of the English Commonwealth under Oliver Cromwell.
The Commonwealth of Oceana, James Harrington (1656)
On The Law of Nature and Naitons, Samuel Pufendorf (1672)
De Officio Hominis Et Civis Juxta Legem Naturalem Libri Duo, Samuel Pufendorf (1673)
English Bill of Rights (1689)
Discourses Concerning Government, Table of Contents. Algernon Sidney (1698)
DAN 2:35 ....and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.
DAN 2:35 ....and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled t
Caledvwlch said:
Sure, and pls allow me to say once again that our founders had a lot of depth and therefore the prinicples, concepts and ideas embedded in the DOI and Constitution were not their "original thoughts," but rather they were built upon concepts and ideas of Biblical thought experienced throughout all of history which they literally "bathed in." The immediate source, and believe me it goes back all the way to the Hebrew Republic, of these theonomic concepts were from the following famous Calvinistic theonomic writings, and functioning laws and constitutions that our founders devoured, saw practiced and even practiced themselves!
A Short Treatise on Political Power, John Ponet, D.D. (1556)
How Superior Powers Ought to Be Obeyed by Their Subjects, Christopher Goodman (1558)
The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, John Knox (1558)
The Right of Magistrates Over Their Subjects, Theodore Beza (1574)
De Jure Regni apud Scotos, George Buchanan (1579)
Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, or, A Vindication Against Tyrants (1579)
The Dutch Declaration of Independence (1581)
Politica, Althusius (1603)
Mayflower Compact (1620)
The First Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England, Sir Edward Coke (1628)
The Petition of Right, Sir Edward Coke (1628)
The Constitution of Plymouth Colony (1636)
Essay Against the Power of the Church To Sit in Judgement on the Civil Magistracy, John Winthrop (1637)
The National Covenant (1639)
Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (1639)
The New Hampshire Compact (1639)
Declaration to Justify Their Proceedings and Resolutions to Take Up Arms (1642)
The Establishment of the United Colonies of New England (1643)
The Solemn League and Covenant (1643-44)
Lex Rex, Samuel Rutherford (1644)
Areopagitica, John Milton (1644)---Cromwell's Secretary by the way
On Liberty , John Winthrop (1645)
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646)
An Agreement of the People (1647)
An Agreement of the Free People of England (1649)
The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates (1650) by John Milton
The Instrument of Government (1653); The Constitution of the English Commonwealth under Oliver Cromwell.
The Commonwealth of Oceana, James Harrington (1656)
On The Law of Nature and Naitons, Samuel Pufendorf (1672)
De Officio Hominis Et Civis Juxta Legem Naturalem Libri Duo, Samuel Pufendorf (1673)
English Bill of Rights (1689)
Discourses Concerning Government, Table of Contents. Algernon Sidney (1698)
DAN 2:35 ....and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.
Caledvwlch
New member
That's too cool. :chuckle:
PureX
Well-known member
The reasons that the United States of America was formed as a nation are spelled out clear as day in the Declaration of Independance. That's why they wrote it. And there is not ONE word in the Declaration of Independace about a desire or a need to establish a religious nation. The fact that many of the founders were Christian does not mean they intended to found a "Christian nation". They wrote down for all the world to read, exactly why they decided to declare themselves a new nation, and the suppression of their religion was not among any of the 27 or so reasons that they listed. And in fact, if we read the Declaration of Independance carefully, the theme of individual rights and freedoms predominate. And being that religious theocracies are NOT known for their support of individual rights and freedoms, I find it extremely unlikely that this declaration was in any possible way referring to a theocracy.
The "revisionists" here are not liberal democrats fighting to maintain their individual rights and freedom. The revisionists are the people trying to claim that the United States of America was somehow intended to be a Christian theocracy.
In Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security -- Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. -- The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free system of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislature, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have we been wanting in attention to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
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 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 "revisionists" here are not liberal democrats fighting to maintain their individual rights and freedom. The revisionists are the people trying to claim that the United States of America was somehow intended to be a Christian theocracy.
In Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security -- Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. -- The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free system of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislature, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have we been wanting in attention to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
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 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.
ChristisKing
New member
Caledvwlch said:
This is a vigorous critique of the tyranny of "Bloody Mary's" reign in England, and a call to resist. A large portion of the Americans who fought in the American Revolution were adherents to Knox's doctrines (Calvinist) as set forth in this document.
PureX
Well-known member
I don't care if they were all adherents of Sun Yun Moon, they weren't fighting to create a religious nation. They were fighting for their individual freedom. And as theocracies do not support individual freedom, we can safely say that they were not fighting to establish a Christian theocracy. A few of them may have had such a fantasy, but if they did, they must not have read the Declaration of Independence, because the declared reason for the desire for independance was freedom, and was NOT religious subjugation.ChristisKing said: