You can listen to the interview here:

http://www.sidroth.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5434&news_iv_ctrl=0&abbr=rad_

If there is one thing America could use now, it’s an attitude of gratitude. Maybe a major factor in America’s straying is the thinking that we have entertained for several decades, is that we made ourselves great, and that therefore, America’s destiny and purpose was ours to carve. Contrary to what our humanist history books would have us believe, America is not a monument to man’s potential. It is a monument to the Gospel.

Generations of Christian martyrs fought with the world, stood firm under fire, and preserved the Scriptures with their blood, so that their descendants could live in this land in freedom, could spread the Gospel to the most distant corners of the earth, and shelter countless immigrants on our shores.

No nation has ever seen success without God’s help, and the nation that refuses to acknowledge that, and to respond with humility and gratitude has always been humbled.

No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed.

President George Washington, First Inaugural Address, April 30, 1789

Everyone knows the famous saying by Ben Franklin, that the only things that are certain in life are death and taxes. Which one is worse? Heh.

(Hat tip: Patriot Humor)

My FFQF today comes from an email I recently received from Wallbuilders, David Barton’s group. As usual, his stuff is choc-full of quotations from the Founding Fathers. The email and the quotations are so good, I would like to share it all with my readers today. “JOIN A TEA PARTY TODAY!”

Next week there will be thousands of TEA parties (Taxed Enough Already) across the nation. In a relatively short period of time, we have seen an explosive increase in government spending and national debt.

Previous generations avoided these unhealthy practices, being guided by wise political leaders who understood the blessings of frugality and the dangers of debt.

For example, Alexander Hamilton — America’s first Secretary of the Treasury and also a signer of the Constitution — wisely declared:

Allow a government to decline paying its debts and you overthrow all public morality — you unhinge all the principles that preserve the limits of free constitutions.

Nothing can more affect national prosperity than a constant and systematic attention to extinguish the present debt and to avoid as much as possibly the incurring of any new debt.

George Washington similarly warned:

Avoid occasions of expense… and avoid likewise the accumulation of debt not only by shunning occasions of expense but by vigorous exertions to discharge the debts, not throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.

Perhaps no Founding Father was as forthright on this topic as Thomas Jefferson:

If the debt should be swelled to a formidable size, we shall be committed to the career of debt, corruption, and rottenness. . . . The discharge of the debt, therefore, is vital to the destinies of our government.

The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale. I. . . place economy among the first and most important of republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared.

Jefferson even wisely foresaw where America generally finds itself today:

I am not among those who fear the people… [A]nd to preserve their independence we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy [frugality] and liberty, or profusion [excess spending] and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, our people must come to labor sixteen hours in twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these hours to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread. The [forerunner] of this is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.

Millions of citizens, following the example of America’s early residents, have finally decided to draw a line and raise their voice against the government’s exorbitant spending and exploding debt. On April 15, citizens at more than 1,000 locations across the country will be sponsoring TEA parties.

If you want to participate with your fellow citizens, go to http://www.teapartyday.com/ to find a location near you.

[*] You may notice that Hamilton is quoted here as advocating the elimination, and not the accumulation, of public debt here. Indeed, there are many, many such statement throughout Hamilton’s writings. This goes directly against what we have been taught for decades in our history textbooks, and what many people are being led to believe through Thomas DiLorenzo’s writings on Hamilton.

I have (finally) posted the second installment of my critical examination of DiLorenzo’s claims, here.

Beginning with this month, I have decided to stop issuing monthly themes for the Founding Fathers’ Quote Friday meme. My reason for this is simply, it will make it easier for bloggers to participate, and encourage other bloggers to become participants (hopefully). There is the possibility that inspiration will strike me and I will issue a certain theme accordingly; however, I don’t plan on regularly issuing themes.

Today, I would like to quote from one of my most favorite Founders — George Washington. I think that he is, without dispute, the greatest of them all. The other Founders had their fine qualities, and I think that most all of them were men of worthy character, but they all knew that Washington surpassed them in virtue. Too bad our countrymen do not judge public personages by the same measure anymore.

One of Washington’s amazing qualities, which shone through especially during his turbulent presidency, was his astounding ability to stay aloof of party disputes. He was not “undecided,” so to speak; in principle, he was a staunch Federalist. However, he did not allow himself as a personal individual to be defined by political parties and factions. And because he won the respect and admiration of all, most everyone (save the handful of rascals who could not have cared less about principle) respected that in Washington.

So when Washington prepared to exit the Presidency, and public life forever, he prepared an address to encourage and warn his countrymen. He prepared this chiefly with the help of Alexander Hamilton, who had been Washington’s right-hand-man since the War for Independence. Hamilton, although the virtual founder of the Federalist Party and its outspoken leader, has been considered to be an unwavering partisan; but his record shows that he agreed Washington that political battles should be defined by core principles, not party lines.

Here are the words of Washington to our nation:

Let me now … warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
(emphasis added)

Does this sound familiar to anybody?

People, when we stop putting our trust in God, we automatically put our trust in man. In a nation such as ours, with a “popular government,” where the people get involved in their political system, if there is not a general trust in God, and a living conviction that God’s principles ought to be followed, then trust will be put in a political figure. Since not all people agree in everything, the people will be divided into their respective factions, and trust in the leader of their faction to “save” them.

I don’t care if that leader says he’s a Christian, a conservative, or pro-life. Even if he is all those things in principle, we ought not to put our trust in him. That is what we did with George W. Bush, and with several presidents before him. Of course, it turned out that he was neither of those things, and our liberties were wrecked in the process. He was a prime example of a person who wears the name-brands of all the good things, but was just a partisan, and not guided by principle.

We can’t afford to make that mistake again.

Now I know what you’re thinking. George Washington could not have really been that funny. True, he was not disposed to laughter and joking, particularly after his grueling experiences in the War for Independence, which concluded, sadly, with the death of his adopted son, John Parke Custis. He did, however, possess the ability to be warm and generous, and was quite capable of finding amusement.

Today’s story comes from Henry Howe, writing in 1861, recalls a story which, he claims, was told to him by Washington himself, concerning a somewhat amusing incident which occurred while Joseph Wright was crafting a plaster life mask of Washington:

Wright came to Mt. Vernon, with the singular request, that I should permit him to take a model of my face in plaster of Paris, to which I consented with some reluctance. He oiled my features over, and placing me flat on my back, upon a cot, proceeded to daub my face with the plaster.

While in this ridiculous attitude, Mrs. Washington entered the room, and seeing my face thus overspread with the plaster, involuntarily exclaimed. Her cry excited in me a disposition to smile, which gave my mouth a twist, or compression of the lips, that is now observable in the busts Wright afterward made.

Adventures and Achievments of Americans, by Henry Howe, pg. 626

Poor guy. He was trying so hard:

Be careful with your wording. Religion and morality are two very different things.

We don’t need a supernatural being to make us be good citizens and make moral choices. You must take responsibility and choose to be a moral person – it is much more genuine than someone making those sort of life decisions just to appease a higher being. I often wonder if religious people would still be “good” if they were to find out that there really isn’t a god (or gods, etc.)

As far as religion goes – keep your religion (by all means – it’s your freedom to enjoy), but also keep your religion out of my laws (it’s my country too). Laws are meant to govern a population so as not to oppress those and allow us all to live without fear of discrimination, unwarranted cruelty and/or threat to our lives and health. Religious-based laws often end up doing the opposite (don’t even get me started on this one).

So, in summary – freedom, love and equality for all (not just straight, Christian men and the women that agree with them). It’s that easy – if your religion doesn’t agree with that you must ask yourself where has your religion gone wrong?

I wrote back a rather lengthy response, in order to do this discussion a fair amount of justice (though I could have gone on longer). I do wish people would leave some kind of a name, so I could be more polite and have something more formal to address them with, rather than just “Anonymous.” I decided that it would be better if I made my response a post, rather than such a long comment. Here is that response:

Hello Anonymous. Welcome to my blog, and thanks for reading and leaving your comment.

I agree with you that religion and morality are two distinct things, but I also believe, along with John Adams and George Washington, that morality, on a nation-wide scale, depends upon the influence of religion (since they were speaking in an 18th-century American context, they would have been referring to Christianity in general — no other religion was accepted as valid in America at that time).

Since you seem to disagree with this premise, let me lay before you the following facts:

(1) Man is not inherently good. Oh yes, he has a conscience, and I agree with you that even those who are not religious can make moral choices on their own. The Bible itself tells us this in Romans 2:14-15. However, George Washington boldly declared in his Farewell Address: “And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” In other words, while we may acknowledge that certain individuals may enlighten their minds, and act reasonably, rationally, and morally, societies and nations have not done this often enough or consistently enough throughout history, or even today, for us to trust that man, without accountability to a Higher Power, will do, or even know, what is right on his own.

(2) Please note that you are not just arguing with me on this subject. You are arguing with George Washington (quoted above), John Adams (quoted in the above post), Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and even Benjamin Franklin (read his scalding letter to Thomas Paine here). I’m not saying that these men were infallible; however, they did possess a lot of wisdom and virtuous character (recall that Washington has been called “the eighth wonder of the world” for his virtue) — enough to found the greatest and freest republic the world has ever known. So, you’d think that their words, not spoken off a whim, but rather, in solemn declarations to the public, would have some considerable weight.

To answer your statement: “You must take responsibility and choose to be a moral person – it is much more genuine than someone making those sort of life decisions just to appease a higher being. I often wonder if religious people would still be “good” if they were to find out that there really isn’t a god (or gods, etc.)”

I think you have a misunderstanding of how religion, or, I should say Christianity, works. Most world religions operate through fear or brainwashing to get people to be good and moral. Christianity, as the Bible defines it, is the work of God in a willing and repentant heart. By renouncing sin, turning from it, and to Jesus Christ and His righteousness, God gives us a new heart. Our appetite is no longer for sin or for the passing pleasures of immorality; God gives us a hunger for Him, and changes us. We act out of willing and grateful obedience for His forgiveness — out of love. Any goodness that Christians may perform is genuine because it is voluntary.

Think about this also: people may want to do right. They may go through all the hoops and hurdles, but there still is a problem. How do you know that everything you do is moral? Who decides what is and is not moral? Now, we may not dispute over things like murder, but how about covetousness? How about adultery? How about little lies? Some people may think those things are not very bad, while others are convinced they are. The truth is, that, they ultimately harm others and harm society. In a free society especially, such things have much bigger consequences.

Consider this also: why does morality matter? I mean, if there is no God, why bother? “Immoral actions hurt other people; that’s why it matters.” True, but how can you possibly tell what will hurt other people? And haven’t you noticed the strange tendency people have to justify the “small” wrong things they do saying “No one will know” or “it won’t hurt anybody”?

Once again, certain individuals may act upon these considerations, but this is not common, since humans are inherently selfish and short-sighted. Therefore, to entrust morals on a nation-wide scale to simple discretion is very dangerous, as Washington was quoted above as arguing.

You say to keep my religion out of your laws. Please define. It’s one thing to force others to convert to my religion, or profess certain creeds from my religion, by using the force of civil law. I am not attempting to do that, and I am not aware of any Christians who are.

But if it is moral laws that we are urging, based on our religious convictions, sorry — our Founders did that before we did. They outlawed sodomy, polygamy, forbade gambling, etc etc out of their own Christian principles. So what Christians want to say, pass laws banning abortion? First of all, it’s not a religious law. It’s a moral law (i. e., killing innocent life is morally wrong), and our belief that abortion is wrong (just like we believe murder, theft, etc is wrong) is based in our Christian beliefs. Maybe you don’t agree with Christianity, but if you have any real sense of morals, why would you object to such legislation? And how does that “religion-based” law hurt people? Maybe you should turn off the major news networks and do some studying.

You say that “laws are meant to govern a population so as not to oppress those and allow us all to live without fear of discrimination …”

It’s a bit hard for me to tell exactly what you are saying here, because I am assuming there is a part after “oppress those” which is missing. So my question is “‘those’ who?”

But let me say this: laws are indeed meant to discriminate. They are meant to discriminate criminals from the innocent, to lay down the difference between what is right and what is wrong in society.

The obvious question then is, “What is the ultimate standard between right and wrong?” If the rulers are left to themselves to decide, they very likely will make those decisions arbitrarily.

Having learned this lesson from history, our Founders set out to establish “a government by law, and not a government of men,” to use John Adams’ wording. But let me ask you this: without God, all law and all authority must ultimately trace to man. And therefore, all morality, all standards of right and wrong, would be the arbitrary dictates of man — usually the man/men with the most power.

Can you please tell me how you can get a government of law without God? I have asked this question to other atheists, and they have been unable to answer. Maybe you can help me, if you have any answer to this.

Today we will hear from an address which President John Adams gave to the officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Massachusetts Militia, on October 11, 1798:

While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence.

But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practising [sic] iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world; because we have no government capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. … Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken and so solemnly repeated on that venerable spot, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government. Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States (edited by Charles Francis Adams), volume 10, pages 227-228.

He does not come out and say it, but their need be no doubt that he is making the point that our Constitution cannot successfully govern us without religion and morality in the people, both in those who administer the government (since they are bound by their sacred oaths of office), and by the populace (since the amount of civil government needed to govern society will rely wholly upon their moral principles and habits, or lack thereof).

I think we too easily forget this truth — even we who are informed on these matters. Tyranny is a horrible thing, but it is the price that a nation pays for its own depravity. Our Constitution no longer binds us, or governs us, because, as Alexander Hamilton warned, we have become “old and corrupt,” and are no longer “young and virtuous.” (1)

I regret to say that all our attempts to reinstate the Constitution through legal and other means, even if successful, would be in vain. Why is this? To echo Adams: “Our Constitution is WHOLLY INADEQUATE to govern a people that is not religious and moral.” We are not, as a people, religious and virtuous. Even the Christian Church of this country is not, as a majority, religious and virtuous — at least, not in the true and biblical sense. Whether we realize it or not, we have taken on a very, very deceptive form of humanism, and by being like the culture, have become like the rotten meat, and not the salt and the light.

Do I suggest that we take our country back by force of arms? No. It is much too late for that.

Beyond the fact that our forms of resistance, humanly speaking, are far too inferior for us to stand the slightest chance, it would only aggravate the evil passions which dominate our nation now. I think Hamilton put it best: “[T]he passions of revolution are apt to hurry even good men into excesses.” (2)

I think we tend to take terms like “war” and “revolution” a bit to lightly; after seeing the approaching horrors of tyranny, we are quick to revert to the Jeffersonian saying that

“God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. … what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” (3)

We easily ignore or forget, as Jefferson apparently did, the dearer cost than lives that war, particularly revolt, demands: innocence. Liberty is not preserved by the people struggling continually with their government; liberty is preserved by the people struggling to maintain virtue. War, and especially revolution, does anything but encourage virtue. On the contrary, it brings out the very worst in human nature. And when a nation revolts, it casts off the established authority, however excessive its power may have been, that once kept the people in check. At the same time, those who are most revolutionary (i. e., those who would cast off all control and all restraint) usually dominate revolutions and revolts. The outcome of such revolutions? Anarchy, and then another (usually more oppressive) form of despotism. Remember the French Revolution.

Every other revolution and revolt has had this fate — except the American Revolution. And the reason for our victory was not due to luck, or to our superior principles. I don’t even think that we could rightly say that American virtue insured its success. Rather, it was the hand and blessing of God. But as Washington said, “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.” (4)

What then, is to be done? A Great Awakening is needed to shake the Christian Church away from the things of this world that have deceived her, and bring her back to Christ. But such an awakening will have to be brought on by more than just supernatural manifestations — it seems that the Church has idolized the spiritual in place of the Spirit, and has sought for the manifestations of God’s power, and not sought the powerful God. When we realize that even the gifts of God will profit us nothing apart from God, then we shall begin the road toward true revival.

To wake the American church out of her Laodicean apathy, however, there may have to come times of severe tribulation. Perhaps only then will she realize that she is poor, blind, and naked, and only then will she run to Christ, and receive from Him heavenly riches, eye salve, and unblemished garments (Revelation 3:14-22).

After the call to revival has gone forth, and those who have ears to hear have heard and obeyed, and those who have hard hearts will fall away, the great possibility is that then Christ will receive His Church. Maranatha!

Again today, we examine our theme of “moral authority.” Our goal, once again, is to solicit the Founding Fathers on the question of “What is the foundation for morality?”

Today, we will hear from George Washington. He is definitely a fitting person to hear on this subject, as he has been called “the Eighth Wonder of the World” for his sterling virtue. Surely he can at least give us a few pointers as to the authority for moral standards. Here are his words, taken from his First Inaugural Address, of advice to the new American nation:

By the article establishing the Executive Department, it is made the duty of the President “to recommend to your consideration, such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” The circumstances under which I now meet you, will acquit me from entering into that subject, farther than to refer to the Great Constitutional Charter under which you are assembled; and which, in defining your powers, designates the objects to which your attention is to be given.

… [T]here is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness, between duty and advantage, between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity: Since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained: And since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.

First Inaugural Address, April 30, 1789

I need not add anything; Washington said it all.

Today is the first Friday of October! (My, how time flies!) Today also marks the beginning of our new theme for Founding Fathers’ Quote Friday! Today’s theme is VIRTUE. You may not recognize that word from the last TV show you watched, but if you read the discussions centered around last month’s theme — liberty — than you will definitely know that virtue has been a key word in our discussion. The quotes which will be selected from the Founding Fathers on virtue will no doubt bring the reason to light.

Today’s quote comes from President George Washington, a very fit person indeed to discuss the subject of virtue, as he excelled all his contemporaries in it, according to their own admission. This particular quote comes from his famous Farewell Address, which everybody knows about, but of those people, not many have read. It is well worth a read, and its full version, along with a digitized image of a newspaper that released the address (Washington decided to have it published and distributed rather than spoken aloud by himself) can be read here. It contained wise words of wisdom for America then, and now. Here then, are his words:

It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric ?

…Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its Virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices ?

How desperately we need to change our ways and give careful heed to the voice of our forefathers! However, we must not sit on our thumbs and wait for the politicians or the big corporations to get their act together. If we do not start with ourselves, the great possibility is that they will continue to do what they have always done. In a large degree, these demagogues depend on our laziness, gullibility, and indifference to do what they do. (Think about that the next time you hear some speechifying feel-gooder gets in front of a microphone and says “Without you, we just couldn’t do what we do!”)

As we progress through this month’s theme, stay tuned for a discussion of liberty, law, and virtue!

And today’s quote comes from our first President (that is, first president under the Constitution of the United States), General George Washington. It comes from his original draft of his First Inaugural Address, but the manuscript (which is missing portions) was never completed, and Washington decided to give a shorter address. The words written in that first draft, however, are well worth remembering. It follows the same line of thought that was expressed in last Friday’s “Favorite Founder’s Quote.”

If the blessings of Heaven showered thick around us should be spilled on the ground or converted to curses, through the fault of those for whom they were intended, it would not be the first instance of folly or perverseness in short-sighted mortals. The blessed Religion revealed in the word of God will remain an eternal and awful monument to prove that the best Institutions may be abused by human depravity; and that they may even, in some instances be made subservient to the vilest of purposes. Should, hereafter, those who are intrusted [sic] with the management of this government, incited by the lust of power and prompted by the Supineness or venality of their Constituents, overleap the known barriers of this Constitution and violate the unalienable rights of humanity: it will only serve to shew, that no compact among men (however provident in its construction and sacred in its ratification) can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable, and if I may so express myself, that no Wall of words, that no mound of [parchment] can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other.