"Ten Persuasive Answers to the Question 'Why not gay marriage?'"
Q3: Where does it stop?
Point 1: Is there a fundamental right to marry whoever you want?
Point 2: Is an "open marriage" really a marriage?
Point 3: Is marriage about 2 people...or 3...or 5...or 10?
Point 4: Is objecting to polygamy more reasonable than objecting to homosexual "marriage"?
Point 5: When marriage becomes anything, marriage becomes nothing
Point 6: The issue demands full acceptance of homosexuality
Point 7: Speech control will be next
Sweden
Canada
Massachusetts
Point 8: What's in store for school children
"Give me a break. It's legal now."
Point 9: Impact on religious freedom
Pressure on churches to perform homosexual "weddings"
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Video: Homosexual Marriage - Where does it stop?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
Fearmongering. This guy presents one extreme example per point, and warns "This is how it's going to happen!" If he were honest and fair, he'd also give examples of how it might NOT happen. But that's obviously not his concern; he needs to secure the next generation of bigots, and look like he knows what he's talking about in the process. He'd be wise to learn about the slippery slope fallacy, which will show him that if he keeps going about it in this way, he really has no cogent argument.
The "slipper slope" argument is more often than not very real.
In fact, after the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas which essentially placed a court seal of approval on homosexual behavior, advocates of polygamy almost immediately began pushing for legitimization and legalization of polygamy.
Also, one homosexual activist recently said there was really no reason to shun bestiality, as long as the animal was okay with it...which he indicated was probably the case.
Where does it stop? Once you cast off natural and transcendent truths, it doesn't.
So that gives you the green light to oppose same-sex marriage? A few hicks who want three wives and one activist who supports bestiality? And you actually think people will take their causes seriously? Well, I take that back -- given what some people already believe, I wouldn't be surprised.
Don't get me wrong. Even ONE step down that slippery slope is a step too far, because they are ALL immoral.
But in taking that first step, we're starting to slide downward into places that (while I'm sure some don't mind) some who gave assent to acceptance of homosexuality never counted on, and never wanted to go.
And we all know since 2003 polygamy has been totally accepted by the State authorities in Texas. Right?
The fact is that although we have had same-sex marriage for almost a decade in Hawaii, no one has yet to come forward asking for marriage a trois or to marry an animal. That's just gross-- I suppose some conservatives just have sick minds I suppose. The sky has not fallen.
May I offer my response on this issue in the Rapid City Journal op-ed yesterday.
No one is pressuring any church to marry anyone they don't want to. Especially me.
In fact we'd be better off if church's stuck to the spiritual--have the government grant them authority to sanction the civil part of marriage is way over the church-state line IMHO. I believe churches have a place sanctifying the coventant and the relationship -- just not the legal part.
Curtis Price
Equality South Dakota - eqsd.org
I think we all know the "slippery slope" is not completed in a day...or even in 5 years. But the door is open and activists for polygamy are pushing. And the more advances there are for the legitimization of homosexuality, the more advances there will be for polygamy and every other sexual practice under the sun. All others will ride the coat tails of the one in front, because they are all similar and linked.
We have NOT had homosexual "marriage" in Hawaii for almost a decade. Hawaii has instituted a level of legal recognition akin to a "civil union," and while they shouldn't have even gone that far, that is still not attempting to call the union "marriage" and thus completely hijack the institution.
And polygamists are already using Lawrence v. Texas as a stepping stone to further their agenda, as are some who like to practice bestiality. It's only on the fringes now, but it will grow quickly if we continue down this road to depravity.
Marriage is spiritual, Curtis; it's very disappointing that as a professing Christian you fail to realize that. It's the institution God created before even the church or human government; it is fundamental to human experience and human civilization, and was defined by the Creator from the beginning (Matthew 19:4-6) as being between a man and a woman. There are few things God is more clear on than this.
It is also true that you cannot separate the religious from the civil implications of marriage. Marriage is a fundamental institution which transcends and crosses all of the lines we'd so like to find convenient. It as spiritual, emotional, practical, moral, and civil impact and implications.
Which is why both religious and civil authorities have no business undermining and redefining so fundamental a human institution. It is totally wrong for a church to sanction it, but it's almost as wrong for civil authority to do it because it (a) undermines a moral institution, and (b) undermines the service marriage provides to society (i.e. a stable healthy environment for raising children)--something a civilization simply must have in order to maintain its strength and vitality.
What's more, churches and religious figures are already being legally pressured around the world and even in the United States to place a seal of approval on homosexual activity. If we continue down this road, it's only a matter of time before a church that won't perform a homosexual "marriage" loses its tax exempt status or worse, faces lawsuits and possibly legal sanctions.
Thanks for you comments cp. You make a lot of great points. This fearmongering has to stop.
I agree that the fearmongering has to stop. Homosexual activists need to quit pretending they don't have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that heterosexuals do.
"I agree that the fearmongering has to stop. Homosexual activists need to quit pretending they don't have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that heterosexuals do."
Yep. That really worked out well for Ted Haggard and the good Senator from Idaho. You really want to suggest that a gay person should actually marry a straight person in some sort of lie??! And you think that gay people are the ones ruining marriage? That is one of the most cynical things I've heard.
*Point 1: Is there a fundamental right to marry whoever you want?*
Generally, yes. Since when is it anybody else's business? Certainly not the states. It is something of a mystery on how a government can have any say in a quasi-religious matter to begin with, except to record the legal aspects.
*Point 2: Is an "open marriage" really a marriage?*
Again, it's nobodies business whatever the neighbors are up to. I don't care if they "swing" or have sex parties, so long as they keep it off my property and keep the noise down. Such things are not my taste, since I am selfishly monogamous. I'm also a transgendered woman, so my life choices aren't necessarily your taste either.
*Point 3: Is marriage about 2 people...or 3...or 5...or 10?*
If you mean polygamy, then you run into problems with legal aspects concerning equality and division of property and so forth. Polygamy breaks marriage far more fundamentally then gay relationships could hope to do. As a libertarian, I am inclined to still argue it's none of my business, but marriage is supposed to promote equality, prosperity, and stability. Polygamy promotes none of these things.
*Point 4: Is objecting to polygamy more reasonable than objecting to homosexual "marriage"?*
See the above comment.
*Point 5: When marriage becomes anything, marriage becomes nothing*
An utterly nonsensical statement. Marriage is whatever YOU make it. If you predicate the value of your relationship on an uncontrollable outside influence, then you are in trouble.
*Point 6: The issue demands full acceptance of homosexuality*
Is somebody holding a gun to your head?? I don't care if you accept me as a GLBT person or not. You don't pay my bills, nor share my meals. I demand professional treatment in the workplace, and the right to be left alone in peace and safety. Sadly, some people do not agree with that last part, and I keep a loaded Chinese assault rifle in the closet. You may find that some gay lesbian and transgendered people are big fans of the recent SCOTUS ruling on the 2nd Amendment.
*Point 7: Speech control will be next
Sweden
Canada
Massachusetts*
Huh? Did somebody secretly overturn our constitution? The government can NEVER coerce political or religious speech. Your employer can make things hard on you, but that has always been the case. If the government were to try that, I would be first in line to demand an armed insurrection.
*Point 8: What's in store for school children
"Give me a break. It's legal now."*
Then home school. I do agree some schools go WAY over the line WRT sexuality issues in the classroom...and I pay attention since I have an 8 year old son myself. Schools should teach tolerance and acceptance, but should never, ever advocate for anything. It's enough for kids to know that some families are different, and not to harass children with a GLBT parent.
*Point 9: Impact on religious freedom
Pressure on churches to perform homosexual "weddings"*
Again, this sort of paranoia has no basis in reality. As long as we have a 1st Amendment to the Constitution, churches can continue to be as hateful...or caring...as they like. I am no fan of gay activists who disrupt churches to demand this sort of thing. Such contemptible behavior deserves condemnation and prosecution.
I don't recall anyone here saying that a homosexual should actually marry a heterosexual in some sort of lie. If they did, I missed it.
What people should do, if they want to marry, is find someone of the opposite sex that they love and can make a commitment to and marry them. If they need help correcting an attraction to the same sex, they should seek out that help.
But there is only one way to create a marriage: a man and a woman.
Point 1: The state has a very compelling interest in maintaining the integrity of marriage. Please read: http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/05/society-and-state-have-compelling.html
Point 2: It IS everyone’s business if others are undermining the institution of marriage. See Point 1. If you aren’t interested in constituting a real marriage, don’t attempt to counterfeit one.
Point 3: See Points 1 and 2
Point 5: When something has no definitive meaning, it has no value. When it has no value, it is worthless. If marriage does not have a specific definition and a specific function, then it’s worthless.
Point 6: If homosexuals didn’t demand full acceptance, they wouldn’t be demanding to call their unions “marriage.”
Point 7: The government is already attempting to do this and in some cases succeeding. The Constitution is on the way out the door.
Point 8: My family does homeschool. But there are millions of children who will not be homeschooled, and will be indoctrinated to accept this at taxpayer expense—including me as a taxpayer.
Point 9: Churches are already being pressured to accept and condone this. It’s only a matter of time until this is fully forced on them.
Bob,
The point you bring up about how gay people have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex really has to stop. It's utterly stupid and has no purpose in any debate. It is true that as a gay man, I have every right to marry a woman. But the crucial point is: I DON'T WANT TO. I do not find women attractive romantically or sexually, so why would I ever marry one?
Imagine if you and your wife moved to Massachusetts or California (I know, it's never going to happen, but just play along). After living there for a few months, you find out that your dreaded slippery slope has come true, and those awful gay activists you despise so much actually make heterosexual marriage illegal! You complain and complain, lobbying for the ban to be overturned. Meanwhile, your gay neighbors calm you down by saying, "Relax, you have every right to marry a man. I don't see what the big deal is."
Does that sound like a realistic alternative to you? It seems pretty condescending for someone to tell you that while you can't marry the person you love, your consolation is that you have every right to marry someone you're not attracted to on any level.
You should take a minute and consider how truly idiotic some of your statements are.
There are few things God is more clear on than this.
You must have a different translation of Scripture than I'm familiar. My bible says, in red felt letters:
* Love God with all your heart etc etc
* Love your neighbor as yourself
and
* clothe the naked
* feed the poor
* visit those in prison
oh, yeah and:
* don't soak the poor
In my Bible, your sexual obsessions get pretty short shrift by comparison.
I'm pretty sure we have the same Bible. You're just reading yours using the "buffet" method where you pick and choose what you like and ignore the rest, with what is probably a little Marxist garnish.
You overlooked the following statements about God's design for the expression of human sexuality:
- Genesis 2:24 - "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."
- Mark 10:6-8 - "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one."
You also overlooked the following clear condemnations of homosexual behavior (a violation of the aforementioned design for human sexuality):
- Leviticus 18:22 "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
- Leviticus 20:13 "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable."
- Judges 19 In Gibeah where "wicked men" wanted to have sex with a Levite man, and it was called a "disgraceful thing"
- Romans 1:26-27 where the Bible talks about "godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness" and says "Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
- 1 Corinthians 6:9 says, among other habitual sins, homosexuals "will not inherit the kingdom of God"
- 1 Timothy 1:10 condemns "men who practice homosexuality"
Consider also what Ephesians chapter 5 says about living a holy life, and about how the marriage relationship is supposed to look:
There should not be even a hint of sexual sin among you. Don't do anything unclean. And do not always want more and more. Things like that are not what God's holy people should do…Here is what you can be sure of. Those who give themselves over to sexual sins are lost. So are people whose lives are not pure. The same is true of those who always want more and more. People who do those things might as well worship statues of gods. No one who does them will receive a share in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Wives, follow the lead of your husbands as you follow the Lord. The husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the church. The church is Christ's body. He is its Savior. The church follows the lead of Christ. In the same way, wives should follow the lead of their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives. Love them just as Christ loved the church. He gave himself up for her. 26 He did it to make her holy. He made her clean by washing her with water and the word. He did it to bring her to himself as a brightly shining church. He wants a church that has no stain or wrinkle or any other flaw. He wants a church that is holy and without blame. In the same way, husbands should love their wives. They should love them as they love their own bodies. Any man who loves his wife loves himself. After all, people have never hated their own bodies. Instead, they feed and care for their bodies. And that is what Christ does for the church. We are parts of his body. Scripture says, "That's why a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife. The two will become one." (Notice that this is a man/woman situation. Notice also that God likens the marriage relationship to the relationship between Christ and the church; another reason why God disapproves of homosexuality—it isn’t representative of the Christ/Church relationship.
These in addition to the almost countless examples where the Bible speaks of heterosexual marriage (really the only kind there is) in a neutral or positive light, while every instance of homosexual behavior is spoken of negatively.
The evidence is pretty overwhelming; inescapable, really, for someone who, as Jesus said, has "eyes to see" or "ears to hear."
All the references you picked up from the Bible Buffet are ones we are instructed to do as individuals. Just to clarify, the Bible doesn't instruct government to perform those acts, but people.
If you read the WHOLE Bible and try to follow the WHOLE Bible, you'll come much closer to living the life God intended for us all.
Alex, to respond to your comments at 5:18 this morning:
It doesn't matter if you don't want to marry a woman; that's the only option on the menu. Take it or leave it.
There's a small restaurant I like that only serves steak and baked potato. I can go there and demand lasagna all day long but guess what: steak is the only thing on the menu. Are my rights being violated? Am I being discriminated against? Of course not. If I don't want the only thing that's on the menu, that's my problem, not the restaurant's.
I'd look pretty stupid, petty, and out of touch with reality if I sat there and kept on insisting on having something not on the menu, wouldn't I?
I might look even more silly and out of touch if I insisted they cook me some lasagna and just call it "steak." Don't you think?
If you want marriage, the opposite sex is the only thing on the menu. I like my cat, but she isn't on the marriage menu. I like my computer, but it isn't on the marriage menu. Your same sex isn't either.
If you don't want the opposite sex, then don't go shopping for marriage. A man and a woman are the only combination that can constitute a marriage.
You should take a minute and consider adjusting to reality. Everyone, especially you, would be a lot happier that way.
Bob,
Except for the fact that in Massachusetts, California, and six different countries, heterosexual marriage is NOT the only option. In fact, in several states and countries, homosexual couples enjoy many rights and privileges that, while falling short of marriage equality, do offer them various protections under the law. You can sit there, stomping your foot and shaking your fist in defiance, but at the end of the day, you are the one who isn't looking at reality.
You've heard of the guy in the straight jacket who swears up and down he's Napoleon? That's what's going on in Massachusetts, California, and six different countries...with the only difference being that the orderlies are agreeing with him.
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. You can call two homosexuals a "marriage," but it still isn't. It takes a man and a woman for that. Always has been, always will...no matter how many people in straight jackets and orderlies say different.
Haha oh I do love your pedestrian analogies! My coworkers are giving me weird looks and wondering why I'm laughing so hard!
You're like a stubborn child insisting that unicorns exist because his magical book says they do. Come on, Bob. No matter what you think constitutes a marriage, the law in those places says otherwise. No matter how insane you think it is, the objective reality is that you are wrong: in those places, heterosexual marriage is not the only legal option. You can either salvage your dignity and accept it, or keep denying the facts that are staring you in the face.
By pedestrian you mean "common sense," I think.
Actually, Alex, it's you and the orderlies who've joined the fantasy who keep denying the facts that are staring you in the face.
Only a man and a woman can create a family. Only a man and a woman can constitute a marriage.
Go ahead and keep smearing lipstick on that pig. It's never going to look pretty, and it's never going to be what you so desperately want it to be.
"You're like a stubborn child insisting that unicorns exist because his magical book says they do."
The self-absorbed child stomps his feet and throws his tantrum insisting on having his way. That the indulgent grandmother gives in to his petulance does not prove he is right, only that he is persistent and that she is tired and only wants peace and quiet.
I viewed your essay (or reply to a comment, more appropriately) concerning your assertion that:"The state has a very compelling interest in maintaining the integrity of marriage."
I was expecting...well, more.
Maybe something like actual citations of law, or case studies from history documented by reputable scholars.
Nope.
You show me opinions presented as fact without any basis for why you think they should be accepted as such. There is nothing wrong with having an opinion on such an emotional issue, but if you want me take you even remotely seriously, then please show me the respect of backing your opinions with real work and empirical evidence.
Let's start at the top of the entry:
"Civilization really is a fragile thing, especially when its foundation is attacked. A skyscraper may seem pretty strong, but if you smash the foundation, it's going to come crashing down. Likewise, if you take a perfectly strong house off of a solid foundation and set it down on top of a sand dune, it won't be long before the walls are crumbling and the whole structure breaks apart."
On what do you base your assumption that the usual familial unit of *mother, father and children* is the basis of civilization? It can be just as easily argued that it is simply the most easy and deterministic means of reproduction, and biology will prevail to ensure survival of the species (avoiding any Malthusian crisis, but more on that later...)
Civilization is predicated on the ability to reason and have self awareness, communicate and use tools if we take this approach, rather then basing it on a Western Cultural model of the family. I won't even bother with the "families" comprised of harems built around male privilege in our history of the West...
"Moving on with the rest of point #2, I know of no religion which recognizes homosexual relationships as "marriage." There are heretical elements in some religions which do, and sadly there are such elements from the Christian religion. But they do so in defiance of the clear teachings of the Bible."
And what part of the Reformation did you miss? How is that germane to what the State (in the Leviathan sense of the word) should be occupied with in a democratic Republic that is neutral towards religious belief? Oh, you state later that separation of church and state is "misunderstood". How convenient, but again, you fail to supply the LEGAL citation for this LEGAL opinion...
"While it is true that some homosexuals maintain longstanding relationships, only a small percentage last longer than 10 years, and of those only a small fraction remain monogamous."
And how does that give you any right to stick your nose into the matter, even if that is actually true? At least you cited somebody here, which is an improvement. A link would be helpful. What you fail to support is how this is anybodies compelling interest, except for the gay men making foolish choices WRT promiscuity.
"In countries where homosexual "marriage" has been legalized, only a small fraction of the homosexual population has availed themselves of the opportunity. In one country where it's legal, the Netherlands, the average length of these "marriages" is 1.5 years, and there are an average of 8 sex partners outside the relationship during this time. Heterosexuals aren't doing well enough at marriage to crow about it, but they're definitely doing better than this."
Well, that kind of undercuts your whole argument that civilization would crumble, doesn't it? Again, why does it matter to you? How does this possibly affect your marriage?
"I think the reason homosexuals don't take advantage of legalization more often, and don't do more with it, is that it's not so much about the institution or even the financial benefits as it is the normalization of homosexuality."
Imagine that. GLBT people would like to be thought of as real, normal people. Of course, it's harder to stigmatize and dehumanize "real" people, so we must put a stop to that...
"Marriage is a religious institution first; secondarily, the state has a compelling interest in protecting it because of the aforementioned stability and civilizing effect. And I won't even get into the widely misunderstood "separation of church and state" except to say that
What the...? Let me get this straight.
"Marriage is a religious institution first;"
"...it doesn't apply here (as it seldom does apply to anything) because there is no attempt to establish a religious institution involved."
You want the STATE to establish and protect marriage as a "RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION", and then deny that very same thing in the same paragraph!!
Do you actually read your own writing? If you want to claim marriage as a strictly religious institution (do atheists, Buddhists, Hindi etc count here?), then leave the state out of it. Everybody gets a civil union before a judge for the legal aspect, and the sacrament of marriage stays in the church...but is irrelevant to the law. Moving on a bit...
"That marriage was instituted by God is a contention held by every major religion, and whether you like it or not, the American governmental and legal system is based on a Christian worldview. Someones values have to win out, and since the majority of Americans still claim allegiance to Christianity, and a Christian worldview has produced the greatest nation in human history, I think it makes sense to stick with the plan and not muck things up."
Did you actually pass history in college, or did you even take it? Without getting too much into the debate between Hamilton and Jefferson on the nature of America (for the record, Hamilton won...but we love Jefferson far more. Hamilton was a Hobbesian pessimist who scorned the idea of societal virtue, and sought to build a European style nation state with a standing military. Jefferson was far more optimistic and believed that the virtue of the body politic would be self correcting. It's much easier to love Founding Father who says we really are better people, then a Founding father who says we are dangerous in large groups and should be lead by our noses according to our selfish interests. I tend to agree with Hamilton, but I am a fan of Thomas Hobbes...so that figures.) In any event, much of the notion of what our government should be is based on examples of what it ought not to be. The aforementioned Hobbes is important here, since his observations on the English Civil War and Cromwell certainly influenced the Founders to guard against the "Man On A Horse" populist tyrant figure coming into power. John Locke and a number of Scottish philosophers figure as well, especially concerning the passions aroused by religious hatred coupled with the power of the State. The bloodbaths in Edinburgh are legendary, and led to Scotland having the very first flirtations with secular government. Research Madison and what informed his writing of the Constitution. A good book to start with is "Revolutionary Characters: What made the Founders Different" by Pulitzer Prize winner Gordon S. Wood. You may discover that what we think of as "Christian" may be not at all like what was thought of at the time.
I will leave it here for now, since this is far too much to cover in a comments section. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. In truth, I usually stick to defense related subjects, but I will debate this on occasion. While I care little as to whether somebody thinks my marriage to my wife is radical or wrong since I am now a woman as well...I still see some need to defend the notion that my family has as much vale as anybody else's family, and I refuse to be marginalized and go away.
It is still more fun talking about new Russian Sukhoi fighters, though...
celticdragon, "reputable scholars" are always good to be familiar with, but one doesn't need to BE or even KNOW a reputable scholar to possess common sense--something apparently in short supply in modern culture.
I think I formulated a reasonable basis for why the familial unit of mother, father and children is the basis of civilization, i.e. that such a unit is needed for a stable environment for raising healthy well-adjusted children. If you look around at both historic and modern enclaves where this is lacking, you will find a lack of civilization characterized by poor academic performance, poverty and lawlessness.
As to religious recognition of the concept of homosexual "marriage," your comment hardly seems germane to the issue at all. But to attempt to respond, I also explained why the state has an interest in maintaining the integrity of marriage. And regards the "separation of church and state," you can look first at the First Amendment of the Constitution which limits the action of Congress to establish a state religion, or to limit the free exercise of religion...and that's it.
I'm glad you appreciated the citation regarding the lack of longevity of homosexual relationships, but it's not my job to spoon-feed you. If CNN and the New York Times don't do it, I'm certainly not going to take the time, either. If you want to confirm or refute anything I said, you can do the research yourself. As for it's relevance, again I explained that: when promoting an environment we call "marriage" we involve children; when we involve children we must consider the stability of the home. A lack of longevity in homosexual relationships torpedoes stability in the home, rendering them a bad place to put children, which is one of the primary functions of marriage and family. (I strongly suspect you are failing to find answers--or are claiming to not find answers--here, not because they aren't present, but merely because you don't like them.)
Regards the "crumbling civilization" objection, the earliest example (the Netherlands) has only had legalized homosexual "marriage" for about 7 years. Even Rome didn't crumble that quickly.
Whether you recognize or honor the religious aspect of marriage or not, the fact remains that it is a religious institution first. It is not a formal, organized institution in the sense of, say, the Catholic Church or the Southern Baptist Convention, but it is a practice which has been instituted by religion, and has a spiritual purpose. God instituted marriage before he instituted church, human government or anything else. Obviously not everyone honors the religious and spiritual aspect of marriage (just as not everyone honors the speed limit, the intent of Thanksgiving or Mother's Day, or a crucifix), but that does not negate their religious origin or intent.
As to our founders' recognition that our American civilization is based on the Christian worldview:
You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention. - George Washington to the Deleware Indians in 1779
It is earnestly recommended to all officers and soldiers diligently to attend divine service...and all officers who shall behave indecently at any place of divine worship shall, if commissioned officers, be brought before a general courtmartial, there to be publicly and severely reprimanded - General Washington's instructions to the Continental Army
General Washington hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live, and act, as becomes a Christian soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country. To the distinguished character of Patriot it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian. - General order from General Washington July 9, 1776
it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes. - George Washington's Inaugural Address
WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour...all unite in rendering unto Him our fincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country...- George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation
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. - President George Washington
Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, united their endeavours to renovate the age, by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, of inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity…in short of leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system. - Samuel Adams
Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man towards God. - Gouverneur Morris, signer of the Declaration
the Christian Religion is the most import and and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed…no truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian Religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people - Noah Webster
Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. – Northwest Ordinance, July 13, 1787.
Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. - John Adams
...the only foundation for...a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments - Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration
Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments - Charles Carrol, signer of the Declaration
The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone that renders us invincible - Patrick Henry
Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters - Benjamin Franklin
Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine .... Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. - James Wilson, signer of the Declaration, contributor to the Constitution and original Supreme Court Justice
Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth—that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it’...I therefore beg leave to move—that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business… - Benjamin Franklin, 1787 at the drafting of the Constitution
This is but a small sampling of the sentiments of our founders which proves that they recognized the critical importance of the Christian worldview to our American civilization and the health of our government.
I know the lies about the faith of the founders is prolific these days, but only ignorance can explain the opinion that our nation was not founded on a Christian worldview, or that our nation was intended to sanitize the public square of religious faith.
Post a Comment