Well, Chuck, I have been very quiet on this one because it's a tough one to argue - precisely because of your initial statement, which I always anticipate in a conversations such as this. I'll try to make this short, which is against my nature /w3tcompact/icons/grin.gif.
Whether the founders of this nation thought one thing or another in crafting our establishing documents, or whether they truly had personal relationships with God, will continue to be argued by those who do not accept their frame of reference as the motivation behind our established form of government. That frame of reference appears to be from at least an acknowledgement by some of them of a living and active Creator, and by others from a personal relationship with that Creator (via the redemptive works of Jesus Christ, as described in the New Testament). Much of their actions around those times, and their once non-public writings can also be used to infer that many were deeply, authentically Godly men. But this ain't my point.
As to your other comment that there were men who pointed to scripture as a supporting reason for their arguments on both sides of the Civil War, you are correct. Perspectives may have differed, but both were looking at one truth: the Scriptures. I believe that the larger issue of the two (states' rights vs slaves' rights) was one of self determination of the individual, which is in my understanding the pre-eminent issue in our founding documents. So I do not accept that the "states' rights" could have ever preempted the rights of the slaves to be free. Whether the federal government had the power to enforce those rights, or vacate the rights of the states, is a valid point to argue. My take on that is that our Constitution, recognizing those individual Creator-derived rights, was correctly interpreted to allow Lincoln to defend the indivdual against the state. We could go on forever about that, and this same arguement relates to abortion, BTW (speaking of going on forever)/w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif. But this ain't my point, neither.
My point in attempting (however poorly) to answer your latest comment is not about our history, or even about our founding documents, or their writers. My point is that we cannot and should not argue that scriptural truth itself is flawed, simply because men are flawed. You did not say that directly, but it is implied, and many believe man's intellect is the only source of the scriptures, as well as our founding documents. Do you,in either case?
I have found in many conversations that as the discussion nears deeply held personal beliefs, the old "interpretation" comment is rolled out. I find it interesting and wonder why that is neccesary. I'd like a more heartfelt response than that, my friend (unless that is your heartfelt response). It produces a difficulty in addressing, once it has been thrown into the discussion, as it has the effect of deflating all sources of accepted truth. If you don't believe something, be it Biblical Truth or Constitutional intent, then go ahead and say it. My respect for you as a created being demands that I accept your right to self determination; even to disbelief, if that is what you choose. But it does not mean that I forfeit my right to express myself or my faith, or that I must accept or respond within the bounds that all truth is relative in the minds of the beholders, or that the only truth is truth human beings can comprehend. I am sure you would not have the audacity to make that claim. But sometimes we sorta "back into" that assumption, it appears.
In your effort to point out the frailty and corruptable nature of mankind's ability to govern or direct others via the "interpretation" issue, you have intentionally or unintentionally explained the need for us to bow and defer to another higher, more pure form of intelligence: the Creator who made us. That is what the founders apparently recognized, and their recognition of this can be quite simply deduced from a reading of only the introduction of our founding documents. The humble acknowledgement of a Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient Creator is what I believe they kept firmly in mind as they wrote our founding documents. That is why we fight to keep those symbols intact, and that is why we do not accept that any of those documents are subject to any interpretaion other than one that holds biblical truth squarely as the source and governing motivation behind our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Biblical truth is therefore the issue, as it defines and supports the understanding of our founding documents. It is not relative, nor subject to different interpretations by honest readers. It is quite easily understood, and quite easily translated from its original language. It has not been discredited by forthright scholars even though it probably has been the subject of more such effort than any other writing in history.
This country has done itself a disservice in allowing opinions and feelings to be elevated to the level of rights, and truth to become an interpretation driven by human minds. That is why I choose to respond to you, my friend, because this discussion is certainly not about human interpretation. It is my contention is that the root of this discussion is based in whether one believes in the validity and viablity of the living word of God, as scripture describes itself (references to be provided upon request).
I appreciate your comments and your frustratingly effective ability to make me think /w3tcompact/icons/grin.gif
