Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Insight on the first amendment from one closer to the source:

Joseph Story (1779-1845), Associate Justice of the United States Supreme
Court.

"The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less to 
advance, Mahomedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity;
but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national
ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive
patronage of the national government.  It thus cut off the means of religious
persecution (the vice and pest of former ages), and of the subversion of the
rights of conscience in matters of religion which had been trampled upon almost
from the days of the Apostles to the present age...."
"Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the first
amendment to it...the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was
that *Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State*, so far as
was not incompatible with the previous rights of conscience and the freedom
of religious worship.  *An attempt to level all religions and to make it a 
matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference would have created
universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation*".

*emphasis mine*


jeff

Christian colonization of the various colonies:

The Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth established a form of govt. that has come
to be named the Mayflower Compact. B.F.Morris in his monumental
work, THE CHRISTIAN LIFE AND CHARACTER OF THE CIVIL INSTITUIONS OF THE 
UNITED STATES (1863), writes, "The form of govt. was instituted in the cabin
of the Mayflower, before they landed on Plymouth Rock, and signed and ratified
under the solemnity of prayer and the most sacred sanctions of the Christian
religion: 'In the name of God, Amen.  We whose names are underwritten,...having
undertaken [this task], for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian
faith...'"  "This Constitution invokes a religious sanction and the authority
of God on their civil obligations; for it was no doctrine of the Puritans
that civil obedience is a mere matter of expediency."

The Mayflower Compact, from William Bradford's HISTORY OF PLYMOUTH PLANTATION:

"In the name of God, Amen.  We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal
subjects of our dread sovereign lord King James, by the grace of God, of 
Great Britain, France, and Ireland, king, defender of the faith, etc., having
undertaken *for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith*, and
the honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in
the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually
in the presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together
into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and
furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof do enact, constitue
and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and
offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for
the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and
obedience.  In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape
Cod the eleventh of November, in the reign of our sovereign lord King James
of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth and of Scotland, the fifty-
fourth.  Anno Domini, 1620."

* emphasis mine *

What is the first reason for their voyage?


jeff

Christian colonization of the various colonies:

New England

In 1643, a confederation between the colonies of Massachusetts, New Plymouth,
Connecticut, and New Haven was formed, in which it is affirmed that "we all
came into these parts of America with the same end and aim, namely, to
advance the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to enjoy the liberties
thereof with purity and peace, and for preserving and propagating the truth and
liberties of the gospel."

The synod of the New England churches met at Cambridge, Massachusetts,
September 30, 1648, and defined the nature of civil government, the functions
of the civil magistrate, and the duties of the citizens, as follows:

"I. God, the Supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil
magistrates to be under him, over the people, and for his own glory and the
public good; and to this end hath armed them with the power of the sword for
the defense and encouragement of them that do well, and for the punishment of
evil-doers.

II. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of magistrate
when called thereunto.  In the management whereof, as they ought especially to
maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of the 
Commonwealth, so for that end they may lawfully now, under the New Testament,
wage war upon just and necessary occasions.

III. They who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful
power, or the lawful exercies of it, resist the ordinances of God,...may be
called to account and proceeded against by the censure of the church and by
the power of the civil magistrate.

IV. It is the duty of the people to pray for magistrates, to honor their
persons, to pay them tribute and other dues, to obey their lawful commands, and
to be subject to their authority for conscience's sake."


Who empowered and motivated these men?  


jeff

Christian Colonization of Massachusetts and Connecticut

Massachusetts

In the charter granted to Massachusetts, in 1640, by Charles I., the Colonies
are enjoined by "their good life and orderly conversation to win and invite
the natives of the country to a knowledge of the only true God and Savior
of mankind, and the Christian faith which , in our royal intention and
adventurer's free possession, *is the principal end of this plantation*."

    * emphasis mine
    
Connecticut

In Conneticut the first organization of civil society and government was made,
in 1639, in Quinipiack, now New Haven.  A constitution was formed, which was
characterized as "the first example of a written constitution; as a distinct
organic act, constituting a government and defining its powers."  Below are
some of the articles which made up the constitution of Connecticut:

"I. That the Scriptures hold forth a perfect rule for the direction and 
government of all men in all duties which they are to perform to God and men,
as well in families and commonwealths as in matters of the church.

II. That as in matters which concerned the gathering and ordering of a church,
so likewise in all public offices which concern civil order, - as the choice
of magistrates and officers, making and repealing laws, dividing allotments of
inheritance, and all things of like nature, - they would all be governed by
those rules which the Scripture held forth to them.

III. That all those who had desired to be received free planters had settled
in the plantation with a purpose, resolution, and desire that they might be
admitted into church fellowship according to Christ.

IV. That all the free planters held themselves bound to establish such civil
orders as might best conduce to the securing of the purity and peace of the
ordinance themselves, and their posterity according to God."

The governor was then charged by the Rev. Mr. Davenport, in the most solemn
manner, as to his duties, from Dueteronomy: - "And I charged your judges at
that time saying, Hear the causes between your brethern, and judge righteously
between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him.  Ye
shall not respect persons in judgment, but ye shall hear the small as well as
the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is
God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will
hear it". 

The General Court, established under this constitution, ordered, - "That
God's word shoul be the only rule for ordering the affairs of government in
this commonwealth."
    
    jeff

    I've always been curious as to exactly what and how the Spanish 
    proclaimed their political and religious sovereinty over the 
    indigenous peoples and lands as they arrived in the "New World," but 
    like many other things I'm curious about, I'd not yet found the time 
    to research it.     
    
    The other day, however, while reading _The elder brothers: a lost South 
    American people and their message about the fate of the earth_, I 
    came across this information and felt it germain to this topic and 
    perhaps would be of interest to others.
    
    A note about the book:  _The elder brothers_ was written in 
    conjunction with what the Kogi people wished to reveal of themselves 
    to the outside world, as they have chosen to live totally isolated 
    for over the last 400 years.  As such, it can be considered a rich 
    anthropological exploration of a deeply spiritual and ascetic people.  
    The author, being an historian, spends some time offering the reader 
    an historical account of events, particularly of the cultural clash 
    between the Christian conquistadors and colonizers and the Columbian 
    indigenous people, which directly resulted in the Kogi's retreat and 
    total isolation high into the Sierra mountain of Columbia in the 
    early 1500's.  
    
    The following note will be an excerpt from _The elder brothers_, 
    citing information from a log and book by Valdes y Oviedo, who was 
    there among the Spanish the day they "discovered" Columbia and
    delivered their prolamation of good news to the native peoples 
    of that land in 1514.
    
    Karen

    Regarding the following proclamation, the footnote states:  "This 
    document, edited by Dr Palacios Rubios and approved by a committee of 
    Spanish theologians and prelates, had to be carried and read out by 
    all expeditions of conquest.  Oviedo was himself responsible for 
    proclaiming it on this expedition."  Excerpted from Oviedo's log:
    
       On 12 June 1514, a Spanish galleon arrived to start the process of 
       colonisation.  The Indians came down to the shore to look.  They 
       had dressed lightly, and covered themselves in the red juice which 
       acts as a mosquito repellent.  The commander sent a small party to 
       land, but the Indians ran up to the landing boats "and with their 
       bows and arrows and with a courteous manner, showed us that they 
       would have to resist our landing. " A lengthy document had been 
       prepared to read to the assembled crowd.  It began:
       
         On the part of the most high and most mighty and most catholic 
         defender of the church, always conqueror and never conquered, 
         the great King Don Fernando, King of the Sicilies and of 
         Jerusalem, and of the Indies, islands and dry land of the Ocean 
         Sea...dominator of barbarous peoples...notify and would have you 
         know that God our Father, the one and the trinity, created the 
         skies and the earth, and a man and a woman, of whom you and we 
         and all the men of this world are descendants and offspring...
         
      It went on to explain the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, 
      including the doctrine of the Trinity and the position of the Pope, 
      which led on in a natural and interesting way to the theory of 
      European political structures and the Divine Right of Kings.  The 
      logical and obvious conclusion was that the listening Indians were 
      now to consider themselves subjects of the Spanish crown and should 
      begin taking instruction for baptism....The Spanish proclamation 
      ended fearsomely.  If the native people did not submit,
      
         I assure you that with the help of God I will enter powerfully 
         against you, and I will make war on you in every place and in 
         every way that I can, and I will subject you to the yoke and 
         obedience of the church and their highnesses, and I will take 
         your persons and your women and your children, and I will make 
         them slaves, and as such I will sell them, and dispose of them 
         as their highnessess command:  I will take your goods, and I 
         will do you all the evils and harms which I can, just as to 
         vassals who do not obey and do not want to receive their lord, 
         resist him and contradict him.  And I declare that the deaths 
         and harms which arise from this will be *your* fault, and not 
         that of their highnesses, nor mine, nor of the gentlemen who 
         have come with me here.
         
    * * emphasis mine.
    
    This proclamation was presented in Spanish, then also in the Carib 
    language;  however, the Columbian natives understood neither.  At 
    this point the Indians attempted to explain something to the Spanish; 
    a skirmish ensued.  When the Spaniards scribe (Oviedo) protested 
    saying that the Indians did not understand a word which had been 
    spoken to them, Oveido records that the soldiers laughed at him.  
    
    Karen

    The ascendent Aztecs had conquered other peoples of Central America,
    who conquered others before them, before them...
    
    War was common before the Spanish.
    
    In fact, the Spanish followed the ancient proverb of divide and rule,
    and had the same "right" of conquest that has always existed in
    history.
    
    Because we examine one side of the struggle, the Spanish, and pronounce
    them barbarians, we don't go further and examine the Aztecs and other
    other "social groupings".
    
    The Spanish conquered the meek and warrior nations of Central America
    alike. Ritual human sacrifice in Tenochititlan has stopped.
    
    That's history.

    Re: .7
    
    Maybe the Ritual killings stopped......plenty of "regular" killings
    continued, though.....helped along by the Spanish.
    
    You are correct that the native people were not totally innocent,
    history should indeed be studied. My "complaint" is that we try to
    make the conquest, torture, and runination of the local people into
    some kind of "holy" quest by saying that the Spanish and others
    were on a religious quest.
    
    Marc H.

    
    What makes me uncomfortable about the glorification of these
    conquests of native peoples, in addition to the atrocities and
    injustices that were done to them, is that there is still a
    Christian mindset that says - go out and convert those who
    haven't heard the "good word".  Some Christians continue to
    try and force their religious beliefs on people who are not
    interested.  Some extreme fundamentalists might do rather
    bizarre things to achieve that goal.
    
    
    Carole

    No one is "glorifying" the conquest of native Americans by the Spanish,
    at least not in this conference.
    
    Of course there is a "Christian mindset" to teach and baptize. It was
    commanded by Jesus.  I will repeat the Great Commission in this
    conference every time it is suggested that it doesn't exist or doesn't
    apply.
    
    "force" was not the instrument of the conversion of Mexico. The bishops
    and priests of New Spain were writing of their despair in converting
    the native people of America as the Spanish most native people had
    contact with were cruel.  After the miraculous appearance of the
    Blessed Virgin Mary at Guadalupe, there was a radical change in the
    whole of Mexico, and native people were converted by their own free
    will in the hundreds of thousands to belief in Jesus Christ and peace
    came to Mexico.

   Patrick,

   I agree with many of your points.

   > In fact, the Spanish followed the ancient proverb of divide and rule,
   > and had the same "right" of conquest that has always existed in
   > history.
    
   > Because we examine one side of the struggle, the Spanish, and pronounce
   > them barbarians, we don't go further and examine the Aztecs and other
   > other "social groupings".
   
   Yes, Aztecs and other "social groupings" were also "barbaric," according 
   to western standards.  Can it be generally said that the Spanish were 
   equally barbaric as some of the other native social groupings in the New 
   World? 

   If so, would you think that the fact that the Spanish were Christians 
    would or should have made a difference in their behavior towards the 
    people of the New World?  (Rhetorical questions, I realize, but I've 
    found myself contemplating them a great deal lately, particularly with 
    the 500 year anniversary of Columbus' voyage upon us.)

   For by the time the conquistadors reached the shores of the New World,    
   delivering and enforcing the church's proclamation, they had the advantage 
   of over a thousand years of stringent Christian teaching, faith, worship 
   and witnessing.  They had well over a millenium to grow in the 
   understanding of the life, death and teachings of Jesus Christ.  
   
   Is it enigmatic that the Spanish, as a homogenously Christ-centered 
   people, did not approach the peoples of the New World with more civil, 
   compassionate and moral behavior than other "barbaric" social groupings 
   who were not only not Christians, but had never even heard of Jesus 
   Christ?  It is to me.  

   > That's history.

   Yes, indeed;  and when we don't learn from history, it has this queer 
    tendancy to repeat itself. 

   Karen

    Actually, the Spanish were the most experienced people in Europe in the
    science of warfare at that time.  The "Spanish", in fact, had just
    spent about 700 years expelling Arabs from Spain, and united the
    kingdoms of Aragon and Castile.  They were the rising European power at
    the time.  Italy was in decline.  Real peace wouldn't come until the
    defeat of Napoleon centuries later.
    
    The point is the Spanish seem uncivilized to us but they were the
    product of their time.

    Besides, conversion of the local "savages" was not exactly at the top
    of the list of priorties for the Spanish explorers and conquistadors.
    They were more interested in obaining wealth and personal
    aggrandizement.  Conversion was merely a secondary enterprise.
    
    Mike

    Patrick .12,
    
    > Actually, the Spanish were the most experienced people in Europe in
    the science of warfare at that time....The point is the Spanish seem
    uncivilized to us but they were the product of their time. <
    
    I see brilliant shades of today's U.S.A. in this.  We too enjoy a
    generally enviable position of warfare expertise, in much the same 
    fashion as the Spanish did several hundred years ago.  It is doubtful 
    they considered themselves uncivilized, as we too, generally consider 
    ourselves among the most civilized and greatest of all contemporary 
    peoples on earth.  
    
    If we survive, I wonder how "civilized" our contemporary society will be 
    viewed a few hundred years hence.
    
    Karen 

    In Columbia, at least, according to Alan Ereira the historian author 
    of _The Elder brothers_, it was not so much the pursuit of gold or 
    Christian conversion that raised conflict between the Spanish and 
    indigenous peoples to crisis proportions.  Rather it was finally the 
    Spaniard's revulsion of the native's "bodily shamelessness" and their 
    "sexual licentiousness" which eventually led to the slaughter of the 
    native population.  
    
    It appears that between 1514 and 1599 the Spanish and natives 
    coexisted in a somewhat awkward and restless peace with a minimal 
    amount of bloodshed.  In a visit around 1525 to Taybo, one of the 
    early cities commanded by the Spanish, Oveida reports in his log:
    
        "In this place Taybo it seemed that there was much gold, and the 
      governor commanded the Christians, with the threat of heavy 
      penalties, that they should not take it from the Indians, because 
      he said that from the start he wanted to pacify the land.  They 
      should understand that this was in their own interest;  but the 
      soldiers had other ideas, and become restive under this 
      restraint...."
    
    Tensions would continue to mount however.  For the Spanish, as well 
    as being devout Christians, were accustomed to being surrounded and 
    embraced by an all-male authoritarian society.  Women were totally 
    submissive.  The native socieites, on the other hand, were primarily 
    egalitarian:  both men and women held high positions of leadership 
    and authority.  This was incomprehensible to the Spanish.
    
    In addition, Spanish society was also devoutly sexually repressed and 
    "totally immersed in a crusade for moral purity."  Who else then, 
    other than a wickedly sinful and ignorant people, would dress so 
    scantily and not realize the gross immodesty of this practice?   For 
    totally unlike Columbian society, "it was not uncommon in Madrid for 
    a husband to stab his wife if she was immodest enough to show a 
    glimpse of her feet in public."  One can only imagine the Spaniard's 
    shock in viewing happily and carefree bare-breasted native women 
    going about their daily routines without shame or admonishment from 
    either native men or women for their exposed skin.
    
    The author asserts that Spanish society was a homophobic one.  
    Spaniards went to great lengths to stress masculine traits and 
    virtues.  No man was a man unless he sported a beard and bodily hair.  
    Upon arriving in Columbia and observing the natives for a time, the 
    Spanish believed them to be primarily homosexual, evidenced not only 
    by egalitarian form of law and order and authority, but also by the 
    men's lack of body hair, and in the eyes of the Spaniards, men who 
    grew no beards or moustaches were blatently effeminate. 
    
    But ultimately it was the native's acceptance and enjoyment of their 
    own bodies, and of their sexual expressiveness, particularly the act 
    of sodomy which both sexes enjoyed, that precipitated the slaughter 
    of thousands of natives beginning in 1599.  In this year, Juan Gural 
    Velon, then governor of Santa Marta, called a meeting of the native 
    chieftans and informed them that he intended to put a stop to their 
    "wicked sinfulness:"  
    
      	"And if any other Indian is found to have committed or to 
      practise the wicked and unnatural sin of sodomy he is condemned so 
      that in the part and place that I shall specify he shall be 
      garrotted in the customary manner and next he shall be burned alive 
      and utterly consumed to dust so that he shall have no memorial and 
      it is to be understood by the Indians that this punishment shall be 
      extended to all who commit this offence.
      
      	And they shall be condemned, any and each of the, and their 
      houses shall be demolished and burned in which they lived when they 
      committed the crime, and no person whatsoever of whatever estate or 
      condition shall dare to return to rebuild of populate it without 
      permission of the magistrates under sentence of death."
      
    It is not clear whether they understood in detail what the governor 
    meant, but they fully understood the implications.  The Spanish 
    intended to destroy the natives and their way of life by imposing 
    their own laws backed by the threat of death.  The awkward and uneasy 
    coexistence between the Spanish and indigenous peoples now came to an 
    abrupt end.  The Spaniard's crusade for moral purity expanded with a 
    vengeance in Columbia.  
    
    War broke out.  The native's envenomed arrows were no match for the 
    armored soldiers and their guns.  Over the next several months 
    thousand of natives lost their lives - all of their towns were taken 
    over and sacked as the soldiers desired.  Thousands of refugees fled 
    up into the Sierra mountain where most died of starvation or 
    pestilence.  
    
    The Sierra which used to be home to an estimated 250,000 - 300,000 
    natives, saw their numbers decimated within a few years to less than 
    40,000, the result, (as this author infers from eye-witness accounts) 
    not of a lust for gold, but for the lust of imposing one society's 
    view of "moral purity" onto another.
    
    Karen
    

re Note 506.15 by CARTUN::BERGGREN:

        Karen,

        So you are saying that a campaign based on "family values" is
        nothing new?

        Bob

    Bob .16,
    
    	You know, your wit is even drier than mine.
    
    Richard