This blog post has moved! It's now on my own website, here:
FFQF: John Adams on National Liberty'
Friday, March 27, 2009
FFQF: John Adams on National Liberty
Posted by Hercules Mulligan at 12:29 PM
Labels: Founding Father's Quote Friday, John Adams, liberty, republics, revolution, virtue
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 Comments:
As always, I am awed by your presentation and logic. I am very much looking forward to your continuation of defining and defending Liberty.
It is very true: liberty is prone to entropy and decay without the support of godly people and precepts.
An excellent post.
I hope you don't mind: I combined my FFQF with my weeklong rant on the latest governmental tyranny: profiling liberty-loving citizens as terrorists.
Another wonderful and politically incorrect post! This statement jumped out:
Liberty is not a thing easily achieved, or maintained.
I think the same concept can (and should) be applied to our churches. Ranging from the ridiculous legalism of the power hungry to various forms of greasy grace from the undisciplined, most churches do not understand, or achieve, the freedom to be found in Christ Jesus.
If the churches can't do it, how on earth can we expect the governments to?
Thanks for this post. You've got my brain whirling again. :)
Hi Herc!
First of all, sorry for missing last week's post. This week has been so hectic! Second, I just wanted to let you know that your reply to my comment from two weeks ago was dead on. If anyone needs Christ's iron rod and a witty Hamilton insult, it's the modern corrupt politicians! :D
Now onto this week's post: very, very true and even more insightful! I thank you for supplying us readers with an awesome dose of political incorrectness. Political correctness is killing our society, and I was glad to read that you acknowledged that.
I loved the Adams quote (he had a talent for making complicated things simple, didn't he?), and also how you proved Jefferson's tree of liberty quote incorrect. You are completely right about how order does not come from chaos. I feel that the very reason why our revolution succeeded and the French Revolution failed is because we had an organized congress and army, as where the French were just cutting heads off maniacally.
What you said about liberty not being easily achieved or maintained is also true. Like you said, humans aren't perfect, and we must go through a change before true liberty can be attained. Nice shoutout to the pilgrims, too!
Great job on another intuitive post, and I hope to read much more of "The Law of Liberty" very soon! :)
Well done! Liberty is a thing hard won - and harder to keep.
So, when are you running for Prez?
Thank you all for reading and leaving your thoughtful comments, and your kind words.
Cato -- Thank you. I saw your post; it was excellent! Now, if only I had some law-enforcement officials to pass it on to!
Jean -- It's interesting you should could compare this with the situation in the Church. I've been making this comparison in my mind, for a while, when in the course of my studies, I began to put the two together. It was amazing how the study of the Bible (particularly the Gospel) and the American founding mutually grew and benefited each other, at least in my experience.
HistoryLover2 -- You don't have to apologize for missing last week; I fully understand. I did miss your comment, though. :)
Mr. Adams did indeed have a way with words. I love him for the same reason.
As for our Revolution, compared with that of France, I'm not so sure our congress and our army was so organized. At least, from reading the Founders' letters, they could have been much more organized. That's why we scrapped the Articles.
BUT, what we did have, I think we can attribute to the godliness and virtue of the early patriots. The greatest among them were devout, God-fearing men, like Washington.
It was God, and the submission and humility of godly men, that made our revolution different (and successful) from the other revolutions.
Thanks for leaving your comment.
Mike -- So true. When am I running for Prez? Lol. Um, well ... I don't know how good of a President I'd make. A good president would be Ron Paul. He's got the principles, character, and experience to make him qualified for just about every public office there is! (I might make a few exeptions; the IRS, for instance -- but again, is that really a PUBLIC office?)
If running for President (or, MY running for President) would make the country better though, I would. For now, we will all have to do our part to advance the kingdom of God.
Thank you all again for your comments.
Happy FFQF, and blessed weekend! He could come anytime. Be ready!
Another great contribution, Herky! I especially enjoyed the notion of Adams' age and the revelance of his statement.
As much as my faith means to me, which is everything, have you thought about writing the same issue without using God?
The only explanation I have is quite simple: It's always easy when one engages in speaking or writing with another of the same belief system, i.e., it's always fun and easy to talk about Jesus Christ. But what about those who don't believe in Christ?
Are you alleging that they don't have virtue? We must be careful I believe as writer's, to be warm and welcoming to any person who agrees with or wants to do more study in America's founding.
We know, in fact, that America was founded as a Christian nation. Many people through various media have fallen away from that fact.
Therefore, I entertain the notion of putting out the bread crumb and having those who hear, come in for a much better look. Cheers!
And again, great post.
jps
Hello JP. Thanks for reading and leaving your comment and kind words.
In response to your question, "Have you ever thought about writing the same issue without using God?"
Well, I have not thought about trying to do so. But I have asked myself it is proper, or even possible, NOT to bring up God, when discussing the importance of national virtue, or even private individual virtue.
I agree that it is easy to talk about this issue with other believers. And while the overwhelming majority of people who leave comments here are believers, I have received comments from non-believers, and there are many more non-believers, I am sure, who visit and read here.
The fact that they read and comment here encourages me to focus on God and Christ in my discussions of virtue, liberty, and the American ideal. I am not assuming that they are incapable of morality, or that they have no moral sense; but if I take the Bible for what it says, and I look at history and human experience, and combine all of the above, I am convinced that all virtue and morality, even that of unbelievers, must be traced to God.
National virtue is impossible to maintain without God. Our own national situation proves that. When the people of this country began to ignore and/or reject God, our national virtue quickly spiraled downward.
As for welcoming anyone who wants to study the founding, I am all for it. But I am still going to write about God and Christ. If they are offended, that is their fault, not mine. I have two reasons for my position:
(1) It is impossible to separate the Founding of America from Christ. He is, in a sense, the Chief Cornerstone upon which our nation was founded. He is the One who is responsible for our existence. America was founded for His glory, and the advancement of His kingdom and the fulfillment of the Great Commission. The more I study, the more I see this to be true. For evidence, read The Mayflower Compact and documents like it.
(2) If unbelievers come to this site, I want them to be presented with the truth. I want them to see that Christianity is more than just another religious belief. I want them to see that America is a prime example that the GOSPEL is true, because the Great Experiment is nothing more than Civilly-Applied Christianity. If evidence of this position gets them on the road to re-thinking their skepticism, than my blog has served a far greater purpose than educating Americans about our history. If they are offended, I am regretful of their positions, and not mine, unless it is through some insufficiency of my presentation of evidence.
I hope this explanation makes sense to you. It is my firm belief, that goes beyond my opinion. I am convinced it is the truth, and that it is my duty to continue to preach Christ.
Yours sincerely,
Hercules
I've been reading these comments with interest, and I have to agree with you, Herky.
I've heard Christian counselors say that they counsel without mentioning Christ, because, say, the wifebeater will stop beating his wife, and their lives will be improved.
I've heard Christians say they evangelize without mentioning Christ, by providing the cup of cold water, and their lives will be improved.
And now I see JP (whom I love!) saying we should teach American/Christian history without mentioning Christ, so we will be more welcoming to anyone who wants to study the founding of our nation.
The common thread is that, by presenting truth without identifying the Christian foundation for that truth, people will not be offended, and therefore will be more accepting of that truth.
My response is always the same: so what?
Are we not denying Christ by taking this position?
What have we accomplished if people are better husbands, their suffering has been relieved with the cup of the cold water, or in this case, they are more educated about our nation's history - and yet, every one of them is still going to spend eternity in hell?
We certainly do need to meet the needs of the flesh, but not at the expense of the spirit.
Glad you are reading and finding interest, Jean! Thanks for including your comment.
I've heard the same talk from others, and not just in this instance. Honestly, I think that this is just another example of the human nature trying to achieve the blessings without those "inconvenient complications," like Christ, and people getting "offended" at His name.
In the original meaning of the word, I don't think they are "offended"; they are just annoyed and they feel uncomfortable, because there is a power in that name -- like the power of a wakened and alarmed conscience.
It is the Christian's sole duty, not to restore America, not to create a "Christian and moral culture," but to preach CHRIST and HIM CRUCIFIED. And as I pointed out in my response to JP, you can't even bring America back to its foundations unless you bring it back to Christ.
Yes, we are denying Christ by taking this position. It seems that too many Christians in America have done this, trying to obtain the blessing (a moral climate in the country) without the Christ who brings change.
But we must also beware of using Christ as a means to an end, no matter how noble that end may be. To do so is to place self and selfish ends above Christ, and that, I believe, puts us in so much danger, danger of hell.
The nice thing, though, is that Jon-Paul, and other close friends of this blog and myself, are Christians with open hearts and minds (as I believe), and we can edify and exhort each other in this manner. We can all learn, be challenged, and corrected by the truth. For this, I am very grateful.
Great points you made in your comment. Thanks for taking the time. They are very much worth emphasizing.
HM
Great site and blogs! Glad to see your effort in spotlighting these great men and the heritage that we enjoy because of their sacrifice. We are trying to expose George Washington's faith in a Mount Vernon setting on Washington's Olympic Peninsula (www.GeorgeWashingtonInn.com). We would like to welcome you and similar bloggers who share the same sentiments.
Hello Dan. Welcome to my blog. And thank you for your kind words.
I visited your website link which you provided. The site and the place is absolutely beautiful. Thanks for the link.
I just have one question (please pardon my misunderstanding): I am not sure if you are inviting me and other bloggers to visit the George Washington Inn and attend an event that revolves around Washington's faith, or if you are simply inviting me to see your website and your blog, and link back on our blogs (which I would be very happy to do).
Thanks for visiting.
Post a Comment