Charlie Rose

lawforce  03/02/2012 06:47 PM Report

Mr. Rose, kindly present informed guests, who study then speak intelligently on the topic dejure (in this case the nexus between Church & State) rather then merely those who propound today's pop-political left-leaning pablum. If you and your staff wish to use primary source information and evidence, please take note of the quintessentially primary sources below.

FOUNDING FATHERS’ VIEWS ON CHURCH & STATE

"You do well to wish to learn our arts and 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 every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention." -- GEORGE WASHINGTON, "The Writings of Washington", John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington, D. C., U. S. Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XV, p. 55, from his speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs on 5/12/1779.

"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." -- GEORGE WASHINGTON, "A compilation of the Message and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897", James D. Richardson, (Published by the Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. 1, p. 220, 9/17/1796.

"History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion ... and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern." -- BENJAMIN FRANKLIN , "The Works of Benjamin Franklin", Jared Sparks, editor, (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore and Mason, 1840), Vol. X, p. 297, to Messrs. The Abbes Chalut and Arnaud on 4/17/1787

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. ... Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other" -- JOHN ADAMS, "The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, ed. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were ... the general principles of Christianity. ... I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God." -- JOHN ADAMS, Thomas Jefferson "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson", (Washington D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIII, P. 292-294. Letter from J. Adams to T. Jefferson on 6/28/1813.

"The Supreme Ruler of the Universe, having been pleased in the course of His providence to establish the independence of the United States of America . . . we ought to be led by religious feelings of gratitude and to walk before Him in all humility according to His most holy law. . . . That with true repentance and contrition of heart we may unitedly implore the forgiveness of our sins through the merits of Jesus Christ and humbly supplicate our heavenly Father. -- SAMUEL ADAMS, "By the Governor. A Proclamation for a Day of Public Fasting, Humiliation, and Prayer", (Printed at the State Press: Adams and Larkin, 1795).

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty - as well as the privilege and interest - of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers" - Co-Author Federalist Papers, Original Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, JOHN JAY, "The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, 1794-1826, Henry P. Johnson, editor, Vol. IV, p. 393, 10/12/1816.

"[It is] the duty of all wise, free, and virtuous governments to countenance and encourage virtue and religion." -- JOHN JAY, "The Speeches of the Different Governors to the Legislature of the State of New York, Commencing with Those of George Clinton and Continued Down to the Present Time", (Albany: J.B. Van Steenbergh, 1825), p. 66, Govenor John Jay, 11/4/1800.

"I ... recommend a general and public return of praise and thanksgiving to Him from whose goodness these blessings descend. The most effectual means of securing the continuance of our civil and religious liberties is always to remember with reverence and gratitude the source from which they flow." -- JOHN JAY, "The Life of John Jay: With Selections From His Correspondence and Miscellaneous Papers", (New York: J.J. Harper, 1833), Vol. I, pp. 457-458, to the Committee of the Corporation of the City of New York, 6/29/1826.

"Why is it that next to the birthday of the Savior of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the 4th of July]? Is is not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That is laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?" -- JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, "An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport at their Request on the 61st Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence", 7/4/1837, (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 5.

"Let us enter on this important business under the idea that we are Christians on whom the eyes of the world are now turned. ... Let us in the first place ... humbly and penitently implore the aid of the Almighty God whom we profess to serve - let us earnestly call and beseech him for Chirst's sake to preside in our councils." -- President Continental Congress, ELIAS BOUDINOT, Elias Boudinot LL.D., "The Life and Public Services, and letters of Elias Boudinot, LL.D., President of the Continental Congress", J.J. Boudinot, ed. (Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin, and Co., 1896), Vol. 1, pp. 18-19.

KEY SOURCES FOR THE FOUNDING FATHERS’ VALUES & VIEWS

"The Law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men's actions must ... be conformable to the Law of Nature, i.e. to the will of God. Laws human must be made according to the general laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made." -- JOHN LOCKE, "Two Treatises on Government", (London: J. Whiston, etc., 1772) Book II, p. 285, Chapter XI, section 135, quoting Hooker's "The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity" 1.iii, sect.9

"Blasphemy against the Almighty is denying His being or Providence or uttering contumelious reproaches on our Savior Christ. It is punished at common law by fine and imprisonment, for Christianity is part of the laws of the land." -- SIR WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, "Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England", (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1769) Vol. IV, p. 59; quoted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (1824) in "Updegraph v. The Commonwealth", (11 Serg & R. 393) at 396; quoted by the United States Supreme Court (1892) in "Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, (143 U.S. 457).

"The Christian religion, which ordains that men should love each other, would without doubt have every nation blest with the best civil, the best political laws; because these, next to this religion, are the greatest good that men can give and receive." -- BARON CHARLES SECONDAT DE MONTESQUIEU, "Spirit of Laws", (Philadelphia: Isaiah Thomas, 1802), Vol. II, pp. 125-126

topazgirl  03/02/2012 12:19 PM Report

Dear Neil:

What a beautiful philosophy! I agree... I guess I just get stuck on whether my beliefs and values should be everyone else's, as well. Their experiences and circumstances may take them to different decisions.

...Anyway... Thank you for a civil, heart-felt, and well thought out discussion. It seems hard to find these days! I hope to hear more from you on this site... Topaz ;)

NeilMacCallister  03/01/2012 12:59 PM Report

Thanks, Topaz. I am old and still have questions, but I have learned there are a number of things that are as true to a satisfactory life, as gravity, force, and distance are to the physical. In this regard, the question of Ethics is much larger than the one man Rick Santorum (as he would surely agree). It can also be much smaller than the national dialogue within which Rick has recently been embroiled, as one person alone on an island can also consider their ethical choices. I believe Aristotle taught that the goal of Ethics was to produce a good life for the acting individual. I believe that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and all others also embody that priority. I further see no fault in working to learn the outlooks on life which promote peace and happiness, or in promoting that knowledge to others that we love. I believe a truth is constant (God does not switch to "new directives" as aj suggests below), although not all truths are easy to perceive or convenient to follow. Slavery seems easy, now. Abortion seems harder, but it is not impossible to rise above this too. I believe some day we will.

ceci  03/01/2012 11:32 AM Report

Al throughout this program I could not help thinking about and dearly missing Christopher Hitchens.

aj617  02/29/2012 09:36 PM Report

Rick Santorum is guilty of putting his religion in service

of his profane ambition to gain the power to impose

his notions of morality on the public at large through

aggressive moves by Catholic and Evangelical institutions.

Some of their traditional teachings are clearly archaic

in nature and no longer relevant, and are obviously considered by modern folk to be a serious intrusion into

their private lives. At one time it really made sense to

maximize the reproductive potential of the people both

to replace the losses to the plaque and to swell the ranks

of God's armies - hence the edicts against contraception. Now the problem is the tide of fecundity that is turning

humanity into a swarm of locusts that threaten to consume

everything. Somehow the churh missed God's new directives,

as did Santorum and his constituancy.

topazgirl  02/29/2012 07:06 PM Report

Neil: Excellent questions... my point exactly!

The "problem" for one child born out-of-wedlock may not be the same as for another, depending on extended family, maturity and economic situation of the mother, and the choices available to her.. The "gray" area is that place between the best of circumstances and the worst, where a "black or white" solution is not so clear-cut.

I DO know what is up-lifting to my heart, mind, and soul; but I do not presume to know what up-lifts others'... or what is best for them, or best for ME, for that matter, in every given situation. The solution or decision depends on a myriad of varying factors... the gray area.

I use the word "legislate" somewhat metaphorically, although I do believe that in regards to many of Santorum's statements, he would like to "instill" his beliefs on others as if we are wrong, or have not thoroughly searched our own souls; and, frankly, that frightens me a bit for a man seeking the high and powerful office of the Presidency.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Neil... We have a lot in common... I, too, am opposed to slavery!... ;^)

NeilMacCallister  02/29/2012 05:55 PM Report

Dear Ms. Topaz, ..What is the "problem" to a child who is born out-of-wedlock? ..What is the civilized solution for that child's challenges??

What legislation are you refering to, which has tried to "force Christian values"? ..or "to attend church"?

A "gray area" exists when someone can't decide which way is uplifting to their heart, mind, and soul. When it comes to slavery and abortion, I do know which way has me continuing in peace.

Thank you for your discussion.

topazgirl  02/29/2012 04:14 PM Report

This discussion on 'Religion and Politics' focused on Rick Santorum because he is the candidate making outrageous and extreme statements, and dragging religion into the political conversation. No one followed up on Richard Land's remarks in support of Santorum's defense of the traditional two- parent family because what is there to say? No one, Liberal or Conservative, disagrees that the ideal way to raise a family is with two parents, but you can't "legislate" that. Nor can people be forced to attend church to "get" whatever message you want them to hear regarding it... Passing legislation against abortion (and now, contraception!) only exacerbates the problem of children born out-of-wedlock.

As to why liberals vote one way on some issues, and then opposite on others: liberals tend not to march lock-step to one ideological tune... We see little "black or white" in all issues; life is lived, for the most part, in the gray areas. I suspect that Santorum will find out, the hard way, that a large portion of Republicans feel the same.

John Kennedy had it right... As was mentioned in the discussion, the separation of Church and State is not the same as the separation of religion and politics. We all bring our beliefs, values, and experiences to the decisions we make in life... politicians included; but denigrating another's religion (or lack of one), or trying to force "Christian values" though legislation, only serves to alienate large segments of American society.

...Now, Santorum's ludicrous comments about higher education snobbery?... That's a discussion for another day!...

NeilMacCallister  02/29/2012 04:36 AM Report

Hah! ..mcmanus cries for a "deliverance from the bonds of faith", ..and then begs "if only Christopher Hitchens would make a second coming"! It just goes to show, all of us must have 'faith' in something (.."Will my paycheck actually be deposited on Friday?", .."Will my children earn more if the go to college?", .."Will I still live in peace if I walk from this restaurant without paying?")

Faith can be good, it can save you in times of need.

Why don't we talk about the real issue? ..the abortion of babies?

Is our nation better now than it was in 1973 ???

"But, the unborn are NOT citizens! ..They have no rights!!"

Doesn't that mirror what the Dred Scott decision said?

Why do liberals vote one way on some issues, and then opposites in others?

Do they have too little 'faith' in their reasonings?

jmpmcmanus  02/29/2012 03:54 AM Report

I found the discussion on religion and politics limited. It would have been nice if you had somebody, who was not a person of faith, participate in the discussion. The reason is that the discussion did not bring up the key issue of viewing the world based on faith or fact. Santorum's comments on Kennedy's religion speech, education and faith, begged for such a discussion to be engaged. Unfortunately, your panel of reasonable Christians was incapable of comprehending this. Boy do a miss Christopher Hitchens.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  02/28/2012 06:00 PM Report

Charlie, we heard it said that Obama is taking/buying Michigan because of the bonuses to auto workers.

$182M to the white collars and $332.5M to the blue collars so over $500 million in bonuses.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46562109/ns/business-autos/

So if we, the government, do not create jobs then do we save jobs?

So are we at net zero with the money to Solyndra against these bonuses?

We (the taxpayers) own about 26.5% of GM and have received $22B of our $50B. We need $53 a share (almost half way there now http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=GM) to get the rest of our money back. Should we talk up these bonuses so we can get the share price up and get back our money?

Now we are talking about the religion of America.

By the way, when will I get my rebate check from my health insurance company because I am quite sure that they are NOT spending 80% of my premium on health care. (I would like my vote to be purchased too.)

SharkswithfrikingLazers  02/28/2012 05:35 PM Report

Charlie, what does "The Architect" Karl Rove use?

Trigger points of God, Gays and GUNS.

Now we are on God. What a surprise.

I have heard Baptist Preachers give sermons that they can accept Catholics even though they leave Jesus on their cross but they can NOT accept Mormons because they have no cross.

Personally, I do NOT understand how anyone who still has a functioning frontal lobe can be a Catholic. Their history is just too much for me and it hurts my brain. Perhaps Stephen Colbert is the one Catholic I can understand because he can really see himself.

There is no Mormon Stephen Colbert which is a shame. There is lots and lots of material here too.

tabs  02/28/2012 02:00 PM Report

Does anyone remember where Terry Nichols hailed from, or remember the Michigan Militia? There is a deep and wide streak of anti-government antipathy outside of the urban areas of Michigan. One gathers that the rural folk in Michigan don't like being bullied about by the big government Liberal politicians of the urban areas.

This deep conservativism of "clinging to their guns and religion" makes Rick Santourms popularity understandable, and leads to Mitt Romney. If there is one thing that one can discern as a passion in Romney, it is his anti-union sentiment. This antipathy stems from seeing his Father as President of American Motors having to deal with the unions. One thinks that Mr Romney believes that excessive union demands and power are a causative factor in what brought America low.

ShalomFreedman  02/28/2012 01:23 PM Report

I wonder why this discussion on 'Religion and Politics' focused completely on Rick Santorum and his relation to the Kennedy statement on religion and politics. How do Mormon Romney and relatively new Catholic Gingrich fit in here?

I also noticed no one followed up on Richard Land's remarks in support of Santorum's defense of the traditional two- parent family. Or is this not considered a 'religious' issue?

On the whole I found this discussion a very one- sided one, with E.J.Dionne, Matthew Dowd, and Jon Meacham united in their condemnation of Santorum's miscontruing and condemnation of the Kennedy speech.

machngunjoe  02/28/2012 01:02 PM Report

I wish they would have talked about all the candidates and how they intertwine their religion instead of just focusing on Santorum, which would have made this a 40 minute long video I suppose. Also I wish they would have talked a little more about the bigotry of Santorum. Otherwise this was a great post.

REMant  02/28/2012 12:32 PM Report

I regret to say I think Catholics are disliked as much as ever; it's just that they make up an even larger part of the electorate now, and they've found allies among the evangelical neocons, and those appealing to subsidiarity. I don't think these culture war issues have diminished all that much since Reagan, but they haven't surfaced much in this election. That was largely the reason, I'd think, why Huckabee gave up. But religion cannot be reduced to a value statement. Santorum is right about that much. The problem is that the public largely thinks it can, because they are hypocrites, not because they don't let it go too far. And Catholics are hypocritical about a lot of things, war and abortion only a couple. It will not likely therefore win you an election anymore than telling the truth about monetary policy.

Yet I don't think any of this will go away if Romney is elected or Obama re-elected, nor if suppressed by their campaigns. I would also like to add that there's a very great connection between religion and economics, and that while family can have various meanings, there IS a problem. George Will pointed out the other day that in 1965 when Moynihan published his report on the black family's "crisis," 24 percent of black children were born to unmarried women. Today, 73 percent are. Forty-one percent of ALL children are now born to unmarried women. More than 50 percent born to women under age 30 are. And I wouldn't blame the men for it. Men are fast becoming irrelevant in American society - every measure of their well-being reflects it. And I would submit this has a lot to do with our economic performance.

Personally tho I'm heartened not to be hearing such political types bawling about how division will sink the party's chances, etc. Races between just two parties invariably tighten. That's merely the law of averages. And it doesn't necessarily mean they are split on all the issues, just those being contended.