I think you misunderstand pendulums. The idea in a pendulum is that it returns to it's starting point. Whenever there has been a large usurption of rights, there hasn't been a return to previous status. So if you want to call it stairs down, where we dwaddle on individual steps occasionally before descending down another step permanently that may be more accurate. After the articles of confederation failed, there was never a return to weak federal gov. After states failed to pull away in civil war, there was never a return to strong state rights. After the creation of most government systems you don't see them going away and the government giving up what it has started to regulate. Welfare state is a good example, at different times we might have different policies on how the government should provide welfare. But once we allowed the government to take that role from the church, it's never given it back. So whether it's cash aid, housing subsidization, food stamps, unemployment, social security, etc. Even when there is no money to fund the program, the gov doesn't get rid of it, might scale it back temporarily, more likely robs peter to pay paul. But it doesn't give up it's programs in general. Though there are minor programs that get cut or collapsed into a new and better program.
Seth, don't worry about picking on me. You're fine. But, of course, I will ask you some tough questions in this to challenge your precision of thinking.
As for your above comments, well this all depends on how great of a thinker you think the founders were and how much providence of grace you believe went into the founding of our country.
I'm curious. How many scholarly works have you read that discuss the ideology that permeated our government from the beginning? 5, 10, 20, more? Which ones gave you the most accurate historical perspective on how our government was built and upon what principles they, the founders, used to determine what government should look like?
I ask this because I find that many times people object to some things before they are even familar with the original source material or ideas of the people who actually produced the system that is under study or question.
Additionally, to be even more specific about your statements let me see if I can give a sufficient answer:
The idea in a pendulum is that it returns to it's starting point. Whenever there has been a large usurption of rights, there hasn't been a return to previous status. So if you want to call it stairs down, where we dwaddle on individual steps occasionally before descending down another step permanently that may be more accurate. After the articles of confederation failed, there was never a return to weak federal gov. After states failed to pull away in civil war, there was never a return to strong state rights.
Correct, a pendulum swing is also a theory of history as much as it is a theory of how our government turns. Think about a clock for a moment. The pendulum will indeed swing both ways and at times it is swinging up and at times it is swinging down. Sure, there will be decay, corruption, and a breaking down at various periods of the pendulum swing. But, if we accept the premise that innate rights are best preserved at the people's level than at the government ruling level, which I most emphatically do without any reservation, then we will arrive at the position i am speaking about. Why? The founders broke with most all traditions in founding this nation by the democratic republic model. They neither embraced democracy rule (mob rule) nor a monarchy (single rule). They embraced a system that has the best of both worlds, democracy and representative rule with proper checks and balances.
The articles system was a little too weak (one side of the pendulum) and then the next system was put in place. Today the pendulum has swung a little to far in another direction (federal control). But the question remains: were the founders right in their basis principle of establishing a state and federal system with a odd number of branches of powers in each level? If one believes this was indeed a weak or unbiblical position then that presupposition wil certainly lead one towards a more pessimistic view of our system.
But, as far as I can tell, those systems, which all develop from the base concept of a government established by the people, for the people, and of the people, this philosophical principle that God has implanted into the hearts and minds of all the idea of self-preservation and natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness places us on a never ending pendulum barring some type of complete cessation of the people. In other words, the readings I see lead me to this conclusion about the founders frame of mind. They wanted to find the best place to place the power for government. Certainly the best of all would be in the hand of God directly.
But these men were practical men, pragmatists who knew short of God actually being here there had to be another way. These brilliant philosophers, political thinkers, theologians, and farmers, men of elite status and common status convened under the providence of God's to form not a perfect union but with a goal to form a solid and perpetual union.
If someone believes they failed then they will not be as likely to believe this government can last and be a good government or even a great government. However, I do believe that they answered this one right.
It basically boiled down to this: Where do we place the power and how do we divide the power properly to best ensure the perpetual existence of this government? The democratic-republic model was there answer based on two reasons: (1) God has implanted into all people innate rights that people will naturally fight for because all people are self-centered, (2) Corruption exists in people and yet a perfect God rules in three persons so we need a odd number of people/branches in power to help alleviate any total and irreversible corruption from setting in.
I believe they asked the right questions and provided the right answers to their own questions and built a system on the right foundational principles.
They never attempted to build a perfect government; rather they knew all government would be corrupt to a degree because people make up the government and people are corrupt. But they placed th continual existence of the government in the idea that people will continue to be born and come into this world with inalienable rights that at some point will weigh so heavy on the hearts that people will do whatever it akes to defend those rights through a three branch (national and state system) government.
It is really the most remarkable plan ever known to political history as so many scholars have rightly attested to. Plato himself could not have come up with such a brilliant plan as this because he was a Greek philosopher who did not have his worldview shaped by the Judeo-Christian ideology that came to our shores by the Colonial Americans, especially the Puritans and Pilgrims.
Therefore, the founders knew that there would be drifts back and forth, fights and inner strife among the people in government and among the three branches and among the states and the national level systems. They envisioned this but they also envisioned something that transcended that: people will always exist who want to defend their rights and a democratic-republic model will ensure they are heard, not too quickly and through emotional reactions that quickly sway governments, but through a means where time is our friend and grass roots organization is key so that society can mature in the process as it works tomake the needed changes, either to the left or to the right in the never ending pendulum swing.
Now granted, something could cause the pendulum to stop all together. A war that destroyed us as a people. Or some other disaster, but barring something abnormal like that in general they envisioned this system doing what it is doing. They knew there would come corruption, and that even all three branches could become corrupt, but they still envisioned the other checks, especially the ultimate one where power rests in the hands of the people who can alter and change the government, and thus philosophically they laid a foundation that is solid, secure, and strong enough to last as long as people are here.
If I am creating a strawman here I apologize, but I really don't see the similarities between our government and the trinity. Lots of things can have three components. A recipe, a machine, a policy. But having three components doesn't make it divinely inspired.
Well how much history have you read by scholars who point out the ideologies that shaped our founding? That will largely determine why you do or do not see this. If you have read little in the field of what our forefathers believed then you will not see it because modern educational systems, and books, don't point this out. Thus if the literature you read is modern and not historical or not rooted in the history of the Reformation philosophical principles that produced Colonial America that in turn produced the minds of the nation's founders (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Fraknlin, Hobbs, etc etc) then sure you will not see it because the literature you are reading is not highlighting these historical facts.
As for divinely inspired I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. Principle of thought that align with Scripture and Scripture itself is divinely inspired. I do not believe natural men beyond the Apostles have supernaturaldirect inspiration from the Lord. But, certainly, to the degree that we build upon those divine principle and divine statements of Scripture our work will have divine approval or blessings attached to it. If not then we can't build our life on the teachings of Christ and the apostles and expect to blessed by God in our homes, families, or community. But I do emphatically believe in the inspiration and dvinity of Scripture. Therefore, it consequently mandates that if one builds his or her life, family, community or even government upon those divine principle there will be a degree of divine blessing attached to the effort as it is pleasing and honoring to the Lord.
Thus, having said that, to the degree that our founders rightly based the government systems on divine principles to that degree one can expect blessings to follow. In short, one only needs to look at the blessings given to this country that few, maybe not another, has ever had and see that something laid in th heart of our country was different and something in it led to a vast difference in regard to blessings. Historical research shows us tha it was indeed the principles that brought people to this land, the prayers of the people in this land, and the principles by which our government built itself from, namely Judeo-Christian principles. And by Judeo-Christian principles I also strongly means things like logic. Logic is a divine tool based upon the idea of the laws of logic such as the law of non-contradiction. Those are Judeo-Christian values that people work with every day, even atheists and agnostics and people who oppose Judeo-Christian ideology by their mouth still practice Judeo-Christian principle in the way they live and argue. Thus, even if the people in the systems currently are weak, confused, or corrupt, etc., there is still the SYSTEM itself that yields great hope to know that better things can still be ahead.
First of all, there is no checks and balances in the trinity. There is no corruption, so there is no need for a watch dog, by one branch over the other. The reason we have three branches of government goes back to your idea of depravity/corruption. This is completely unlike the trinity's nature.
The idea that the founders saw was that even God rules in a three person sphere. It was that that led them to see the need for a three branch system. They could have chosen any number had it been JUST because of the reason of corruption. It could have been a 5 part system, or a 2 part system or a 7 part system or whatever. But because there was a strong reformation era wake, a colonial america spirit, and a strong intellectual drive that dominated the very fabric of the culture the Three part rule system just as God rules in a three part system was logically deduced as the best model to work with. It was not that they believed God needed a check in himself. That was not my point. My point was that they looked at man and said: "we all are corrupt or with weaknesses." Well who is not corrupt? God alone! So, let's build a model that reflects the way God rules. He rules in three persons. If he, being holy is even in three persons, then why should we who are beneath him and unholy, try and reflect the three branch system. This Trinitarian model developed into the fabric of the culture because the idea of the Trinity was so strong and so engrained into the people from the wake of the Reformation. Even unconsciencously this dominateds the ideas of people when forming ruling systems. They saw three types of rule also in biblicalhistory. They saw God as a lawmaker through Moses, they saw the enforcement of the laws and the judges to rule over disputes in the law. These ideas also led them to see the need of a three part system to government.
I would never be so audacious to say ONE reason alone led them to do what they did. It was a totality of reasons. But these reasons played in to it as scholars can have clearly shown by their historical documentation of both secular and religious history that met at the providential moment at the birthing of our Country.
Secondly, God is the lawgiver, the judge, and the exectutor. He is all in one, our government system isn't composed of a mediator, a sacrificer, and everything else in one branch. There is no similarity between the roles that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit play and the roles that are government play. If you wanted to stretch it, I suppose you could somehow see Jesus as judge, and his new covenant as voiding laws, but I don't think you want to say that. You could see the Holy Spirit, as carrying out the laws, except of course, that he doesn't.
I think i answered that above. they saw in Judeo-Christian history legislators, and judges, and also concluded in some ways that enforcers were also a separate class as well.
All nature carry's out God's laws, the angelic host act as his agents in doing his will. So I'm at a loss how the trinity are the model for our government. I'm sure you have some great books, and guys with letters after their name that think otherwise, I just don't buy it
Ok, then go buy some books then
If you like I can give you a list of them from a few to a hundred or so that will discuss the points and principles I am sharing herein. Historical scholarship is very valuable and not to be underestimated. Many of our founders were avid readers and great statesmen with in a solid knowledge of both history, science, and political philosophies. As far as intellect goes they stand in a class of their own when examining IQ and brain power.
When given an option in life to trust careful scholarship that has done thorough research into a topic versus the option of trusting ideas that do not have the backing of thorough research I will certainly lean to the side with the most or the best research. We all do this in life naturally as it is the way God intended. And by the way, when I say scholarship i do not mean it means one has to have degrees in front of their name. That certainly is a plus but research can be done in thorough detail by those without any degrees and they too can produce true materials worthy of respect. but the key is research and the massive number of resources I have strongly point out that indeed our SYSTEM of government was rightfully established upon divine principles.
But from my experience, those who reject this are normally those who have not done their homework and research, and thus have not seen the factual and historical information that would yield this consclusion. At others times those who reject do because they reject the divine principles behind the choices of the founders. Sometimes they choose a Marxist system, or a Platonic system, or a host of other systems that are built off of other foundational principles. Thus, it naturally leads them to reject this type of government SYSTEM or to downgrade it as not as great as I see it to be.
But, as noted above, if one accepts the Judeo-Christian worldview, accepts the idea that God truly has implanted into all humans the idea of natural rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the principle that all people are weak or corrupt, that God rules in a three person God-head, and that a odd number set of branches of government will help be the aid to preserving the people's natural rights as they fight for what is best for themselves due to each man's self-centered drive, if those principles are believed then it naturally leads to a view point that our founders with their great powers of logic, mixed with a dose of miraculous intevention that they freely acknowledged in prayer and petitions to the Almighty, then it is not only logical but honorable to believe that our government SYSTEM came forth with divine blessing and the SYSTEM is still a divine blessing even though the people in the system rightnow may not be as radiant lights like our blessed and great founders were. But they did not promise us a great people, but a great system to where the people who are not so great can have the opportunity to put into place laws that reflect life and liberty that mark us a one of the greatest beacons of hope for all the world to see. As our Puritan friends and founders used to say: We have been given a land and system to work and build a city/nation upon a hill that all the world will see and be blessed by."
I think they did that. Now it is more about our character as we move and exist inside of that blessed system they bled and died to give unto us. And I praise the Lord for them and am grateful for them. The 1st Amendment, along with others, are some of the brightest and greatest ideas ever placed into history. I praise the Lord and thank him for it often as he brings it to mind and I hope you do as well. We have so much to be thankful for because of the labors of those before us. What a rich blessing!
Dr. Allen
this particular link, shows voluntary sharia courts in uk, not forced. Further, they are allowed under the same umbrella that allows jewish courts which have been operating there for a hundred years.