"The colonists were remarkably prolific... Despite heavy losses as a result of disease and hardship, the colonists multiplied. Their numbers were also greatly increased by continuing immigration from Great Britain and from Europe west of the Elbe River. In Britain and continental Europe the colonies were looked upon as a land of promise. Moreover, both the homeland and the colonies encouraged immigration, offering inducements to those who would venture beyond the ocean. The colonies particularly welcomed foreign Protestants." [John Wesley and the Arminian theology appeared in the mid-18th Century, so our founding was Calvinistic.]
"In the 17th century the principal component of the population in the colonies was of English origin, and the second largest group was of African heritage. German and Scotch-Irish immigrants arrived in large numbers during the 18th century. Other important contributions to the colonial ethnic mix were made by the Netherlands, Scotland, and France. New England was almost entirely English, in the southern colonies the English were the most numerous of the settlers of European origin, and in the middle colonies the population was much mixed, but even Pennsylvania had more English than German settlers. Except in Dutch and German enclaves, which diminished with the passage of time, the English language was used everywhere, and English culture prevailed."
"In a short time the colonists pushed from the Tidewater strip toward the Appalachians and finally crossed the mountains by the Cumberland Gap and Ohio River. Decade by decade they became less European in habit and outlook and more American—the frontier in particular setting its stamp on them. Their freedom from most of the feudal inheritances of western Europe, and the self-reliance they necessarily acquired in subduing nature, made them highly individualistic [too individualistic in theology]." Encyclopedia Britannica on American Colonies
America is no longer the "melting pot" where various ethnicities, mainly Christian, came and assimilated into American life. The culture has fragmented and America in no longer the "melting pot", and this is worsened by the materialism and Marxism infecting the schools.
Earlier in our history, the conservative's weak efforts to combat the radicals is described well by Robert L. Dabney discussing women's suffrage in 1897: "American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. . . . Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always when about to enter a protest very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance: The only practical purpose which it now serves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy, from having nothing to whip. No doubt, after a few years, when women’s suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position." https://counter-currents.com/2012/11/robert-lewis-dabney-on-conservatism/
The idea of being white or Caucasian was not a cause of America's former greatness, it just happens that the Protestant countries which have mainly been our earlier, founding population are white, whose ideology was mainly Calvinistic. DIVERSITY IS NOT AMERICA'S STRENGTH! A close friend whose ethnicity is Oriental, was "born from above" just prior to immigrating to the US. He wished to be in a white, Christian culture. He did NOT come here wishing to turn America into a Buddhist Orient, or carve out a piece of the US as such.
As I read this; I was reminded of a video I watched.
Tom
Tom, thanks for the link; I did watch that 41 minute video. I do not identify with that. They seemed to claim the name "Baptist", but they are not the historic Baptists who believe in separation of Church and State. When Ted Haggard, who was actually the President of the National Association of Evangelicals was exposed, I checked the list of denominations making up that organization. Knowing that group actually elected Ted Haggard I knew I was NOT an evangelical, especially after seeing the member denominations. I had in earlier years rejected the label "fundamentalist" to describe myself and then I later rejected the label "evangelical" for myself. Neither word is in the Bible and I must go by the common understanding of the words and I am NOT either of those. It depends on definition, but I surely would not attend a church where people raise their hands in some idea of physical worship, or have rock bands on the stage, and I do not condemn homosexuals for having a loving relationship nor the woman who has an abortion in the first trimester.
That 41 minute video seems to indicate that the only biblical understanding is, that a human being, a person, exists from conception and they want to put that into civil law. That viewpoint is not THE Christian viewpoint alone. I find that the typical fundamentalist/evangelical views on homosexual males and abortion are man-made theological constructions not based on clear statements of scripture. They are read into the scriptures.
There is a book you can read online, "Baptist Principles Reset", a 1902 Edition book. In one chapter they address the question of the "Blue Laws" in the State of Virginia and they get into the question of religious liberty. The chapter on that starts on page 298. I agree with this earlier Baptist view.
Page 298, I cannot do a copy-paste on this so I can't text out a copy so you must read it online. I hold to the older Particular Baptist 1646 Confession and the Baptist instance on separation of Church and State, so I don't use the name Baptist for myself in this day.
On the matter of homosexual males, I find the Britannica article on Lawrence v. Texas revealing as it gave the arguments and the last two sentences sum it up well. If you can read the entire article, the link is: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Lawrence-v-Texas
"A vice president of Focus on the Family, a conservative organization, attacked the court for continuing to pillage “its way through the moral norms of our country.” What both sides agreed upon, but reacted to far differently, was the belief that Lawrence would be the opening wedge in a campaign to constitutionalize same-sex marriage."
I disagree with both and find each extreme. The simple fact, after a false police complaint caused police to enter the house, of two males merely having sex is not in the Bible, so I find no basis for the moral condemnation; but, I see nothing in that ruling to justify redefining marriage to suit an anomaly of sexual nature found in such a small minority.
