Ancient One

> 30 days ago
‹ chat status

Profile

Name:
Ancient One
Location:
Albion, IN
Birthday:
04/09/1909
Status:
Married

Stats

Posts:
115
Post Reads:
4,959
Last Online:
> 30 days ago

My Friends

3 hours ago
1 day ago
24 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago

Subscribe

Life & Events > Veteran Faith
 

Veteran Faith


“For I have learned the truth: There are greater pursuits than self-seeking. Glory is not a conceit. It is not a decoration for valor. It is not a prize for being the most clever, the strongest, or the boldest. Glory belongs to the act of being constant to something greater than yourself. No misfortune, no injury, no humiliation can destroy it. This is the faith that my commanders affirmed, that my brothers-in-arms encouraged my allegiance to. It was the faith I had unknowingly embraced at the Naval Academy. It was my father’s and grandfather’s faith. A filthy, crippled, broken man, all I had left of my dignity was the faith of my fathers. It was enough.” —John McCain in Faith of my Fathers, his 1999 book on military tradition, his family, and his faith.

John McCain is a man of strong faith—a faith tested by torturous hardship few men have faced. It is a faith that wholly informs his character, his integrity, his purpose, his mission, his worldview.

Those who know John McCain well—his family, friends, pastor, political colleagues, and those veterans who suffered beside him as Prisoners of War—describe many facets of his personality. Their descriptions are of a man who is complicated and diverse, but to a person, they recognize him as a man of deep and abiding faith.

McCain, however, is a man who says little about his spiritual convictions, perhaps in constancy with the counsel of 12th-century Friar Saint Francis of Assisi: “Go forth and preach the Gospel; if necessary use words.”

As was the case with most of our Founders, who did not endeavor to make America a “Christian Nation” (though many of them worked tirelessly to forge a “Nation of Christians”), McCain does not make public declarations of his faith when campaigning for political office.

While he does not use his faith as a political platform, he certainly does not subscribe to the errant “Separation of Church and State” doctrine, nor does he hesitate to identify himself as a Christian when asked.

Rick Warren, pastor of California’s Saddleback Church, interviewed Senators McCain and Obama in August, asking them what it meant to be a Christian. John McCain required no teleprompter for his answer, stating flatly: “It means I’m saved and forgiven.”

McCain attends North Phoenix Baptist Church, a Southern Baptist congregation, though his “quiet faith” is surely more in keeping with his upbringing in the historic but now troubled Episcopal Church.

His Baptist pastor, Dan Yeary, says of McCain, “It is a privilege and an honor to be this close to a man I’ve learned to love, who has the potential to be a great president for our country. I certainly am in favor of God’s endorsement on his life.”

Biographer Paul Alexander writes that McCain’s quiet faith is also the result of military tradition: “He’s a very spiritual person but... in his core, he’s a military man. They don’t feel comfortable talking about religion.”

Perhaps not in uniform, anyway.

In Faith of My Fathers, McCain says his father, a full admiral and son of a full admiral, was also a man of quiet faith, who knelt twice daily for devotions with a prayer book frayed from use.

For his part, McCain wrote that he really came into account with his Creator when he was a POW.

A long-time McCain friend, Col. Bud Day, a Medal of Honor recipient and fighter pilot who, like McCain, was shot down over Vietnam, met McCain when they became roommates at the infamous “Hanoi Hilton.” Col. Day was a senior officer among the POWs and, recognizing McCain’s faith, appointed him a chaplain to their fellow prisoners.

Day says that McCain “remembered the Episcopal liturgy, and sounded like a bona fide preacher.”

Though McCain initially treated the assignment lightly, it was a turning point for him: “I’ll never forget that first Christmas when I... read from the Nativity story... And I looked in that room around and there were guys who had already been there for seven years and tears were streaming down their face, not out of sorrow, but out of joy that for the first time in all that captivity, we could celebrate the birth of Christ together. It was more sacred to me than any service I had attended in the past, or any service I have attended since.”

Of faith tried and tested, McCain writes, “Our senior officers always stressed to us the three essential keys to resistance, which we were to keep uppermost in our mind, especially in moments when we were isolated or otherwise deprived of their guidance and the counsel of other prisoners. They were faith in God, faith in country, and faith in your fellow prisoners... Without faith, we would lose our dignity, and live among our enemies as animals lived among their human masters.”

“POWs often regard their prison experience as comparable to the trials of Job. Indeed, for my fellow prisoners who suffered more than I, the comparison is appropriate. Hungry, beaten, hurt, scared, and alone, human beings can begin to feel that they are removed from God’s love, a vast distance separating them from their Creator. The anguish can lead to resentment, to the awful despair that God has forsaken you. To guard against such despair, in our most dire moments, POWs would make supreme efforts to grasp our faith tightly, to profess it alone, in the dark, and hasten its revival.”

“Once I was thrown into another cell after a long and difficult interrogation. I discovered scratched into one of the cell’s walls the creed ‘I believe in God, the Father Almighty.’ There, standing witness to God’s presence in a remote, concealed place, recalled to my faith by a stronger, better man, I felt God’s love and care more vividly than I would have felt it had I been safe among a pious congregation in the most magnificent cathedral.”

Anyone who has been through life-changing trauma will understand these words John McCain wrote about prayer: “There were many times I didn’t pray for another day and I didn’t pray for another hour—I prayed for another minute to keep going.”

Of McCain’s courage and fortitude, Col. Day says with certainty, “He wasn’t corruptible then, he’s not corruptible today.”

Capt. Tom Moe, who also got to know the real John McCain while they were imprisoned together, says that one of his strongest recollections of McCain was one day when McCain’s captors were returning him to his cell after torturous interrogations. Moe looked through a pinhole in his door as McCain looked back in the direction of his cell and gave him a smile and thumbs up: “I look back and that vision of him looking over at me and going ‘we’re going to pull through this’ under terrible, terrible conditions is a great memory for me.”

Another of McCain’s fellow POWs, and one of my personal heroes, Col. Roger Ingvalson, told me this week, “I spent two years with John McCain in some of the worst circumstances imaginable. I have spent time with John under much better circumstances in the years since. John McCain has the highest integrity of any political leader I have ever had the privilege of knowing, and I have known plenty.”

In this political season, many political stump speeches end with the words, “God Bless America.” But rest assured, when John McCain uses those words, they are much more than an obligatory footnote.

- Mark Alexander


posted on Sept 19, 2008 9:43 PM ()

Comments:

Wonderful Blog-again.
comment by grumpy on Sept 28, 2008 12:51 PM ()
Dear man, although we are poles apart politically and religiously, I was glad to see you blogging here. Have missed you and Centurion and hope you are both well.
comment by elderjane on Sept 21, 2008 4:07 PM ()
Well, thank you for the kind words. Please, return often.
reply by ancient1 on Sept 22, 2008 10:15 AM ()
for me it is "you people" since I am not American. Very interesting history lesson and we can learn a lot from history, I still think that religion and any mention of it, about it, for it or against it is not the place or purpose of an elected politician. Thanks for the interesting background.
comment by lizbeth on Sept 20, 2008 3:22 PM ()
I always comment on faith, it cannot find footing in my rational mind. I do not understand it, as much as I might wish to. Sometimes I admire it, the sheer letting go, and other times I view it as the utmost evil. I don't think you have to be an American to be fascinated by American politics, or to comment on them. I love the liberals, big L or not, and hope that they live long and prosper. I am sure it is not the water because we also have conservatives here, well a few anyway.
reply by lizbeth on Sept 21, 2008 10:01 PM ()
You are welcome. Glad I could be of some help.

I knew you were not living in the USA. But, since you took it upon yourself to comment on the Faith and beliefs of an american politician.... I thought it appropriate that you understand that the First Amendment of our Constitution is NOT the guarantor of freedom from religion, rather than freedom of religion.

Unfortunately, we have liberals sitting as justices on the courts in this land that believe exactly the same as a liberal living in British Columbia. "What is wrong with you people, did someone put something in your water?"
reply by ancient1 on Sept 21, 2008 10:40 AM ()
Politics and politicians mixed up with religion scare the heck out of me (just for a historical or hysterical reference please check out the dark ages, or the middle ages or any ages where the church took itself far too seriously) . Have we not fought long and hard for separation of church and state? What is wrong with you people, did someone put something in your water?
comment by lizbeth on Sept 19, 2008 10:35 PM ()
Sorry, I forgot to add my endnotes to my reply:

1. Letter of October 7, 1801, from Danbury (CT) Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson, from the Thomas Jefferson Papers Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C.

2. Id.

3. The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, John P. Foley, editor (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1900), p. 977; see also Documents of American History, Henry S. Cummager, editor (NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1948), p. 179.

4. Annals of the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1852, Eighth Congress, Second Session, p. 78, March 4, 1805; see also James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805.

5. Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805.

6. Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830), Vol. IV, pp. 103-104, to the Rev. Samuel Millar on January 23, 1808.

7. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. VIII, p. 112-113, to Noah Webster on December 4, 1790.

8. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. III, p. 441, to Benjamin Rush on September 23, 1800.

9. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282, to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802.

10. Richard Hooker, The Works of Richard Hooker (Oxford: University Press, 1845), Vol. I, p. 207.

11. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, p. 237.

12. Reynolds v. U. S., 98 U. S. 145, 164 (1878).

13. Reynolds at 163.
reply by ancient1 on Sept 20, 2008 8:28 AM ()
"you people"?

Maybe you could alleviate some of your fears by learning more on the subjects of history, the Constitution of the United States and religion. Public school system? Perhaps, I can help you get started.

A candidate's personal history and character - which would include moral force; integrity - is a prime indicator of how they may serve and maintain their oath of office.

Veterans and elected officials all have one thing in common: Upon entering service, both took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," and to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same."

On 1 June 1789, the first law enacted by Congress was statute 1, chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths. It established the oath that all civilian and military officials take before entering into the service of our nation. Our Founders understood that the security of the Republic depended on leaders who would honor and uphold constitutional rule of law, lest the Republic would dissolve into a democratic state ruled by men.

Notably, the oath mandates the support and defense of our Constitution, a document revered not only for its timeless precepts, but for its crisp and clear language. The oath refers to our Constitution precisely as it was ratified, not the so called "living constitution" rewritten by judicial activists, who populate what Thomas Jefferson predicted would become "the despotic branch".

Veterans support and defend our Constitution with their lives, while most elected officials debase it with all manner of extra-constitutional empowerment of the central government, and forced income redistribution to benefit the constituency groups which re-elect them. Military service personnel who violate the Constitution are remanded for Courts-Martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice while politicians who violate the Constitution are remanded for -- re-election.

In 2006, we saw the whirlwind that an ostensibly conservative political party reaps when it abandons its oath of office and platform. If Republicans thought they could retain majorities in the legislative branch by offering themselves as the lesser of two evils, they were sorely, grossly, terribly mistaken. They overestimated conservative tolerance for those who desert their oaths.

On 30 April 1789, America's first Commander in Chief, President George Washington, took his presidential oath of office with his hand on a Bible opened to the book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 28. He ended his oath with "So help me God," which was added to military oaths for officers by Act of Congress 29 September 1789.

In his "Inaugural Speech to Both Houses of Congress," President Washington said: "It would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect." Such was the conduct of his administration.

In his Farewell Speech of 19 September 1796, George Washington concluded with these words: "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 of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens. ... Let it be simply asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Now, in regards to your question concerning the separation of church and state.

In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.

The election of Jefferson-America’s first Anti-Federalist President-elated many Baptists since that denomination, by-and-large, was also strongly Anti-Federalist. This political disposition of the Baptists was understandable, for from the early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of the federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists had often found themselves suffering from the centralization of power.

Consequently, now having a President who not only had championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia but who also had advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801, telling him:

Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity . . . to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States. . . . [W]e have reason to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which He bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you. . . . And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator. (1)

However, in that same letter of congratulations, the Baptists also expressed to Jefferson their grave concern over the entire concept of the First Amendment, including of its guarantee for “the free exercise of religion”:

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. . . . [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. (2)

In short, the inclusion of protection for the “free exercise of religion” in the constitution suggested to the Danbury Baptists that the right of religious expression was government-given (thus alienable) rather than God-given (hence inalienable), and that therefore the government might someday attempt to regulate religious expression. This was a possibility to which they strenuously objected-unless, as they had explained, someone’s religious practice caused him to “work ill to his neighbor.”

Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. For example:

[N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution.Kentucky Resolution, 1798 (3)

In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805 (4)

[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808 (5)

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808 (6)

Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions for a very simple reason: he had long witnessed the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon the free exercise of religion. As he explained to Noah Webster:

It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors . . . and which experience has nevertheless proved they [the government] will be constantly encroaching on if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious [effective] against wrong and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion. (7)

Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination-a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:

[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly. (8)

Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the “establishment of a particular form of Christianity” by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.

Since this was Jefferson’s view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:

Gentlemen,-The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem. (9)

Jefferson’s reference to “natural rights” invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase “natural rights” communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little.

By definition, “natural rights” included “that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain.” (10) That is, “natural rights” incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their “natural rights” they would violate no social duty, he was affirming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference.

So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America’s inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge. He queried:

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? (11)

Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the “fence” of the Webster letter and the “wall” of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.

Earlier courts long understood Jefferson’s intent. In fact, when Jefferson’s letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only once prior to the 1947 Everson case-the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today’s Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson’s entire letter and then concluded:

Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson’s letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. (12)

That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson’s intent for “separation of church and state”:

[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State. (13)

With this even the Baptists had agreed; for while wanting to see the government prohibited from interfering with or limiting religious activities, they also had declared it a legitimate function of government “to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor.”

That Court, therefore, and others (for example, Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People ), identified actions into which-if perpetrated in the name of religion-the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc.

Such acts, even if perpetrated in the name of religion, would be stopped by the government since, as the Court had explained, they were “subversive of good order” and were “overt acts against peace.” However, the government was never to interfere with traditional religious practices outlined in “the Books of the Law and the Gospel”-whether public prayer, the use of the Scriptures, public acknowledgements of God, etc.

Therefore, if Jefferson’s letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given-as in previous years. Furthermore, earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson’s Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America’s history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter-words clearly divorced from their context-have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally, Jefferson’s Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson’s views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment.

For example, in addition to his other statements previously noted, Jefferson also declared that the “power to prescribe any religious exercise. . . . must rest with the States” (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the federal courts ignore this succinct declaration and choose rather to misuse his separation phrase to strike down scores of State laws which encourage or facilitate public religious expressions. Such rulings against State laws are a direct violation of the words and intent of the very one from whom the courts claim to derive their policy.

One further note should be made about the now infamous “separation” dogma. The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase “separation of church and state.” It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment-as is so frequently asserted-then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did.

In summary, the “separation” phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson’s explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. “Separation of church and state” currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.


It's "We the people" not "you people."
reply by ancient1 on Sept 20, 2008 8:20 AM ()
Quote of the week
“I’m not running for president because I think I’m blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save our country in its hour of need. My country saved me... and I cannot forget it. And I will fight for her for as long as I draw breath, so help me God. I’m going to fight for my cause every day as your president. I’m going to fight to make sure every American has every reason to thank God, as I thank Him: that I’m an American, a proud citizen of the greatest country on earth, and with hard work, strong faith and a little courage, great things are always within our reach. Fight with me. Fight for what’s right for our country. Fight for the ideals and character of a free people. Fight for our children’s future. Fight for justice and opportunity for all. Stand up to defend our country from its enemies. Stand up for each other, for beautiful, blessed, bountiful America. Stand up and fight. We’re Americans, and we never give up. We never quit. We never hide from history. We make history. Thank you, and God bless you, and God bless America.” —John McCain, concluding his nomination acceptance speech
comment by ancient1 on Sept 19, 2008 9:46 PM ()

Comment on this article   


115 articles found   [ Previous Article ]  [ Next Article ]  [ First ]  [ Last ]