# Think Tank > History >  Your personal favorite Founding Father

## ConsideringRonPaul

I thought this would be interesting to see.  I have a really hard time choosing between Jefferson, Washington, and P. Henry.

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

I know this has been done before but I'm rekindling it essentially for my own self interest.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

Thomas Jefferson was a genius. Unfortunately power corrupted him as he became president.

----------


## Jtorsella

Thomas Jefferson with his presidency cut out.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Samuel Adams

He is the father of Calvinist political action.

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

I think my vote may go to Henry.  Gotta love the guy who predicted that leaving the Articles would eventually lead to massive government growth (altho a strict reading of the Constitution would indeed say otherwise)

----------


## FreeTraveler

I'd be shocked if Hamilton gets any votes at all here. He's the historical Romney.

----------


## Echoes

Ill go out on a limb and say Hamilton gets few votes, if any.

----------


## Echoes

> I'd be shocked if Hamilton gets any votes at all here. He's the historical Romney.


Haha beat me to it.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

> Samuel Adams
> 
> He is the father of Calvinist political action.


He was good until he proposed a bill to suspend habeus corpus..during Shays Rebellion

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

Hamilton and Jefferson butted heads repeatedly.  Considering Jefferson is very similar to Paul in thought, I'm not surprised Hamilton wouldn't be very popular here.

----------


## Seraphim

Definately.

Many of us here are Jeffersonian in nature.




> Hamilton and Jefferson butted heads repeatedly.  Considering Jefferson is very similar to Paul in thought, I'm not surprised Hamilton wouldn't be very popular here.

----------


## Son of Detroit

Franklin was just a badass.

----------


## Cap

I chose other, because Ron Paul was not an option.

----------


## klamath

Nctually none. The combined vision of all of them is what got the country on somewhat of the right track. It was the very antagonism of each other that created the seperation of powers that was the genius of the constitution. It has been worpped and pulled strained and streached but so far in human evolution it is still the best system for dealing with many conflicting interests.

----------


## Seraphim

My 2nd favorite.




> Franklin was just a badass.

----------


## Snowball

George Washington is THE father of this country and deserves more votes.

----------


## Jtorsella

> George Washington is THE father of this country and deserves more votes.


First national bank. Enough said.

----------


## klamath

> Hamilton and Jefferson butted heads repeatedly.  Considering Jefferson is very similar to Paul in thought, I'm not surprised Hamilton wouldn't be very popular here.


No jefferson would be of a neocon beliefs in modern day. Jefferson like the modern neocon was not satified with the borders of the United States and had visions of a grander country just like modern neocons are not satified with modern US bounderies and hav vision of a grander empire.

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

The national bank was more Hamilton's influence, not Washington himself.  Don't blame solely Washington for it.  And besides, everyone on this list is imperfect.

----------


## Jtorsella

> No jefferson would be of a neocon beliefs in modern day. Jefferson like the modern neocon was not satified with the borders of the United States and had visions of a grander country just like modern neocons are not satified with modern US bounderies and hav vision of a grander empire.


Foreign policy was different in those days, and besides, Jefferson was the one who said "commerce with all nations, but entangling alliance with none".

----------


## Jtorsella

> The national bank was more Hamilton's influence, not Washington himself.  Don't blame solely Washington for it.  And besides, everyone on this list is imperfect.


Yeah, but the whiskey rebellion, excise taxes and a couple more things completely disqualify Washington. Hamilton isn't even on the table.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> First national bank. Enough said.


No, not "enough said".

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Thomas Jefferson was a genius. Unfortunately power corrupted him as he became president.


that's bull$#@!.  Jefferson was a hell of a great president.  There were only 300 federal employees at the time, pretty awesome if you like small government.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Yeah, but the whiskey rebellion, excise taxes and a couple more things completely disqualify Washington. Hamilton isn't even on the table.


Washington pardoned everyone at the Whiskey rebellion.

----------


## klamath

> *Foreign policy was different in those days*, and besides, Jefferson was the one who said "commerce with all nations, but entangling alliance with none".


Why was foreign policy different? Every bit of human nature true then is true now.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Thomas Jefferson with his presidency cut out.


Jefferson transferred 800,000 square miles from rule by a dictator (Napoleon), to freedom.

----------


## specsaregood

> Franklin was just a badass.


pfft.  huge crony capitalist.  used his govt positions to make himself rich.

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

> Yeah, but the whiskey rebellion, excise taxes and a couple more things completely disqualify Washington. Hamilton isn't even on the table.


I have to disagree.  Economics was only a budding field at that time and things like the excise tax and its impact wasn't fully understood.  Washington did far more good than his few negatives.

----------


## Jtorsella

> Jefferson transferred 800,000 square miles from rule by a dictator (Napoleon), to freedom.


Unconstitutionally. And he didn't end the bank.

----------


## Jtorsella

> I have to disagree.  Economics was only a budding field at that time and things like the excise tax and its impact wasn't fully understood.  Washington did far more good than his few negatives.


You can defend Washington's morality and argue that he may not have had enough information to make the right decisions, and this may be true. But his actions stand objectively.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

Thomas Jefferson was the most brilliant philosopher. 

Franklin had a remarkably well rounded life. One of the most well rounded lives in history.

But really, I would say John Jay is being criminally overlooked in this poll. He was one of the writers of the Federalist Papers. 

He was an abolitionist and non-interventionist, and proponent of a strong currency.

He served as the 6th President of the Continental Congress, 2nd U.S. Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the 2nd Governor of New York, and the 1st Supreme Court Justice of the United States.

----------


## klamath

> Jefferson transferred 800,000 square miles from rule by a dictator (Napoleon), to freedom.


He paid the french when he really should have paid the indians..

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> He paid the french when he really should have paid the indians..


The French had legal title to the land.

----------


## PierzStyx

John Adams. 

As a Founding Father he was the intellectual and passionate drive behind the Revolution. Long before Jefferson wrote the Declaration, long before Washington fielded an army, long before Independence became an acceptable ideal, Adams was calling for it. It was Adams who had Henry Lee of Virginia propose his (Adam's) article on independence from England. It was Adams who saw the genius in appointing a second rate Colonel from Virginia as commanding General of the Continental Army. It was Adams who knew Jefferson had the poet's soul and could articulate the argument for liberty more than any other person could. The man was the driving dynamo of the Revolution, he was the tireless irate minority that spoke for liberty.

----------


## specsaregood

> The French had legal title to the land.


lol, that is all.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Foreign policy was different in those days, and besides, Jefferson was the one who said "commerce with all nations, but entangling alliance with none".


Said and did are two different things. We learned that with Reagan.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Jefferson transferred 800,000 square miles from rule by a dictator (Napoleon), to freedom.


Against the laws of the Constitution by cutting out Congress. That Napoleon was whom Jefferson bought it from is irrelevant.

----------


## klamath

> The French had legal title to the land.


who gave them legal title?

----------


## Jtorsella

> Franklin had a remarkably well rounded life. One of the most well rounded lives in history.


I would completely agree with you. He did so much. He's one of those people that you respect even if you disagree with.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> lol, that is all.


you support property rights, correct?

----------


## Jtorsella

> Said and did are two different things. We learned that with Reagan.


Yeah, I know. Truth is, not a single person up there is perfect. Personally, I believe that the declaration and the constitution were much greater than the individuals themselves.

And, off topic, but who the hell voted for Hamilton?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Against the laws of the Constitution by cutting out Congress. That Napoleon was whom Jefferson bought it from is irrelevant.


err, it was a treaty ratified by over 2/3 of the Senate.  Then the House voted for it, too, because monies were required.  Ever read the Constitution?  Got anything better to do than insult Thomas Jefferson?

----------


## PierzStyx

> The French had legal title to the land.


You mean the French had guns. The Indians had right to the land. The French did not. But the French had bigger guns and a bigger mouth. Its actually kind of like saying America has the legal title to Afghanistan. I'm sure the Afghans view it differently.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> who gave them legal title?


The Spanish did.

----------


## Jtorsella

> err, it was a treaty ratified by over 2/3 of the Senate.  Then the House voted for it, too, because monies were required.  Ever read the Constitution?  Got anything better to do than insult Thomas Jefferson?


Jefferson himself believed the purchase to be unconstitutional, and unless one interprets the constitution loosely, it is clearly so. He did the purchase anyway because it wan't "practical" to pass an amendment. I love Jefferson, but his presidency was not so great. Still voted for him though.

----------


## klamath

> The Spanish did.


and who did the spanish get their legal title from?

----------


## Jtorsella

> and who did the spanish get their legal title from?


This.

----------


## FreeTraveler

> And, off topic, but who the hell voted for Hamilton?


Probably somebody keeping an eye on us from that "Stop Ron Paul 2012" facebook group. They seem like the Hamiltonian type.

----------


## specsaregood

> you support property rights, correct?


actually that is what was funny about your comment.  paper does not bestow natural property rights.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> You mean the French had guns. The Indians had right to the land. The French did not. But the French had bigger guns and a bigger mouth. Its actually kind of like saying America has the legal title to Afghanistan. I'm sure the Afghans view it differently.


You sound like a collectivist.  There has never been a legal entity know as "the Indians".

----------


## klamath

> You sound like a collectivist.  There has never been a legal entity know as "the Indians".


what is legal?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Jefferson himself believed the purchase to be unconstitutional, and unless one interprets the constitution loosely, it is clearly so. He did the purchase anyway because it wan't "practical" to pass an amendment. I love Jefferson, but his presidency was not so great. Still voted for him though.


James Madison told him it was Constitutional.

----------


## BuddyRey

Patrick Henry wins my vote, just by virtue of the fact that he wasn't a politician.

----------


## Jtorsella

> James Madison told him it was Constitutional.


And James Madison's term saw the first tariff that was overtly protective. Jefferson and Madison were not terrific presidents.

----------


## PierzStyx

> err, it was a treaty ratified by over 2/3 of the Senate.  Then the House voted for it, too, because monies were required.  Ever read the Constitution?  Got anything better to do than insult Thomas Jefferson?


Here is a text link to the Constitution. Show me where the Federal Government is authorized to make such a purchase. http://constitutionus.com/

I'll save you the effort. It doesn't. Jefferson violated his own beliefs and circumvented the amendment process to buy the land. In other words he was only an Anti-Federalist when it was convenient. To add to it the US didn't even HAVE teh money to make the purchase. So Jefferson borrowed money from Britain to do it! On top of that he didn't deal with the actual landowners, the Natives, but bought it from the French. That is like be buying land in Afghanistan from the US Government while ignoring the man whose family has lived there for 300yrs. The US doesn't own Afghanistan and the French didn't own the West. What were the effects of Jefferson's decision to go against his own philosophy concerning a strict interpretation of the Constitution? It can be argued that his taking liberties with the Constitution in the name of need and expediency would lead to future Presidents feeling justified with a continual increase in the elasticity of Article I, Section 8, Clause 18.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> and who did the spanish get their legal title from?


That's not legally relevant in a good faith transaction, the US bought the territory from France, not Spain.  You would have to prove that Spain did not have legal title.

----------


## SisCyn

Franklin!

Scientist, inventor, diplomat, community organizer, publisher, musician.

Benjamin Franklin is the only founding father to have signed all four of the key documents establishing the U.S.: the Declaration of Independence (1776), the Treaty of Alliance with France (1778), the Treaty of Paris establishing peace with Great Britain (1783) and the U.S. Constitution (1787).

http://www.history.com/videos/meet-b...jamin-franklin

----------


## green73

Robert Yates
http://mises.org/daily/2335

----------


## PierzStyx

> You sound like a collectivist.  There has never been a legal entity know as "the Indians".


But there were individual Indian nations, which were legal entities recognized by the US Government. Its why we made TREATIES with them. And they lived there first. It was their individual nation's  national property. Taking it against their consent is morally and legally wrong.  I'm not a collectivist but you sound like an idiot.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

Can somebody add John Jay to the poll?

I already pointed out his tremendous influence and credentials. Co-Author of the Federalist Papers, 1st Supreme Court Chief Justice, 2nd Secretary of Foreign Affairs, 2nd Governor of New York, and 6th President of the Continental Congress.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> And James Madison's term saw the first tariff that was overtly protective. Jefferson and Madison were not terrific presidents.


Really?  Madison had the single most frugal year in US history, in 1811, federal spending was only 1.1% of GNP, the lowest in US history.  The US had been under attack by France and England since 1806 when the British attacked in the _Leander_ incident, yet when the US fought back, Madison led the US to victory with federal spending of only 3/9% of GNP at the peak of the War of 1812.

Madison was not only the greatest president in US history, he was the greatest executive leader in all of known human history.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Patrick Henry wins my vote, just by virtue of the fact that he wasn't a politician.


He was my second choice.  I'll only pick Calvinists

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

> Thomas Jefferson was the most brilliant philosopher. 
> 
> Franklin had a remarkably well rounded life. One of the most well rounded lives in history.
> 
> But really, I would say John Jay is being criminally overlooked in this poll. He was one of the writers of the Federalist Papers. 
> 
> He was an abolitionist and non-interventionist, and proponent of a strong currency.
> 
> He served as the 6th President of the Continental Congress, 2nd U.S. Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the 2nd Governor of New York, and the 1st Supreme Court Justice of the United States.


Good call Georgia, I did indeed totally forget John Jay, a highly meritorious founder.

----------


## klamath

> That's not legally relevant in a good faith transaction, the US bought the territory from France, not Spain.  You would have to prove that Spain did not have legal title.


the people occuping the land owned it not the french that claimed title to it or the spanish that claimed title to it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

edit: Robert Yates.

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

Can I edit the poll though?  To add Jay.  As for Hancock, what did he even do?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> But there were individual Indian nations, which were legal entities recognized by the US Government. Its why we made TREATIES with them. And they lived there first. It was their individual nation's  national property. Taking it against their consent is morally and legally wrong.  I'm not a collectivist but you sound like an idiot.


The Indian nations did not have title to the land in 1803.  France held legal title.  You sound like an idiot, under your logic everyone who lives the the Mississippi river basin is a criminal according to your legal theory.

----------


## Jtorsella

> Really?  Madison had the single most frugal year in US history, in 1811, federal spending was only 1.1% of GNP, the lowest in US history.  The US had been under attack by France and Spain since 1806 when the British attacked in the _Leander_ incident, yet when the US fought back, Madison led the US to victory with federal spending of only 3/9% of GNP at the peak of the War of 1812.
> 
> Madison was not only the greatest president in US history, he was the greatest executive leader in all of known human history.


He eventually signed a bill establishing a national bank, supported Henry Clay's big gov american system, which built tons of roads and included the earlier mentioned tariff and an aggressive banking policy.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> the people occuping the land owned it not the french that claimed title to it or the spanish that claimed title to it.


France and Spain had the legal paperwork to prove ownership.

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

> He was my second choice. I'll only pick Calvinists


What style Christian was Henry?

----------


## klamath

> Really?  Madison had the single most frugal year in US history, in 1811, federal spending was only 1.1% of GNP, the lowest in US history.  The US had been under attack by France and Spain since 1806 when the British attacked in the _Leander_ incident, yet when the US fought back, Madison led the US to victory with federal spending of only 3/9% of GNP at the peak of the War of 1812.
> 
> Madison was not only the greatest president in US history, he was the greatest executive leader in all of known human history.


The war of 1812 was not a victory. the british just didn't follow up their victory with a legal title claim. When you get your capital burned it is not exactly called a victory.

----------


## Seraphim

It shouldn't matter what religion a person follows. Their principles and principled based actions matter.

I would have expected more from you, to be honest. For such a well reasoned person (usually), this is a very unreasonable position.




> He was my second choice.  I'll only pick Calvinists

----------


## COpatriot

Paine with Franklin and Jefferson right behind.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Really?  Madison had the single most frugal year in US history, in 1811, federal spending was only 1.1% of GNP, the lowest in US history.  The US had been under attack by France and Spain since 1806 when the British attacked in the _Leander_ incident, yet when the US fought back, Madison led the US to victory with federal spending of only 3/9% of GNP at the peak of the War of 1812.
> 
> Madison was not only the greatest president in US history, he was the greatest executive leader in all of known human history.


I'm a huge Madison fan.

*The Calvinist, James Madison*
http://ourfoundingtruth.blogspot.com...s-madison.html

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

> France and Spain had the legal paperwork to prove ownership.


Agreed with your posts so far.  The indians didn't believe in private property and that was really the key to their downfall.

----------


## klamath

> France and Spain had the legal paperwork to prove ownership.


 You have got to be joking right? Just because someone writes their own title to land doesn't mean they own it.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> He eventually signed a bill establishing a national bank, supported Henry Clay's big gov american system, which built tons of roads and included the earlier mentioned tariff and an aggressive banking policy.


Madison's bank set a precedent limiting the powers of the national bank.  In 1815, Madison vetoed a bank bill that established a bank that would expand the Constitutional powers a bank could have established by George Washing in in 1791.  Madison then signed a temporary bank bill in 1816 that had exactly the same powers as 1791.  By the combination of veto and signing statement, Madison limited the powers allowed by a national bank.

Madison then worked with Jackson in 1832 to get rid of the temporary bank that was only established to pay for the War of 1812.  Madison and Jackson had a secret meeting in Montpelier in the summer of 1832.

----------


## klamath

> Agreed with your posts so far.  The indians didn't believe in private property and that was really the key to their downfall.


Their downfall was they were a culture that hadn't invented the wheel yet and were slaughtered by advanced technology. The former day shock and awe.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> You have got to be joking right? Just because someone writes their own title to land doesn't mean they own it.


Ever try to get a mortgage without paperwork?  You are living in a dreamworld.  Our Founders lived in the real world.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It shouldn't matter what religion a person follows. Their principles and principled based actions matter.
> 
> I would have expected more from you, to be honest. For such a well reasoned person (usually), this is a very unreasonable position.


My reasoning is that Calvinism provided (and still provides) the foundation for liberty.

So its only natural that the pillars of liberty in history would have been Calvinists or influenced by Luther or Calvin in some way.

----------


## PierzStyx

> My reasoning is that Calvinism provided (and still provides) the foundation for liberty.
> 
> So its only natural that the pillars of liberty in history would have been Calvinists or influenced by Luther or Calvin in some way.


I disagree. Calvinist thought is a statist form of thinking. The individual has no agency, no free will, no liberty. God is gonna save you and damn what you think or want. Calvinist thought makes God a tyrant. It is not the "foundation of liberty."

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

> My reasoning is that Calvinism provided (and still provides) the foundation for liberty.
> 
> So its only natural that the pillars of liberty in history would have been Calvinists or influenced by Luther or Calvin in some way.


I have to agree with AquaBuddha here the religion does matter.  Although, I'm not sure why Calvinists hold the upper hand in regards to liberty.  Can you explain.  Also what was Patrick Henry's denomination?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> The war of 1812 was not a victory. the british just didn't follow up their victory with a legal title claim. When you get your capital burned it is not exactly called a victory.


The treaty of Ghent established a LASTING PEACE!

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> I'm a huge Madison fan.
> 
> *The Calvinist, James Madison*
> http://ourfoundingtruth.blogspot.com...s-madison.html


cool, I meant to say France and England in the above quote.

----------


## Jtorsella

> I disagree. Calvinist thought is a statist form of thinking. The individual has no agency, no free will, no liberty. God is gonna save you and damn what you think or want. Calvinist thought makes God a tyrant. It is not the "foundation of liberty."


I would agree with you here.

----------


## Jtorsella

> The treaty of Ghent established a LASTING PEACE!


All the treaty of ghent did was to return stuff to the way they were before the war. Pure luck that it lasted.

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

I'd say the war of 1812 was a draw, but in essence it was a victory in that the British didn't destroy us when they most likely could/should have.  God Bless the US

----------


## klamath

> Ever try to get a mortgage without paperwork?  You are living in a dreamworld.  Our Founders lived in the real world.


Why did they make treaties with the indians for their land if they did not believe they owned it? Yes they lived in the real world. take what you can get by with.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Really?  Madison had the single most frugal year in US history, in 1811, federal spending was only 1.1% of GNP, the lowest in US history.  The US had been under attack by France and England since 1806 when the British attacked in the _Leander_ incident, yet when the US fought back, Madison led the US to victory with federal spending of only 3/9% of GNP at the peak of the War of 1812.
> 
> Madison was not only the greatest president in US history, he was the greatest executive leader in all of known human history.


Your joking right? We didn't win the War of 1812. In fact we lost every battle in which we engaged in. The only US victory, the Battle of New Orleans, took place AFTER the war was over, but before the soldiers had been notified. Its what made Jackson so fricking popular. He was the only bright spot in an otherwise dismal conflict. And the only reason the British pulled out was because they found Wellington's Peninsular Campaign against Napoleon to be more important than further humbling their former colonies. If it hadn't been for Napoleon we might all have the Queen on our money instead of Washington.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I disagree. Calvinist thought is a statist form of thinking. The individual has no agency, no free will, no liberty. God is gonna save you and damn what you think or want. Calvinist thought makes God a tyrant. It is not the "foundation of liberty."



No.  The foundation of liberty is that men do not have free will.  If a man's will can be moved by any other power than by God's grace alone, then you have just opened the door to coercion.

The history of Rome will show you what happens when the theology of free will is put to political action.  This is why the Reformers like Martin Luther decried the use of force in society:  because men do not have wills that can be influenced by anything other than God ALONE.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> All the treaty of ghent did was to return stuff to the way they were before the war. Pure luck that it lasted.


Prior to the War of 1812, the British had seized 400 US ships and kidnapped 8000 American men.  They fired upon US ships 4 times.  After the War of 1812, it stopped.  Madison also got rid of the Barbary pirate threat in 1815.

----------


## PierzStyx

> The treaty of Ghent established a LASTING PEACE!


Its called a "white peace" where no one loses or gains land. And we only got that because the English had bigger things to handle, namely Napoleon and his Continental Empire. They'd already gotten what they wanted from us anyway. They humiliated us. We lost every battle and they conquered our capital and burned the White House down. Sounds like a US victory to me.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I have to agree with AquaBuddha here the religion does matter.  Although, I'm not sure why Calvinists hold the upper hand in regards to liberty.  Can you explain.  Also what was Patrick Henry's denomination?


Because the doctrine of justification by faith alone is the foundation for a free society:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...fication+faith

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Your joking right? We didn't win the War of 1812. In fact we lost every battle in which we engaged in. The only US victory, the Battle of New Orleans, took place AFTER the war was over, but before the soldiers had been notified. Its what made Jackson so fricking popular. He was the only bright spot in an otherwise dismal conflict. And the only reason the British pulled out was because they found Wellington's Peninsular Campaign against Napoleon to be more important than further humbling their former colonies. If it hadn't been for Napoleon we might all have the Queen on our money instead of Washington.


I can rattle off several major US victories in the War of 1812 from memory; 

Lake Erie
Chippewa
Horseshoe Bend
Baltimore/Fort McHenry?North Point/Caulk's Field
Sackett's Harbor
New Orleans
Lake Champlain/Plattsburgh
Battle of the Thames

The War of 1812 produced more significant heroes than any other war in US history because of its great success.

_PS- The battle of New Orleans was not after the war, that is a myth.  The treaty of Ghent was not ratified until AFTER the battle of New Orleans._

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Your joking right? We didn't win the War of 1812. In fact we lost every battle in which we engaged in. The only US victory, the Battle of New Orleans, took place AFTER the war was over, but before the soldiers had been notified. Its what made Jackson so fricking popular. He was the only bright spot in an otherwise dismal conflict. And the only reason the British pulled out was because they found Wellington's Peninsular Campaign against Napoleon to be more important than further humbling their former colonies. If it hadn't been for Napoleon we might all have the Queen on our money instead of Washington.


The US won every significant battle once Monroe was appointed Secretary of War.  The US kicked the crap out of the Brits on all three fronts.

----------


## No Free Beer

Mike Huckabee...


Wait, what's the question again?

----------


## BuddyRey

> He was my second choice.  I'll only pick Calvinists


I wish I knew more about Calvinism.  I'm a Quaker, but I don't think there were any major Quaker founders, besides arguably William Penn.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Because the doctrine of justification by faith alone is the foundation for a free society:
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...fication+faith


Didn't the Apostle Paul argue that good works are necessary (faith alone is not enough)?  Just an off-topic question, thanks.  (I agree with you that justification by faith alone is superior, btw)

----------


## Sola_Fide

The denial of free will is the FIRM basis of liberty.  This is ABSOLUTELY essential to understanding how theology relates to freedom:




> Luther argued that Christians were free of the arbitrary control of either the church or the state. God alone is lord of the conscience. He wrote. "It is with the Word that we must fight, by the Word we must overthrow and destroy what has been set up by violence. I will not make use of force against the superstitious and unbelieving...No one must be constrained. Liberty is the very essence of faith...I will preach, discuss, and write; but I will constrain none, for faith is a voluntary act...I have stood up against the pope, indulgences, and papists, but without violence or tumult I put forward God's Word; I preached and wrote--this was all I did. The Word alone did all. If I had wished to appeal to force, the whole of Germany would perhaps have been deluged with blood."
> 
> 
> Religious liberty, freedom of conscience, is an idea that Luther derived from the Bible's teaching about faith: Belief is a gift of God; it is not a work of man's free will. Men cannot believe the Gospel unless God causes them to. Luther wrote: "God's Word should be allowed to work alone, without our work or interference. Why? Because it is not in my power to fashion the hearts of men as the potter molds the clay...I can get no further than their ears; their hearts I cannot reach. And since I cannot pour faith into their hearts, I cannot nor should I, force anyone to have faith. That is God's work alone, who causes faith to live in the heart...We should preach the Word, but the results must be left solely to God's good pleasure." By articulating the Biblical doctrine of faith as wholly a gift of God, Luther undermined the Catholic inquisition and formulated the theological rationale for religious liberty.

----------


## PierzStyx

> No.  The foundation of liberty is that men do not have free will.  If a man's will can be moved by any other power than by God's grace alone, then you have just opened the door to coercion.
> 
> The history of Rome will show you what happens when the theology of free will is put to political action.  This is why the Reformers like Martin Luther decried the use of force in society:  because men do not have wills that can be influenced by anything other than God ALONE.


So you have liberty by having none? Do you not see the doublethink required to even make that make sense? And if man cannot be moved by any other force than God alone then temptation does not exist and God is literally responsible for every sin you commit and responsible for damning you to an ever lasting Hell. After all only God can move you to do one thing or another, Satan can't and you can't choose yourself. That means humans don't truly even exist. We're all just string puppets dancing on the strings of God's will. Calvinism makes God the biggest initiator of force in all of everything. And it makes God the source of evil.

That is not the God of the New Testament.  The God of The Bible is the Author of Liberty. You have a choice to choose Him or not. His Holy Spirit touches your heart and mind and you have to choice to choose to allow His saving grace or to reject it. Either way you will be judged for that action, and all other actions you take. God is no tyrant to enslave me to His will or to force me to Heaven. Because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ I am free to choose either liberty and eternal life through Christ my Savior or misery and death according to way of the Adversary. That liberty, that choice though, is mine thanks to the gift of His Son making salvation possible. 

And this liberty extends to everything. Man is free to choose his or her own actions. We can choose good things and support righteous people, or we cannot. It is up to us. The theology of free will shows that men are free to do good or evil. The history of the world will show you that we sadly often choose evil over good. But that is our fault, not God's.

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

> I wish I knew more about Calvinism. I'm a Quaker, but I don't think there were any major Quaker founders, besides arguably William Penn.


Nathanael Greene, brilliant military general during the Revolutionary War, was a famous Quaker Founding Father.

----------


## PierzStyx

> The denial of free will is the FIRM basis of liberty.  This is ABSOLUTELY essential to understanding how theology relates to freedom:


The denial of free will is the FIRM basis of statism and slavery, ETERNAL SLAVERY. If you deny free will liberty does not exist. If you deny free will then the appearance of liberty on the Earth is an illusion and you have no choice to begin with but are merely God's puppet on a string. The denial of free will is the theology of tyranny.

----------


## Seraphim

This.

To be honest I'm a bit shocked (and appalled) how a staunch argument for liberty is being made by stating that free will is the antithesis to liberty.

"FEE FO FI FUM!! If you are thirsty, water will only make you more thirsty!!!!"




> The denial of free will is the FIRM basis of statism and slavery, ETERNAL SLAVERY. If you deny free will liberty does not exist. If you deny free will then the appearance of liberty on the Earth is an illusion and you have no choice to begin with but are merely God's puppet on a string. The denial of free will is the theology of tyranny.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Didn't the Apostle Paul argue that good works are necessary (faith alone is not enough)?  Just an off-topic question, thanks.  (I agree with you that justification by faith alone is superior, btw)


It was James. And to say that either faith or works alone is necessary is a false argument. One is saved only by the grace of God, which grace comes because of the faith of the believer. That is what Paul taught. James added that faith only comes by obeying the commandments and doing good works, indeed saying faith without works is dead and couldn't save. So the truth is that one needs to keep the commandments (thus doing good works) to know they are truly of God (thus developing faith), this faith leads one to supplicate God for salvation and through Jesus Christ one receives grace to be perfected and saved. Its about the synergy of both creeds, not the prevalence of one above another.

----------


## Meiun

What??  Where's the vote for the little guy?  Ron Paul is today's James Madison.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Didn't the Apostle Paul argue that good works are necessary (faith alone is not enough)?  Just an off-topic question, thanks.  (I agree with you that justification by faith alone is superior, btw)


No, Paul taught that we are justified by faith alone.  




> "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law." - Romans 3:28
> 
> "This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." -Romans 3:22
> 
> "Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." -Galatians 3:11
> 
> "So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith." -Galatians 3:24
> 
> "Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," -Romans 5:1
> ...


He can't get any more clearer than the last verse there.  

Good works do play a role in the Christian life, but they play a role in our sanctification, not our justification.  We are saved only by the grace of God through faith, and our works are simply a indication of our salvation, as James 2 talks about.

----------


## Meiun

> It was James. And to say that either faith or works alone is necessary is a false argument. One is saved only by the grace of God, which grace comes because of the faith of the believer. That is what Paul taught. James added that faith only comes by obeying the commandments and doing good works, indeed saying faith without works is dead and couldn't save. So the truth is that one needs to keep the commandments (thus doing good works) to know they are truly of God (thus developing faith), this faith leads one to supplicate God for salvation and through Jesus Christ one receives grace to be perfected and saved. Its about the synergy of both creeds, not the prevalence of one above another.


meh.  Disagree.  A synergy in a sense is correct, but the reality of the matter lies in the words of Jesus himself when he said that blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.  Aye, Faith to beget Grace, but grace leads not to works, but to love, and love for the one who leads to grace.  To be pure of heart is to be singular in purpose.  The purpose and perfection of every believer is to Love God.  As we love, we do the work of God.  That's the center of the mark

----------


## Indifference

> Thomas Jefferson was a genius. Unfortunately power corrupted him as he became president.


Jefferson was also an a-hole. He claimed to be the people's person but he also owned slaves. 

Also, he was incredibly cruel to Nikolo Tesla. Tesla had some great inventions but unfortunately Jefferson was the first to mass market his "discovery" verse Tesla.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Jefferson was also an a-hole. He claimed to be the people's person but he also owned slaves.* 
> 
> Also, he was incredibly cruel to Nikolo Tesla. Tesla had some great inventions but unfortunately Jefferson was the first to mass market his "discovery" verse Tesla.


That's a common slur.  He inherited his slaves, and freed them later on.  btw, I like Tesla too, but IP is not property.  TJ didn't "steal" from him.  I don't know of anyone from that period who wasn't an a-hole in one way or another.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So you have liberty by having none? Do you not see the doublethink required to even make that make sense? And if man cannot be moved by any other force than God alone then temptation does not exist and God is literally responsible for every sin you commit and responsible for damning you to an ever lasting Hell. After all only God can move you to do one thing or another, Satan can't and you can't choose yourself. That means humans don't truly even exist. We're all just ventriloquist puppets dancing on the strings of God's will. Calvinism makes God the biggest initiator of force in all of everything. And it makes God the source of evil.
> 
> That is not the God of the New Testament.  The God of The Bible is the Author of Liberty. You have a choice to choose Him or not. His Holy Spirit touches your heart and mind and you have to choice to choose to allow His saving grace or to reject it. Either way you will be judged for that action, and all other actions you take. God is no tyrant to enslave me to His will or to force me to Heaven. Because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ I am free to choose either liberty and eternal life through Christ my Savior or misery and death according to way of the Adversary. That liberty, that choice though, is mine thanks to the gift of His Son making salvation possible. 
> 
> And this liberty extends to everything. Man is free to choose his or her own actions. We can choose good things and support righteous people, or we cannot. It is up to us. The theology of free will shows that men are free to do good or evil. The history of the world will show you that we sadly often choose evil over good. But that is our fault, not God's.


Well, whenever you go on these rants about free will, I notice that you don't quote the Scripture.  The Bible clearly teaches that men's wills are not free, they are fallen and bound to sin.  Only God's will is free because only He is sovereign, and as Romans 9 clearly teaches, the Potter has power over the clay, and YOU O man cannot answer back to the Potter.  He makes some pots for noble use and some for common use.

Have you read Romans 9 lately?


But it doesn't surprise me that you are so bound up with this error. Mormonism began as a reaction against Calvinism.  Joseph Smith envisioned Satan as the one who wanted to "force" us to be saved, and it was Jesus who wanted to give us "free will".  So Mormonism began as a reaction against a misunderstanding of the Bible and the doctrines of grace.



EDIT:  also, you didn't interact in any way with the Martin Luther quotes I put on page 10 of this thread.  What I was talking about initially was how theology relates to political liberty.  I wasn't talking about eternal things yet.

----------


## klamath

> Jefferson was also an a-hole. He claimed to be the people's person but he also owned slaves. 
> 
> Also, he was incredibly cruel to Nikolo Tesla. Tesla had some great inventions but unfortunately Jefferson was the first to mass market his "discovery" verse Tesla.


jefferson and tesla lived in different centuries, do a little research.

----------


## Bonnieblue

Although the notion of "the founders" is actually ahistorical, the men of the 18th century whom I respect are John Randolph, John Talyor of Caroline, and George Mason IV.  They, like Jefferson, were of the Old Domenion and were stridently against monarchy in the Hamiltonian sense, for state sovereignty and were either against the ratification of the Constitution or held to its letter and to the intent of the ratifying conventions from which the Constitution gets its authority.

----------


## Davy Crockett

Another name that should have at least made the list of Founding Fathers for the poll is John Hancock.  Without him, the American Revolution would not have taken place for several more years, at least.  


*John Hancock
*

Net worth	USD $350 thousand at the time of his death (approximately 1/714th of US GNP)[1]

John Hancock (January 23, 1737 [O.S. January 12, 1736]  October 8, 1793) was a merchant, statesman, and prominent Patriot of the American Revolution. He served as president of the Second Continental Congress and was the first and third Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He is remembered for his large and stylish signature on the United States Declaration of Independence, so much so that the term "John Hancock" has become, in the United States, a synonym for signature.

Before the American Revolution, *Hancock was one of the wealthiest men in the Thirteen Colonies*, having inherited a profitable shipping business from his uncle. Hancock began his political career in Boston as a protégé of Samuel Adams, an influential local politician, though the two men later became estranged. As tensions between colonists and Great Britain increased in the 1760s, *Hancock used his wealth to support the colonial cause.* He became very popular in Massachusetts, especially after British officials seized his sloop Liberty in 1768 and charged him with smuggling. Although the charges against Hancock were eventually dropped, he has often been described as a smuggler in historical accounts, but the accuracy of this characterization has been questioned.

*Hancock was one of Boston's leaders during the crisis that led to the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War in 1775.* He served more than two years in the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, and as president of Congress, was the first to sign the Declaration of Independence. Hancock returned to Massachusetts and was elected governor of the Commonwealth, serving in that role for most of his remaining years. He used his influence to ensure that Massachusetts ratified the United States Constitution in 1788.

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

> Although the notion of "the founders" is actually ahistorical, the men of the 18th century whom I respect are John Randolph, John Talyor of Caroline, and George Mason IV. They, like Jefferson, were of the Old Domenion and were stridently against monarchy in the Hamiltonian sense, for state sovereignty and were either against the ratification of the Constitution or held to its letter and to the intent of the ratifying conventions from which the Constitution gets its authority.


The founders meaning those who were active in American political life from the 1760s through the early 19th century.  And by that post I assume you're more of an anti-federalist, articles of confederation guy.

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

I could not include every founder in this poll.  Notably I left out Jay, Hancock, Morris, Mason, and a few others.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Nathanael Greene, brilliant military general during the Revolutionary War, was a famous Quaker Founding Father.


I didn't know Greene was a Quaker. Interesting, considering he was a general.

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

Also Benjamin Rush for all the ardent abolitionists out there

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

> I didn't know Greene was a Quaker. Interesting, considering he was a general.


I am currently reading the David McCullough novel, 1776, and found this out.  I found it surprising as well.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Another name that should have at least made the list of Founding Fathers for the poll is John Hancock.  Without him, the American Revolution would not have taken place for several more years, at least.  
> 
> 
> *John Hancock
> *
> 
> Net worth	USD $350 thousand at the time of his death (approximately 1/714th of US GNP)[1]
> 
> John Hancock (January 23, 1737 [O.S. January 12, 1736]  October 8, 1793) was a merchant, statesman, and prominent Patriot of the American Revolution. He served as president of the Second Continental Congress and was the first and third Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He is remembered for his large and stylish signature on the United States Declaration of Independence, so much so that the term "John Hancock" has become, in the United States, a synonym for signature.
> ...



I like Hancock too:




> Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual.  Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us.  -John Hancock

----------


## Davy Crockett

> I am currently reading the David McCullough novel, 1776, and found this out.  I found it surprising as well.


If you have not read his other book, The Patriot's History of the United States, I recommend that you do.

----------


## low preference guy

Luther Martin was pretty good. Some of his words opposing the ratification of the centralizing Constitution:




> By the power to lay and collect imposts Congress may impose duties on any or every article of commerce imported into these states to what amount they please. By the power to lay excises, a power very odious in its nature, since it authorizes officers to examine into your private concerns, the Congress may impose duties on every article of use or consumption: On the food that we eat, on the liquors we drink, on the clothes that we wear, the glass which enlighten our houses, or the hearths necessary for our warmth and comfort. By the power to lay and collect taxes, they may proceed to direct taxation on every individual either by a capitation tax on their heads or an assessment on their property. By this part of the section, therefore, the government has a power to tax to what amount they choose and thus to sluice the people at every vein as long as they have a drop of blood left.

----------


## RileyE104

Thomas Paine

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

> If you have not read his other book, The Patriot's History of the United States, I recommend that you do.


I read his _John Adams_ which is a truly great story of an oft maligned Patriot.  Although I didn't select him as my choice, Adams deserves more credit than he gets (Too many ppl see the Alien and Sedition Acts and look no further).  Anyways, Ive never heard of the Patriots History, Ill have to look into it as I love McCullough and the title of the book itself sounds appealing.

----------


## Davy Crockett

The next two threads that I would like to see is "Greatest Americans of the 19th century" and "Greatest Americans of the 20th century."  If someone is to set up a poll, please do not forget Lysander Spooner, James Polk, and Thomas Edison for the 19th century.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What style Christian was Henry?


Presbyterian

----------


## PauliticsPolitics

PAINE FTW

----------


## Mark37snj

George Washington, when they asked him to serve, he did.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The next two threads that I would like to see is "Greatest Americans of the 19th century" and "Greatest Americans of the 20th century."  If someone is to set up a poll, please do not forget Lysander Spooner, James Polk, and Thomas Edison for the 19th century.


James Knox Polk's mother was a descendant of John Knox, the Calvinistic Reformer of Scotland.  Polk was a Presbyterian.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Well, whenever you go on these rants about free will, I notice that you don't quote the Scripture.  The Bible clearly teaches that men's wills are not free, they are fallen and bound to sin.  Only God's will is free because only He is sovereign, and as Romans 9 clearly teaches, the Potter has power over the clay, and YOU O man cannot answer back to the Potter.  He makes some pots for noble use and some for common use.
> 
> Have you read Romans 9 lately?
> 
> 
> But it doesn't surprise me that you are so bound up with this error. Mormonism began as a reaction against Calvinism.  Joseph Smith envisioned Satan as the one who wanted to "force" us to be saved, and it was Jesus who wanted to give us "free will".  So Mormonism began as a reaction against a misunderstanding of the Bible and the doctrines of grace.
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT:  also, you didn't interact in any way with the Martin Luther quotes I put on page 10 of this thread.  What I was talking about initially was how theology relates to political liberty.  I wasn't talking about eternal things yet.



And whenever you talk about Mormonism it doesn't surprise me how bound up in ignorance you are on that subject either. And you're right Jesus Christ is the Author of Liberty. Because of His Atonement we have the choice between good and evil, and the power to choose either. Satan wants to make us a slave to his will by sin. Yet we are still free to choose sin or not. You can believe in Jesus the Tyrant all you like. I believe in Christ the Liberator of the Captives.

And its remarkable that you find me in error for not quoting scripture since all you quote is Luther. And you're right I didn't interact with those quotes from Luther. He was wrong. He was neither prophet or apostle and his beliefs are nothing more than his own understanding. He was a great man, but he was wrong about free will. So why should I pay attention to them? 

As for scripture, I could preach a sermon on it from scripture. But I find a few quotes from James, Revelation, and John sufficient for this case. 

James 1:13-14 "Let no man say he is tempted of God, for God is tempted by no evil, neither tempteth he any man. But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed." The lesson is clear. Temptation comes not from God, but from a person's OWN lusts. Notice it specifically says God is the author of no temptation but that temptation comes from man alone. A theology absent form free will violates this. Because God is the only mover He is the only source of anything and everything. This makes Him the author of temptation. Yet James says those temptations come from each person NOT God. This can only eb so if man is a free agent able to have lusts and feelings of his own and able to choose ON HIS OWN to obey them or not.

James 2:17- "But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?" and James 2:24- "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. and James 2:26- "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." I feel so bad for Paul. Romans is so often warped that his words are twisted beyond their meaning. As James teaches us our works,OURS, are absolutely essential to our salvation. One cannot have faith without works. Calvinism ignores this. Man has no works in a theology absent of free will. All works, good and evil, belong to God. You cannot have faith or salvation in Calvinist thought because you can have no works. It is works that leads to faith and faith that leads to grace and grace that leads to salvation. Without individual liberty and free will works do not exist because the individual who does them is not an individual. He is a puppet. And a puppet is unable to do anything on its own. yet James clearly lays out that we are each able to do works on our own, both good and evil, and it is these works that lead us to faith and salvation.

Revelation 20:12-13, "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works." EVERY man is judged by HIS works. Not God's, not Satan's, but his own works. Yet individual works are impossible in a theology absent of free will because you have no works that are YOUR OWN. Yet the Bible clearly shows that each man has works that are entirely his own, not God's, and thus he has free will in order to have individual and personal works. And it is those works which one is judged by. The very fact that our actions are of such eternal consequence that we are judged by them implies that they are separate from God's actions because how can a just God condemn or reward someone for only doing what He forced them to do?

John 7:17- " If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." Here Christ teaches that if any man wants to know if He is sent of God then that man should test His teachings by doing them. Then one can know if they are of God by the result of their actions and if they are blessed in His work or not. For this to even be true there has to be free will because if there is no free will you cannot choose to do His will or not (in fact it is arguable whether "you exist at all if there is no free will)and then to learn for yourself of its veracity. Free will is essential to this test. Without it this whole statement is useless because doing His will is impossible because all will, including yours, is His to begin with. In fact the whole idea that you don't know something is God's will means you have an individual will that can be confused that chi separate from God's omniscient will. 

And I'll throw in one from the Book of Mormon as well. The ancient Prophet Lehi taught his son Nephi (pronounced "Knee-fi") in 2 Nephi 2: 26-27  "And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given. Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and call things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself." Here it is laid out clearly. Because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ we are able to choose between good and evil and not doomed to be shackled by sin. Using that choice we can either choose liberty and freedom through Christ or slavery to sin as Satan did. God does not force some to Heaven and force others to hell, but it is up to us to choose so we had better choose wisely.


And I know you meant the idea of politically liberty. The point is that Calvinism ISN'T the theology of liberty. And all you have to do is look at the actual life of John Calvin to see it. The man was a tyrant. When he gained influential power in Geneva his religious beliefs lead him to becoming a despot who executed any who disagreed with him. He had exiled, burned at the stake and beheaded any who opposed him. Even the Spanish Inquisition at its height allowed the accused "lawyers". Calvin didn't even pay heed to the formality. If he is the culmination of his beliefs, then it is obvious Calvinism isn't about liberty, or even believe in it. You can't have liberty without individuality because the idea of liberty states a belief that another person is a separate being with equal rights that you by your actions should never transgress. Calvinism denies free will to transgress another's rights, or even that rights exist at all since individual existence is required to have individual rights. If we are all slaves to God's will then none of us have true individuality and therefore cannot have liberty.

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

Why did Polk become a Presbyterian if he was descended of Calvinistic Reformers?  That would be like saying Joseph Smith's grandson became a Catholic or something like that.

----------


## PierzStyx

> The next two threads that I would like to see is "Greatest Americans of the 19th century" and "Greatest Americans of the 20th century."  If someone is to set up a poll, please do not forget Lysander Spooner, James Polk, and Thomas Edison for the 19th century.



Pfft. Edison was a thief. Nickola Tesla FTW!

----------


## Davy Crockett

It is amusing that Christians claim that America was founded by Christians and "Christian principles", when three of the first four Presidents of the United States, along with several Founding fathers,  were deists.  

I am not trying to start a fight with anyone, just pointing out the facts.  





> This is a partial list of people who have been categorized as deists, *the belief in a God based on natural religion only*, or belief in religious truths discovered by people through a process of reasoning, _independent of any revelation through scripture or prophets._ They have been selected for their influence on Deism, or for their fame in other areas.
> 
> George Washington (1732 – 1799), "Father of the Our Country", one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, and the 1st President of the United States
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, author of the United States Declaration of Independence, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, and the 3rd President of the United States
> 
> James Madison (1751 – 1836), "Father of the United States Constitution", one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, and the 4th President of the United States
> 
> Thomas Paine (1737 – 1809), English pamphleteer, revolutionary, radical, inventor, and intellectual, and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States
> ...


One could also argue that the second U.S. President, John Adams, was also a deist.  He said:

_The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles._

_As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?_

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

> The next two threads that I would like to see is "Greatest Americans of the 19th century" and "Greatest Americans of the 20th century." If someone is to set up a poll, please do not forget Lysander Spooner, James Polk, and Thomas Edison for the 19th century.


I think I will do that, please post names everyone for Americans from these two centuries.  Although I don't know about the 20th century poll because I'd need to put Paul on there and everyone here would just vote for him.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Why did Polk become a Presbyterian if he was descended of Calvinistic Reformers?  That would be like saying Joseph Smith's grandson became a Catholic or something like that.


Presbyterians are Calvinists.

Wait, let me be more precise:  SOME Presbyterians are Calvinists.  Many Presbyterians today are theological liberals who bear no resemblance to what Presbyterians used to be.  But 200 years or so who, all Presbyterians were Calvinists in that they held to the Westminster Confession.

----------


## Bonnieblue

> The founders meaning those who were active in American political life from the 1760s through the early 19th century.  And by that post I assume you're more of an anti-federalist, articles of confederation guy.


That definition of the "founders" would be more historically correct, although marker besides "founders" would be better.  I do not have one to suggest.  Actually, I am a paladin of true federalism, which ironically, having been usurped by the unity/monarchy faction of Hamilton and company, has to be labeled anti-federalist.  Yes, I do not buy the Hamiltonian lie that we needed a new constitution.  The Articles would have sufficed.

----------


## klamath

> PierzStyx;4029516]Pfft. Edison was a thief. Nickola Tesla FTW!


 testla was a nutjob. Wacked his own nuts

----------


## Davy Crockett

> James Knox Polk's mother was a descendant of John Knox, the Calvinistic Reformer of Scotland.  Polk was a Presbyterian.


President Polk outlined what he was going to achieve in just one four year term and accomplished it.  He was the President that best defined America's Manifest Destiny as a White homeland from the Atlantic to the Pacific.  Without him, most of you would still be back in Europe.  




> Presidency (18451849)
> 
> When he took office on March 4, 1845, Polk, at 49, became the youngest man at the time to assume the presidency. According to a story told decades later by George Bancroft, Polk set four clearly defined goals for his administration:
> 
> Reestablish the Independent Treasury System.
> Reduce tariffs.
> Acquire some or all of Oregon Country.
> Acquire California and New Mexico from Mexico.


And he also annexed Texas into the Union, giving us America what it looks like today.

----------


## Bonnieblue

> It is amusing that Christians claim that America was founded by Christians and "Christian principles", when three of the first four Presidents of the United States, along with several Founding fathers,  were deists.  
> 
> I am not trying to start a fight with anyone, just pointing out the facts.  
> 
> Almost all of that which you posted supra can be well debated and much of it refuted; however, I am not sure what it will bring the Ron Paul campaign.  I would simply note that the men whom you mentioned were not America but only a small fraction thereof, and that Deism did not come to be ex nihilo, to the extent that your characterization of these men is at all accurate, but that it has a historically verifiable objective correlative with the Arian heresy of Christianity; thus, it has its root in Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Almost all of that which you posted supra can be well debated and much of it refuted; however, I am not sure what it will bring the Ron Paul campaign.  I would simply note that the men whom you mentioned were not America but only a small fraction thereof, and that Deism did not come to be ex nihilo, to the extent that your characterization of these men is at all accurate, but that it has a historically verifiable objective correlative with the Arian heresy of Christianity; thus, it has its root in Christianity.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It is amusing that Christians claim that America was founded by Christians and "Christian principles", when three of the first four Presidents of the United States, along with several Founding fathers,  were deists.  
> 
> I am not trying to start a fight with anyone, just pointing out the facts.


What is amusing to me are these utterly ridiculous posts where the same 4 or 5 historical figures that some people think were Deists are trotted out as evidence that this wasn't a nation of Christians. 

It's just beneath the level of refutation.  Any unbiased person can exclude those 4 or 5 people, look at the rest of the 95% percent of the population, and see that most colonial Americans were Calvinists of different denominations.  There were very little Methodists, hardly any Catholics, and even fewer Jews, and even fewer unbelievers.  

Also, the elites of a country are always more theologically liberal than the people. 

But you aren't unbiased, so you are interested in revising history.  





> One could also argue that the second U.S. President, John Adams, was also a deist.  He said:
> 
> _The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles._


This sounds like something I would say.  Calvinists know that God's law is above the fictitious and evil laws of kings and priests.

----------


## donnay

> Patrick Henry wins my vote, just by virtue of the fact that he wasn't a politician.


Absolutely!  One of the best orators in history!  He was rock solid Anti-Federalist!

----------


## PierzStyx

> The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles.- John Adams
> 
> 
> 
> This sounds like something I would say.  Calvinists know that God's law is above the fictitious and evil laws of kings and priests.


That also sounds like something the Prophet Joseph Smith would say. Yet you have pointed our that he clearly wasn't a Calvinist. What is your point? Christians of all stripes agree there, not just Calvinists.

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

> It is amusing that Christians claim that America was founded by Christians and "Christian principles", when three of the first four Presidents of the United States, along with several Founding fathers, were deists. 
> 
> I am not trying to start a fight with anyone, just pointing out the facts.


I find it amusing that you are ignorant to facts and just slap the word deist on anyone (a typical tactic of liberals trying to downplay the Christian foundations of liberty that were essential to our nations's founding).

First of all, where is the source for that list.  

To address some of the claims, no one in their right mind would call Washington a deist.  He was a strong Episcopal who often implored for the help of God personally, he often attended religious services, he was the first to use the phrase, Under God, when describing the army (indicating God was personally involved and watching over the American cause), and Washington believed in prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving to God because of the personal relationship he believed in.  

Jefferson was an anti-clerical Christian, meaning he believed more in his own personal style of Christianity (in letters he did indeed refer to himself as a Christian).  His jefferson Bible was the Bible w/o miracles, showing he was an empiricist, but not making him a deist.  For he thought Christ's teachings to be the greatest moral system ever and never denied that Christ was the son of God.

James Madison attended St. John's Episcopal Church while he was President.  Here's a quote by him: "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."  A deist wouldn't talk about the 10 Commandments of Christianity but rather personal morality.  

Thomas Paine became a deist when he went to France during their extremely radical and liberal revolution.

Benjamin Franklin was also a deist later in life, but supported the Presbyterian Church with donations.  He supported Christianity in general and was a big fan of the Great Enlightenment preacher George Whitefield.  

I don't know as much about the others but based on the other claims, I'd doubt many of them were actually deists.  And besides, Locke and Smith weren't even Americans

----------


## klamath

> President Polk outlined what he was going to achieve in just one four year term and accomplished it.  He was the President that best defined America's* Manifest Destiny* as a White homeland from the Atlantic to the Pacific.  Without him, most of you would still be back in Europe.  
> 
> 
> 
> And he also annexed Texas into the Union, giving us America what it looks like today.


you mean America's version of Lebensraum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum

----------


## White Bear Lake

I voted Patrick Henry.  I've always had a soft spot for the anti-federalists.

----------


## Bonnieblue

> I find it amusing that you are ignorant to facts and just slap the word deist on anyone (a typical tactic of liberals trying to downplay the Christian foundations of liberty that were essential to our nations's founding).
> 
> First of all, where is the source for that list.  
> 
> To address some of the claims, no one in their right mind would call Washington a deist.  He was a strong Episcopal who often implored for the help of God personally, he often attended religious services, he was the first to use the phrase, Under God, when describing the army (indicating God was personally involved and watching over the American cause), and Washington believed in prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving to God because of the personal relationship he believed in.  
> 
> Jefferson was an anti-clerical Christian, meaning he believed more in his own personal style of Christianity (in letters he did indeed refer to himself as a Christian).  His jefferson Bible was the Bible w/o miracles, showing he was an empiricist, but not making him a deist.  For he thought Christ's teachings to be the greatest moral system ever and never denied that Christ was the son of God.
> 
> James Madison attended St. John's Episcopal Church while he was President.  Here's a quote by him: "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."  A deist wouldn't talk about the 10 Commandments of Christianity but rather personal morality.  
> ...


An excellent reply.

----------


## Davy Crockett

> I find it amusing that you are ignorant to facts and just slap the word deist on anyone (a typical tactic of liberals trying to downplay the Christian foundations of liberty that were essential to our nations's founding).


If the U.S. was founded on the Christian religion, the Constitution would clearly say so--but it does not. Nowhere does the Constitution say: "The United States is a Christian Nation", or anything even close to that. In fact, the words "Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, Creator, Divine, and God" are never mentioned in the Constitution-- not even once. Nowhere in the Constitution is religion mentioned, except in exclusionary terms. When the Founders wrote the nation's Constitution, they specified that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3)   This provision was radical in its day-- giving equal citizenship to believers and non-believers alike.  They wanted to ensure that no religion could make the claim of being the official, national religion, such as England had. 

The Declaration of Independence gives us important insight into the opinions of the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the power of the government is derived from the governed. Up until that time, it was claimed that kings ruled nations by the authority of God. The Declaration was a radical departure from the idea that the power to rule over other people comes from god. It was a letter from the Colonies to the English King, stating their intentions to seperate themselves. The Declaration is not a governing document. It mentions "Nature's God" and "Divine Providence"-- but as you will soon see, that's the language of Deism, not Christianity.

The 1796 Treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "not in any sense founded on the Christian religion" (see the image on the right). This was not an idle statement meant to satisfy muslims-- they believed it and meant it. This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams.	

None of the Founding Fathers were atheists. Most of the Founders were Deists, which is to say they thought the universe had a creator, but that he does not concern himself with the daily lives of humans, and does not directly communicate with humans, either by revelation or by sacred books. They spoke often of God, (Nature's God or the God of Nature), but this was not the God of the bible. They did not deny that there was a person called Jesus, and praised him for his benevolent teachings, but they flatly denied his divinity. Some people speculate that if Charles Darwin had lived a century earlier, the Founding Fathers would have had a basis for accepting naturalistic origins of life, and they would have been atheists.  We'll never know; but by reading their own writings, it's clear that most of them were opposed to the bible, and the teachings of Christianity in particular.

Yes, there were Christian men among the Founders. Just as Congress removed Thomas Jefferson's words that condemned the practice of slavery in the colonies, they also altered his wording regarding equal rights. His original wording is here in blue italics: "All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable."  Congress changed that phrase, increasing its religious overtones: "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights."  But we are not governed by the Declaration of Independence-- it is a historical document, not a constitutional one.

If the Christian Right Extremists wish to return this country to its beginnings, so be it... because it was a climate of Freethought.  The Founders were students of the European Enlightenment. Half a century after the establishment of the United States, clergymen complained that no president up to that date had been a Christian. * In a sermon that was reported in newspapers, Episcopal minister Bird Wilson of Albany, New York, protested in October 1831: "Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism."  The attitude of the age was one of enlightened reason, tolerance, and free thought.  The Founding Fathers would turn in their graves if the Christian Extremists had their way with this country.*

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html

----------


## Davy Crockett

*George Washington*

The father of this country was very private about his beliefs, but it is widely considered that he was a Deist like his colleagues. He was a Freemason.
Historian Barry Schwartz writes: "George Washington's practice of Christianity was limited and superficial because he was not himself a Christian...  He repeatedly declined the church's sacraments.  Never did he take communion, and when his wife, Martha, did, he waited for her outside the sanctuary...  Even on his deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered no prayer to Christ, and expressed no wish to be attended by His representative." [New York Press, 1987, pp. 174-175]

Paul F. Boller states in is anthology on Washington: "There is no mention of Jesus Christ anywhere in his extensive correspondence." [Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, pp. 14-15] 

-------------

"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause.  Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated.  I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society." 
                            - letter to Edward Newenham, 1792 

--------------

"Gouverneur Morris had often told me that General Washington believed no more of that system (Christianity) than did he himself."           -Thomas Jefferson, in his private journal, Feb. 1800

----------


## Bonnieblue

> you mean America's version of Lebensraum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum


All of man's history is a history of migrations and the displacing or the assimilation of one people by another.  Most of these migrations were existential: migrate or die or sink into a morass of poverty which was perhaps worse than death.  Stronger cultures such as those of the long-established Hellenistic Eastern Roman Empire held out longer.  Weaker cultures such as the Western Roman Empire were overrun and subsumed.  The tactic of framing the American experience with the age-old phenomenon with "Lebensraum," with all of the negative connotations associated with that word is ahistorical at best.

----------


## Davy Crockett

*John Adams   
*

The second president of the United States was John Adams, lawyer and diplomat. Adams' public career lasted more than 35 years. He was second only to George Washington in making a place for the young United States among the nations of the world. In his devotion to the country he was second to none
Excerpted from Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia Deluxe, Copyright © 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

-----------

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation.  But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"      -letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816 

------------

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved-- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" 
                            -letter to Thomas Jefferson 

--------------

"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.  And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY?  The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded.  But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes." 
                            - letter to John Taylor 

---------------

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.  Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity." 

----------------

"The question before the human race is, whether the God of Nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?" 

--------------

"Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?"      -letter to Thomas Jefferson 

--------------

"God is an essence that we know nothing of.  Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world." 

--------------

"Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1,500 years?"

------------

". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind." 

------------

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there  were no religion in it."

----------


## Davy Crockett

*James Madison
*

The fourth president of the United States, James Madison, was much like the other Virginia presidents--Washington and Jefferson--who went before him. Like them, he loved his home state only a little less than his country. Like them, he was a rich man who gave his whole life to public service. He was an able student of politics and government who brought real knowledge and skill to his job. In public office Madison was a calm, reasoning statesman who governed by force of logic. In a time when emotions ran high, he made common sense prevail. He was not always successful in dealing with foreign nations, but history has shown that he had right and justice on his side. He entered the presidency at a time when war clouds hung over the young nation. He saw his country through the disastrous War of 1812, and his final months in office produced the "era of good feeling" that lasted for many years. He did well as secretary of state and as president, but his greatest record was made earlier. For his outstanding work on the nation's charter, Madison is known as the Father of the Constitution. .
--------------------------------------------------------- 
Excerpted from Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia Deluxe 
Copyright © 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 

----------------

"It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points.  The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov't from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others." 
               James Madison, "James Madison on Religious Liberty", edited by Robert S. Alley, ISBN 0-8975-298-X. pp. 237-238 .

--------------

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society?  In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people.  Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries.  A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."         - "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785 

-------------

"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation.  During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial.  What has been its fruits?  More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."    - Ibid, 1785 

------------

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."       -letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774 

------------

"Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects." 

-----------

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."   -1803 letter objecting use of gov. land for churches

----------


## Bonnieblue

> If the U.S. was founded on the Christian religion, the Constitution would clearly say so--but it does not. Nowhere does the Constitution say: "The United States is a Christian Nation", or anything even close to that. In fact, the words "Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, Creator, Divine, and God" are never mentioned in the Constitution-- not even once. Nowhere in the Constitution is religion mentioned, except in exclusionary terms. When the Founders wrote the nation's Constitution, they specified that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3)   This provision was radical in its day-- giving equal citizenship to believers and non-believers alike.  They wanted to ensure that no religion could make the claim of being the official, national religion, such as England had. 
> 
> The Declaration of Independence gives us important insight into the opinions of the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the power of the government is derived from the governed. Up until that time, it was claimed that kings ruled nations by the authority of God. The Declaration was a radical departure from the idea that the power to rule over other people comes from god. It was a letter from the Colonies to the English King, stating their intentions to seperate themselves. The Declaration is not a governing document. It mentions "Nature's God" and "Divine Providence"-- but as you will soon see, that's the language of Deism, not Christianity.
> 
> The 1796 Treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "not in any sense founded on the Christian religion" (see the image on the right). This was not an idle statement meant to satisfy muslims-- they believed it and meant it. This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams.	
> 
> None of the Founding Fathers were atheists. Most of the Founders were Deists, which is to say they thought the universe had a creator, but that he does not concern himself with the daily lives of humans, and does not directly communicate with humans, either by revelation or by sacred books. They spoke often of God, (Nature's God or the God of Nature), but this was not the God of the bible. They did not deny that there was a person called Jesus, and praised him for his benevolent teachings, but they flatly denied his divinity. Some people speculate that if Charles Darwin had lived a century earlier, the Founding Fathers would have had a basis for accepting naturalistic origins of life, and they would have been atheists.  We'll never know; but by reading their own writings, it's clear that most of them were opposed to the bible, and the teachings of Christianity in particular.
> 
> Yes, there were Christian men among the Founders. Just as Congress removed Thomas Jefferson's words that condemned the practice of slavery in the colonies, they also altered his wording regarding equal rights. His original wording is here in blue italics: "All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable."  Congress changed that phrase, increasing its religious overtones: "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights."  But we are not governed by the Declaration of Independence-- it is a historical document, not a constitutional one.
> ...


There are lots of details in the quote which one might refute.  But the most important point is that the men which you cite did not found anything.

America was founded, if it is even proper to use such a word, by the men and women, families and congregations, who braved the Atlantic, beginning in the late 16th century and early 17th century to come to the New World to establish families, communities and congregations.  The brought the classical and Christian traditions of Europe with them and transplanted the traditions, customs and habits associated with them into the coastal towns and settlements.  They then spilled out of those settlements, traveling with kith and kin, with their Bibles, their guns, their axes, and their plows to carry these European traditions into the interior at the bleeding edge of the frontier.  The established families, communities and parishes and basically governed themselves, quite often beyond not only the king's protection but also beyond the protection and jurisdiction of the magistrates of the colonial republics which they represented.  America, if "founded" is the correct term at all, was founded long before a fraction of wigged men gathered in Philadelphia.  We all need to emancipate ourselves from this "founding" myth.

----------


## PierzStyx

> If the U.S. was founded on the Christian religion, the Constitution would clearly say so--but it does not. Nowhere does the Constitution say: "The United States is a Christian Nation", or anything even close to that. In fact, the words "Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, Creator, Divine, and God" are never mentioned in the Constitution-- not even once. Nowhere in the Constitution is religion mentioned, except in exclusionary terms. When the Founders wrote the nation's Constitution, they specified that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3)   This provision was radical in its day-- giving equal citizenship to believers and non-believers alike.  They wanted to ensure that no religion could make the claim of being the official, national religion, such as England had. 
> 
> The Declaration of Independence gives us important insight into the opinions of the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the power of the government is derived from the governed. Up until that time, it was claimed that kings ruled nations by the authority of God. The Declaration was a radical departure from the idea that the power to rule over other people comes from god. It was a letter from the Colonies to the English King, stating their intentions to seperate themselves. The Declaration is not a governing document. It mentions "Nature's God" and "Divine Providence"-- but as you will soon see, that's the language of Deism, not Christianity.
> 
> The 1796 Treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "not in any sense founded on the Christian religion" (see the image on the right). This was not an idle statement meant to satisfy muslims-- they believed it and meant it. This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams.	
> 
> None of the Founding Fathers were atheists. Most of the Founders were Deists, which is to say they thought the universe had a creator, but that he does not concern himself with the daily lives of humans, and does not directly communicate with humans, either by revelation or by sacred books. They spoke often of God, (Nature's God or the God of Nature), but this was not the God of the bible. They did not deny that there was a person called Jesus, and praised him for his benevolent teachings, but they flatly denied his divinity. Some people speculate that if Charles Darwin had lived a century earlier, the Founding Fathers would have had a basis for accepting naturalistic origins of life, and they would have been atheists.  We'll never know; but by reading their own writings, it's clear that most of them were opposed to the bible, and the teachings of Christianity in particular.
> 
> Yes, there were Christian men among the Founders. Just as Congress removed Thomas Jefferson's words that condemned the practice of slavery in the colonies, they also altered his wording regarding equal rights. His original wording is here in blue italics: "All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable."  Congress changed that phrase, increasing its religious overtones: "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights."  But we are not governed by the Declaration of Independence-- it is a historical document, not a constitutional one.
> ...



The problem with labeling the US a "Christian nation" is defining what is meant by that label. For example, is it a theocracy like the monarchy of England was and is? No it is not. If what one means by Christian nation is a theocratic government ran then the US is VERY clearly NOT a Christian nation. This is important to understand ESPECIALLY in regards to the Treaty of Tripoli. That treaty was signed with a theocratic Islamic government  that thought all Western nations were Christian Crusader nations out to kill/conquer Muslims. The wording you quoted in the Treaty is meant to set that worry aside and smooth relations between the US and Tripoli.

Now if my "Christian nation" you mean the philosophical ideals of Christianity are what influenced the Founders and their ideals, you'd be correct. Most people only trace the ideas of the Founders back to John Locke. They never go farther. Locke's ideals of individualism and liberty were derived from Christianity. The Founder's, for the most part, developed similar beliefs based off their faith as well. So in this way Christian ideals of individual worth, freedom of belief, and liberty became the philosophical bedrock of the Revolution. In this way the US IS a Christian nation.

That said your quote betrays its bias. It wants the Founders to be deists and atheists. The fact is that almost all of the Founders were religious men who attended church regularly and worshiped the Christian God. And many of them, such as Jefferson, became seriously religious the older they got. The problem is that some of them didn't like Christianity as it was. Jefferson himself was a restorationist Christian who believed men has corrupted the true faith of Christ, much along the lines of Roger Williams.  But that si different from saying he was a deist. By today's standards some of them would be non-denominational Christians surely, but still Christians.

----------


## PierzStyx

> *James Madison
> *
> 
> The fourth president of the United States, James Madison, was much like the other Virginia presidents--Washington and Jefferson--who went before him. Like them, he loved his home state only a little less than his country. Like them, he was a rich man who gave his whole life to public service. He was an able student of politics and government who brought real knowledge and skill to his job. In public office Madison was a calm, reasoning statesman who governed by force of logic. In a time when emotions ran high, he made common sense prevail. He was not always successful in dealing with foreign nations, but history has shown that he had right and justice on his side. He entered the presidency at a time when war clouds hung over the young nation. He saw his country through the disastrous War of 1812, and his final months in office produced the "era of good feeling" that lasted for many years. He did well as secretary of state and as president, but his greatest record was made earlier. For his outstanding work on the nation's charter, Madison is known as the Father of the Constitution. .
> --------------------------------------------------------- 
> Excerpted from Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia Deluxe 
> Copyright © 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 
> 
> ----------------
> ...


LOOK! I can do that too!

George Washington
1st U.S. President

"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."
--The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343.

John Adams
2nd U.S. President and Signer of the Declaration of Independence

"Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be."
--Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p. 9.

"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."
--Adams wrote this on June 28, 1813, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson.

"The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever."
--Adams wrote this in a letter to his wife, Abigail, on July 3, 1776.

Thomas Jefferson
3rd U.S. President, Drafter and Signer of the Declaration of Independence

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event."
--Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237.

"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."
--The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.

John Hancock
1st Signer of the Declaration of Independence

"Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."
--History of the United States of America, Vol. II, p. 229.

Benjamin Franklin
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Unites States Constitution

"Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped.

That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see;

But I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and more observed; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure."
--Benjamin Franklin wrote this in a letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale University on March 9, 1790. 


Samuel Adams
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Father of the American Revolution

"And as it is our duty to extend our wishes to the happiness of the great family of man, I conceive that we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world that the rod of tyrants may be broken to pieces, and the oppressed made free again; that wars may cease in all the earth, and that the confusions that are and have been among nations may be overruled by promoting and speedily bringing on that holy and happy period when the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and all people everywhere willingly bow to the sceptre of Him who is Prince of Peace."
--As Governor of Massachusetts, Proclamation of a Day of Fast, March 20, 1797.

James Madison
4th U.S. President

"Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ."
--America's Providential History, p. 93.

James Monroe
5th U.S. President

"When we view the blessings with which our country has been favored, those which we now enjoy, and the means which we possess of handing them down unimpaired to our latest posterity, our attention is irresistibly drawn to the source from whence they flow. Let us then, unite in offering our most grateful acknowledgments for these blessings to the Divine Author of All Good."
--Monroe made this statement in his 2nd Annual Message to Congress, November 16, 1818.

John Quincy Adams
6th U.S. President

"The hope of a Christian is inseparable from his faith. Whoever believes in the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures must hope that the religion of Jesus shall prevail throughout the earth. Never since the foundation of the world have the prospects of mankind been more encouraging to that hope than they appear to be at the present time. And may the associated distribution of the Bible proceed and prosper till the Lord shall have made 'bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God' (Isaiah 52:10)."
--Life of John Quincy Adams, p. 248.

William Penn
Founder of Pennsylvania

"I do declare to the whole world that we believe the Scriptures to contain a declaration of the mind and will of God in and to those ages in which they were written; being given forth by the Holy Ghost moving in the hearts of holy men of God; that they ought also to be read, believed, and fulfilled in our day; being used for reproof and instruction, that the man of God may be perfect. They are a declaration and testimony of heavenly things themselves, and, as such, we carry a high respect for them. We accept them as the words of God Himself."
--Treatise of the Religion of the Quakers, p. 355.

Roger Sherman
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution

"I believe that there is one only living and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the same in substance equal in power and glory. That the scriptures of the old and new testaments are a revelation from God, and a complete rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him. That God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, so as thereby he is not the author or approver of sin. That he creates all things, and preserves and governs all creatures and all their actions, in a manner perfectly consistent with the freedom of will in moral agents, and the usefulness of means. That he made man at first perfectly holy, that the first man sinned, and as he was the public head of his posterity, they all became sinners in consequence of his first transgression, are wholly indisposed to that which is good and inclined to evil, and on account of sin are liable to all the miseries of this life, to death, and to the pains of hell forever.

I believe that God having elected some of mankind to eternal life, did send his own Son to become man, die in the room and stead of sinners and thus to lay a foundation for the offer of pardon and salvation to all mankind, so as all may be saved who are willing to accept the gospel offer: also by his special grace and spirit, to regenerate, sanctify and enable to persevere in holiness, all who shall be saved; and to procure in consequence of their repentance and faith in himself their justification by virtue of his atonement as the only meritorious cause.

I believe a visible church to be a congregation of those who make a credible profession of their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, joined by the bond of the covenant.

I believe that the souls of believers are at their death made perfectly holy, and immediately taken to glory: that at the end of this world there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a final judgement of all mankind, when the righteous shall be publicly acquitted by Christ the Judge and admitted to everlasting life and glory, and the wicked be sentenced to everlasting punishment."
--The Life of Roger Sherman, pp. 272-273.

Benjamin Rush
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Ratifier of the U.S. Constitution

"The gospel of Jesus Christ prescribes the wisest rules for just conduct in every situation of life. Happy they who are enabled to obey them in all situations!"
--The Autobiography of Benjamin Rush, pp. 165-166.

"Christianity is the only true and perfect religion, and that in proportion as mankind adopts its principles and obeys its precepts, they will be wise and happy."
--Essays, Literary, Moral, and Philosophical, published in 1798.

"I know there is an objection among many people to teaching children doctrines of any kind, because they are liable to be controverted. But let us not be wiser than our Maker.

If moral precepts alone could have reformed mankind, the mission of the Son of God into all the world would have been unnecessary. The perfect morality of the gospel rests upon the doctrine which, though often controverted has never been refuted: I mean the vicarious life and death of the Son of God."
--Essays, Literary, Moral, and Philosophical, published in 1798.

John Witherspoon
Signer of the Declaration of Independence, Clergyman and President of Princeton University

"While we give praise to God, the Supreme Disposer of all events, for His interposition on our behalf, let us guard against the dangerous error of trusting in, or boasting of, an arm of flesh ... If your cause is just, if your principles are pure, and if your conduct is prudent, you need not fear the multitude of opposing hosts.

What follows from this? That he is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down profanity and immorality of every kind.

Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy of his country."
--Sermon at Princeton University, "The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men," May 17, 1776.

Alexander Hamilton
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Ratifier of the U.S. Constitution

"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man."
--Famous American Statesmen, p. 126.

Patrick Henry
Ratifier of the U.S. Constitution

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."
--The Trumpet Voice of Freedom: Patrick Henry of Virginia, p. iii.

"The Bible ... is a book worth more than all the other books that were ever printed."
--Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry, p. 402.

John Jay
1st Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and President of the American Bible Society

"By conveying the Bible to people thus circumstanced, we certainly do them a most interesting kindness. We thereby enable them to learn that man was originally created and placed in a state of happiness, but, becoming disobedient, was subjected to the degradation and evils which he and his posterity have since experienced.

The Bible will also inform them that our gracious Creator has provided for us a Redeemer, in whom all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; that this Redeemer has made atonement "for the sins of the whole world," and thereby reconciling the Divine justice with the Divine mercy has opened a way for our redemption and salvation; and that these inestimable benefits are of the free gift and grace of God, not of our deserving, nor in our power to deserve."
--In God We Trust—The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of the American Founding Fathers, p. 379.

"In forming and settling my belief relative to the doctrines of Christianity, I adopted no articles from creeds but such only as, on careful examination, I found to be confirmed by the Bible."
--American Statesman Series, p. 360.

----------


## Davy Crockett

> I find it amusing that you are ignorant to facts and just slap the word deist on anyone (a typical tactic of liberals trying to downplay the Christian foundations of liberty that were essential to our nations's founding).
> 
> 
> I don't know as much about the others but based on the other claims, I'd doubt many of them were actually deists.  And besides, Locke and Smith weren't even Americans


I included Lock and Smith for their influence on our Founding Fathers.  I could have also included Voltaire. 




> François-Marie Arouet (French pronunciation: [fʁɑ̃.swa ma.ʁi aʁ.wɛ]; 21 November 1694  30 May 1778), better known by the pen name Voltaire (pronounced: [vɔl.tɛːʁ]), was a French Enlightenment writer, historian and philosopher famous for his wit and for his advocacy of civil liberties, including freedom of religion, freedom of expression, free trade and separation of church and state.


The fact is that the Age of Enlightenment had more influence on the founding of America than Christianity.  Let me know if you want me to finish out the rest of my list of names who were deists, or at best, Christian in name only.  




> For he [Thomas Jefferson] thought Christ's teachings to be the greatest moral system ever and never denied that Christ was the son of God.


Thomas Jefferson did not believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, and he said so:

"*And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.* But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors." -- Jefferson's letter to John Adams, April 11 1823

Jefferson was a rationalist. He believed that Jesus was a pure and ethical teacher of morals. To that end, Jefferson took a razor to the New Testament and removed passages he thought to have been inserted by the authors of the gospels (whom he called the "commentators"), and he pasted what remained together as "The Jefferson Bible". With his razor blade, *he removed every verse dealing with the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, claims of Jesus' divinity and other puerile superstition*, thus leaving us with a very much shorter book. In 1904, the Jefferson Bible was printed by order of Congress, and for many years was presented to all newly elected members of that body.

----------


## PierzStyx

> *James Madison
> *
> 
> The fourth president of the United States, James Madison, was much like the other Virginia presidents--Washington and Jefferson--who went before him. Like them, he loved his home state only a little less than his country. Like them, he was a rich man who gave his whole life to public service. He was an able student of politics and government who brought real knowledge and skill to his job. In public office Madison was a calm, reasoning statesman who governed by force of logic. In a time when emotions ran high, he made common sense prevail. He was not always successful in dealing with foreign nations, but history has shown that he had right and justice on his side. He entered the presidency at a time when war clouds hung over the young nation. He saw his country through the disastrous War of 1812, and his final months in office produced the "era of good feeling" that lasted for many years. He did well as secretary of state and as president, but his greatest record was made earlier. For his outstanding work on the nation's charter, Madison is known as the Father of the Constitution. .
> --------------------------------------------------------- 
> Excerpted from Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia Deluxe 
> Copyright © 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 
> 
> ----------------
> ...



Quote s taken out of context can be made to say anything. Just look at my previous quote page. Indeed many of your quotes don't even denounce religion but instead say that Christianity needs to be practiced correctly. And that si true. False Christianity does no good. True religion sets free.

----------


## justinjj

Patrick Henry I guess, although I don't really engage in "founding father" worship.  I have a funny feeling that if they were all alive today then I wouldn't care for any of them.  Much like the sickening Reagan deification that has gone on in the last few years, I think most of the positive appeal of most of them is just contrived bull$#@!.

----------


## klamath

> All of man's history is a history of migrations and the displacing or the assimilation of one people by another.  Most of these migrations were existential: migrate or die or sink into a morass of poverty which was perhaps worse than death.  Stronger cultures such as those of the long-established Hellenistic Eastern Roman Empire held out longer.  Weaker cultures such as the Western Roman Empire were overrun and subsumed.  The tactic of framing the American experience with the age-old phenomenon with "Lebensraum," with all of the negative connotations associated with that word is ahistorical at best.


Agree that weaker culture will be consumed by the more powerful one. the union vs the south is a very fine example of a weaker culture falling to a stronger but nothing in that says they were better just stronger. Lebensraum is not the only thing it can be compared to. There was nothing exceptional about american vision of expanding. The entire world history is filled with such cases but in reality it is not so much history as a veiw into human nature the world over. The human ability to find themselves superior to another and belief that their system of government to be better. When the belief is strong enough they will enforse it by war and violence.

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

> If the U.S. was founded on the Christian religion, the Constitution would clearly say so--but it does not. Nowhere does the Constitution say: "The United States is a Christian Nation", or anything even close to that. In fact, the words "Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, Creator, Divine, and God" are never mentioned in the Constitution-- not even once. Nowhere in the Constitution is religion mentioned, except in exclusionary terms. When the Founders wrote the nation's Constitution, they specified that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3) This provision was radical in its day-- giving equal citizenship to believers and non-believers alike. They wanted to ensure that no religion could make the claim of being the official, national religion, such as England had. 
> 
> The Declaration of Independence gives us important insight into the opinions of the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the power of the government is derived from the governed. Up until that time, it was claimed that kings ruled nations by the authority of God. The Declaration was a radical departure from the idea that the power to rule over other people comes from god. It was a letter from the Colonies to the English King, stating their intentions to seperate themselves. The Declaration is not a governing document. It mentions "Nature's God" and "Divine Providence"-- but as you will soon see, that's the language of Deism, not Christianity.
> 
> The 1796 Treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "not in any sense founded on the Christian religion" (see the image on the right). This was not an idle statement meant to satisfy muslims-- they believed it and meant it. This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams.	
> 
> None of the Founding Fathers were atheists. Most of the Founders were Deists, which is to say they thought the universe had a creator, but that he does not concern himself with the daily lives of humans, and does not directly communicate with humans, either by revelation or by sacred books. They spoke often of God, (Nature's God or the God of Nature), but this was not the God of the bible. They did not deny that there was a person called Jesus, and praised him for his benevolent teachings, but they flatly denied his divinity. Some people speculate that if Charles Darwin had lived a century earlier, the Founding Fathers would have had a basis for accepting naturalistic origins of life, and they would have been atheists. We'll never know; but by reading their own writings, it's clear that most of them were opposed to the bible, and the teachings of Christianity in particular.
> 
> Yes, there were Christian men among the Founders. Just as Congress removed Thomas Jefferson's words that condemned the practice of slavery in the colonies, they also altered his wording regarding equal rights. His original wording is here in blue italics: "All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable." Congress changed that phrase, increasing its religious overtones: "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." But we are not governed by the Declaration of Independence-- it is a historical document, not a constitutional one.
> ...


The Declaration of Independence, which is the philosophical foundation for the Constitution, mentioned God four times.  And he is mentioned as a Creator and one of providence, meaning he guided actions and was personally involved.  Why else would founders like Washington have prayed to God for help during the War?  The state of massachusetts had an established church for the first few decades of American history.  

The Constitution didn't need to specify that America was founded on Judeo-Christian ideals because there was no debate about it.  Its the same way that guns almost weren't mentioned because there was no one who wanted to take them away.  And the founders of course believed in the liberty to choose one's own religion and for no Church of the USA to be established.  

The separation of Church and State is not the rule of law but was rather in TJ's letter to the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut.  He was assuring them that government wouldn't encroach on religion and not the other way around.  

Its funny you only quoted part of the sentence from the treaty of tripoli (aka out of context).  Heres the whole quote:  "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."  Clearly, the context of the quote is meant to allay the fears of the Muslims it was addressed to that America would be another established Church dictatorship like in Europe as opposed to the republic it was.  Mostly to let them know Muslims would not be denied their freedoms in America.  Your contortion of the text to make it attempt to reflect the American society during that time is ridiculous.  

52 of the 55 signers of the Declaration of Independence claimed to belong to some type of Christian denomination.  Calling "most of them deists" is completely baseless speculation.  I'll give you a few quotes of the founders to show you what they thought of the Bible:

John Adams
"Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be." 

John Quincy Adams
"I speak as a man of the world to men of the world; and I say to you, Search the Scriptures! The Bible is the book of all others, to be read at all ages, and in all conditions of human life; not to be read in small portions of one or two chapters every day, and never to be intermitted, unless by some overruling necessity."

Fisher Ames
(Author of the First Amendment)
"Should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a schoolbook? Its morals are pure, its examples are captivating and noble....In no Book is there so good English, so pure and so elegant, and by teaching all the same they will speak alike, and the Bible will justly remain the standard of language as well as of faith."

Benjamin Franklin
"A Bible and a newspaper in every house, a good school in every district--all studied and appreciated as they merit--are the principal support of virtue, morality, and civil liberty."

Patrick Henry
"The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed."

Benjamin Rush
"By removing the Bible from schools we would be wasting so much time and money in punishing criminals and so little pains to prevent crime. Take the Bible out of our schools and there would be an explosion in crime."

George Washington
"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."

Daniel Webster
"If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instruction and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may ovenvhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity."

Noah Webster
"The Bible was America's basic text book in all fields."

The crock about Darwin is just disingenuous and speculative.  It's been 150 years since the guy published Origin of Species, yet nearly 80% of the US is still Christian.  

Actually, America was not subject to the deistic impulses of the European "enlightenment".  Rather, it was countered by the Great Awakening here, which had only a minimal effect in Europe.  

As for the entry on George Washington, the fact that he was private about his religion doesn't make him a deist.  The article you posted tries to equivocate.  Calling him a superficial Christian is just plain dumb.  Another baseless claim, typical of you (actually should I say of your choices of copy and paste sites).  The argument you try to make is that because he wasn't running around shouting the Lord's name makes him a deist.  And the Washington quote you put in just goes to show he was a believer in Christian tolerance of other beliefs, not a lack of Christian beliefs himself.  

Why don't you try to actually refute me this time rather than just googling and pasting.

----------


## Davy Crockett

> Quote s taken out of context can be made to say anything. Just look at my previous quote page. Indeed many of your quotes don't even denounce religion but instead say that Christianity needs to be practiced correctly. And that si true. False Christianity does no good. True religion sets free.


You seem to have a serious disability in reading comprehension.

----------


## JK/SEA

Define founding father.

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

> Define founding father.


Any American involved in the cause for liberty that began when the British began to encroach on our rights in the early 1760s and/or became involved in the Revolutionary War, signing of the Declaration of Independence, creating of the Articles of Confederation, and, finally, the Constitution.  Generally, any prominent American up previous to the War of 1812 (Although some would argue that date is too late).

----------


## specsaregood

*lol @ all the hate for Mr. Alexander Hamilton.   You all wish you were as much of a success story as he.*

Born a trick baby to a poor mom in the islands and orphaned before he turned a teen; yet he was able to methodically work his way up to being one of the elite of a new nation.  I guarantee nobody could have predicted at his birth that he would be leading one side of one of the most important debates in modern civilization.  Sure, disagree with his views -- although so far his side has been winning -- but at least you knew his position and he fought for it.    He even died like a man, he was no chickenhawk and better than any of the current presidential candidates (excepting Dr. Paul).

----------


## Philhelm

No one but Paul!

(Okay, fine, I voted for Thomas Jefferson.)

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

> lol @ all the hate for Mr. Alexander Hamilton. You all wish you were as much of a success story as he.
> 
> Born a trick baby to a poor mom in the islands and orphaned by before he turned a teen; yet he was able to methodically work his way up to being one of the elite of a new nation. I guarantee nobody could have predicted at his birth that he would be leading one side of one of the most important debates in modern civilization. Sure, disagree with his views -- although so far his side has been winning -- but at least you knew his position and he fought for it. He even died like a man, he was no chickenhawk and better than any of the current presidential candidates (excepting Dr. Paul).


I actually happen to personally like Hamilton a lot.  Some of his policies weren't great but he was a total bad ass and destroyed reputations better than even Ron Paul's ad making team.  I am saddened the scoundrel Burr took him out though, what a way to go down.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *lol @ all the hate for Mr. Alexander Hamilton.   You all wish you were as much of a success story as he.*
> 
> Born a trick baby to a poor mom in the islands and orphaned before he turned a teen; yet he was able to methodically work his way up to being one of the elite of a new nation.  I guarantee nobody could have predicted at his birth that he would be leading one side of one of the most important debates in modern civilization.  Sure, disagree with his views -- although so far his side has been winning -- but at least you knew his position and he fought for it.    He even died like a man, he was no chickenhawk and better than any of the current presidential candidates (excepting Dr. Paul).


 I only dislike his political view.  It's an epic fail.  As a person I have nothing against him.  He was actually a pretty good writer, and duped a helluva lot of people.   I hope to one day be as good a scam artist as he was.  Good thing Burr was a good shot.  Bet it rather sucked to be shot by the sort of pistol he was hit with.  It took him a week or so to die, IIRC.  

If the revolutionaries had just seceded instead of fighting that ridiculous war, there wouldn't have been a need for what Hamilton did and he wouldn't have gotten shot for it.  Karma's a bitch.

----------


## Revolution9

> Jefferson was also an a-hole. He claimed to be the people's person but he also owned slaves. 
> 
> Also, he was incredibly cruel to Nikolo Tesla. Tesla had some great inventions but unfortunately Jefferson was the first to mass market his "discovery" verse Tesla.


Huh. Nikola Tesla and Thomas Jefferson on the same timeline? You been around a powerful Tesla coil or sumthin'?

Rev9

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

As of the current poll results, it seems the Anti-Federalists are blowing the Federalists out of the water.  It may be time to institute some alien and sedition acts up in here to balance things out.  (Corny historical joke, I know.  I still love my boy Adams, thank you David McCullough)

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

Nicola Tesla was born in 1856 fyi.

----------


## Jtorsella

> As of the current poll results, it seems the Anti-Federalists are blowing the Federalists out of the water.  It may be time to institute some alien and sedition acts up in here to balance things out.  (Corny historical joke, I know.  I still love my boy Adams, thank you David McCullough)


lol.

----------


## JK/SEA

I have 2, one we all know, Washington, and then the  1st to die in the  first opening salvos..unknown.

----------


## Davy Crockett

> Why don't you try to actually refute me this time rather than just googling and pasting.


It is not uncommon for political leaders to pay lip service to Christianity, leading people to believe that they are Christians, when in fact they are not.  I personally know a few politicians who are in fact atheists, but to avoid being unfairly attacked by zealous Christians, they just go through the motions of attending Church once in a while so they will not have to deal with the issue.  I wish they will stand up, but it is not my place to name them.  Some notable politicians/leaders who many think are Christians:

*Frederick II. Holy Roman Emperor (1194-1250):
*
Accused by Pope Gregory IX of having said the world had been deceived by three impostors--Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed.

*Frederick the Great. Prussian king (1712-1786):
*
Superstition is the weakness of the human mind, which is inseparably tied up with it; it has always existed, and always will.

Religion is the idol of the mob; it adores everything it does not understand. . . . We know the crimes that fanaticism in religion has caused.

The imbecile priests! The best destiny they can look for is that they and their vile artifices will forever remain buried in the darkness of oblivion.

*Napoleon Bonaparte. French dictator (1769-1821):
*
All religions have been made by men.

If I have a soul, then pigs and dogs have souls.

When we are dead, we are simply dead.

If I had to choose a religion, the sun as the universal life-giver would be my god.

Everything is more or less organized matter. To think so is against religion, but I think so just the same.

Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.

In all countries, religion is useful to the government; it should be used to control the minds of the people.

Priests have everywhen and everywhere introduced fraud and falsehood.

If I had believed in a God of rewards and punishments, I might have lost courage in battle.

*Abraham Lincoln. American president (1809-65):
*
My earlier view of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them.

*Georges Clemenceau. French statesman (1841-1929):
*
Archbishop of Paris to Clemenceau: "Is it really true, monsieur, that you do not believe in God?" Clemenceau: "And you, monsieur?"

*Benito Mussolini. Italian dictator (1883-1945):
*
Religion is a species of mental disease. It has always had a pathological reaction on mankind.

The God of the theologians is the creation of their empty heads.

The history of the saints is mainly the history of insane people.

Note: In order to obtain the cooperation of the Vatican and thereby consolidate his authority in Italy, Mussolini abandoned his public support of atheism during the late twenties, and by the early thirties he regularly attended church services.

*Adolph Hitler. German dictator (1889-1945):
*
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of human failure.

To make death easier for people, the Church holds out to them the bait of a better world. We, for our part, confine ourselves to asking man to fashion his life worthily. For this, it is sufficient for him to conform to the laws of nature.

If my presence on earth is providential, I owe it to a superior will.

Note: Raised a Catholic, Hitler kept his atheism a secret except in conversations with close friends that were recorded by Martin Bormann and later published by Hugh Trevor-Roper.

*Jessie Ventura. Governor of Minnesota (1951- ):
*
Religion: a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people.

----------


## Jtorsella

> *lol @ all the hate for Mr. Alexander Hamilton.   You all wish you were as much of a success story as he.*
> 
> Born a trick baby to a poor mom in the islands and orphaned before he turned a teen; yet he was able to methodically work his way up to being one of the elite of a new nation.  I guarantee nobody could have predicted at his birth that he would be leading one side of one of the most important debates in modern civilization.  Sure, disagree with his views -- although so far his side has been winning -- but at least you knew his position and he fought for it.    He even died like a man, he was no chickenhawk and better than any of the current presidential candidates (excepting Dr. Paul).


http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo136.html
Alexander Hamilton put forward an amendment to make the president elected for life during the convention.
He believed that the government could do whatever it wanted to, unless it was specifically restricted by the constitution. 
He believed that government should help business.
He is the father of big government. He is no friend to liberty.
I respect his life story, but to me that runs secondary to almost singlehandedly screwing up this country's future. 
And Burr was a self serving $#@!, I'm not defending him. He was a federalist as well.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

1: Hamilton
2: Adams
3: Washington circa 1791
4: Marshall

----------


## justinjj

> 1: Hamilton
> 2: Adams
> 3: Washington circa 1791
> 4: Marshall


1.) R
2.) U
3.) 4
4.) Real?

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

> It is not uncommon for political leaders to pay lip service to Christianity, leading people to believe that they are Christians, when in fact they are not. I personally know a few politicians who are in fact atheists, but to avoid being unfairly attacked by zealous Christians, they just go through the motions of attending Church once in a while so they will not have to deal with the issue. I wish they will stand up, but it is not my place to name them.


What a convincing argument: basically saying the founders might seem Christian but no, no, no: because that doesn't fit your agenda, your going to quote a few random guys and "prove" that the founders were indeed just out to dupe the masses through hypocritical Christian proclamations even though there is absolutely no evidence to validate this claim.  

And Hitler and Mussolini.... really, who believes they were actually Christian.  Hitler believed in astrology and other superstitions combined with extreme Darwinian racism.  

Lincoln was at one time an atheist but had a conversion and became a very strong Christian.  

Napoleon always thought himself a bit of a semi-God, as evidenced when he crowned himself Emperor and thought of himself as greater than the pope.  

The other guys/ quotes are somewhat irrelevant and not exactly verifiable, nor particularly pertinent to the discussion at hand

And why would you quote me asking you not to just google and paste quotes and then go and google and paste quotes??

----------


## Jtorsella

> 1: Hamilton
> 2: Adams
> 3: Washington circa 1791
> 4: Marshall


Not sure if serious.
I take most exception to Marshall. McCulloch v. Maryland, Ogden v. Gibbons, Marbury v. Madison. This guy was scary. Set the stage for statism.

----------


## justinjj

This poll is akin to asking

who is your current favorite politician

1. John Kerry
2. Barack Obama
3. John McCain
4. Mitty Romney
5. Rick Santorum
6. Barney Frank
7. Jim Demint
8. Nancy Pelosi

THEY ALL $#@!ING SUCK.

----------


## Jtorsella

> This poll is akin to asking
> 
> who is your current favorite politician
> 
> 1. John Kerry
> 2. Barack Obama
> 3. John McCain
> 4. Mitty Romney
> 5. Rick Santorum
> ...


Meh. 
Jefferson, net net, did a huge service to liberty.

----------


## klamath

Jefferson wins the poll. Pretty ironic. Almost evertything about Jefferson would be slammed on the RP forums if he was president today.
Held 700 people hostage and lived an extreme lavish elite lifestyle on the backs of those slaves.
Went to war without a declaration.
Was a chickenhawk to the point he even got called out on his poor leadership as governor of virginia because he ran to his second home.
And by todays standard he would also be charged with sexual harrassment and rape.

Modern presidents and candidates actually seem pretty tame. The is a very good reason RP did not pick TJ as his most admired president.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> 1.) R
> 2.) U
> 3.) 4
> 4.) Real?


Is there someone you think I should add?

----------


## specsaregood

> http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo136.html
> Alexander Hamilton put forward an amendment to make the president elected for life during the convention.
> He believed that the government could do whatever it wanted to, unless it was specifically restricted by the constitution. 
> He believed that government should help business.
> He is the father of big government. He is no friend to liberty.
> I respect his life story, but to me that runs secondary to almost singlehandedly screwing up this country's future. 
> And Burr was a self serving $#@!, I'm not defending him. He was a federalist as well.


Exactly like I said.  From son of a whore to the intellectual founder of our current governments way of operating.

----------


## Jtorsella

> Is there someone you think I should add?


No, he's just pointing out that all of those people are statists.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo136.html
> Alexander Hamilton put forward an amendment to make the president elected for life during the convention.
> He believed that the government could do whatever it wanted to, unless it was specifically restricted by the constitution. 
> He believed that government should help business.
> He is the father of big government. He is no friend to liberty.
> I respect his life story, but to me that runs secondary to almost singlehandedly screwing up this country's future. 
> And Burr was a self serving $#@!, I'm not defending him. He was a federalist as well.


qft.  btw, George Washington liked to be addressed by a royal title when he was president. ("His Majesty, The President", or something like that)  He only stopped because people kept laughing at him.

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

> This poll is akin to asking
> 
> who is your current favorite politician
> 
> 1. John Kerry
> 2. Barack Obama
> 3. John McCain
> 4. Mitty Romney
> 5. Rick Santorum
> ...


I beg to differ.  For if you believe the founders "suck" than I don't really understand why you are on these boards supporting Ron Paul/ liberty.  Ron's entire political philosophy can be derived from the thought of different founders (no natl bank from Jefferson, no foreign entanglements from Washington, strong gun supporter like all the founders, etc etc.)  The founding fathers were among the most brilliant men of all times and you owe your current freedom to them.  I don't know what you dislike about them as a whole (I can understand individual disagreements however).  

And for the record I would choose Demint out of that list.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Jefferson wins the poll. Pretty ironic. Almost evertything about Jefferson would be slammed on the RP forums if he was president today.
> Held 700 people hostage and lived an extreme lavish elite lifestyle on the backs of those slaves.
> Went to war without a declaration.
> Was a chickenhawk to the point he even got called out on his poor leadership as governor of virginia because he ran to his second home.
> And by todays standard he would also be charged with sexual harrassment and rape.
> 
> Modern presidents and candidates actually seem pretty tame. The is a very good reason RP did not pick TJ as his most admired president.


I agree.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I beg to differ.  For* if you believe the founders "suck" than I don't really understand why you are on these boards supporting Ron Paul/ liberty.*  Ron's entire political philosophy can be derived from the thought of different founders (no natl bank from Jefferson, no foreign entanglements from Washington, strong gun supporter like all the founders, etc etc.)  The founding fathers were among the most brilliant men of all times and you owe your current freedom to them.  I don't know what you dislike about them as a whole (I can understand individual disagreements however).  
> 
> And for the record I would choose Demint out of that list.


It's called rational self-interest and educating the masses.  Rothbard engaged in electoral politics for these reasons as well.

----------


## SisCyn

> What a convincing argument: basically saying the founders might seem Christian but no, no, no: because that doesn't fit your agenda, your going to quote a few random guys and "prove" that the founders were indeed just out to dupe the masses through hypocritical Christian proclamations even though there is absolutely no evidence to validate this claim.  
> 
> And Hitler and Mussolini.... really, who believes they were actually Christian.  Hitler believed in astrology and other superstitions combined with extreme Darwinian racism.  
> 
> Lincoln was at one time an atheist but had a conversion and became a very strong Christian.  
> 
> Napoleon always thought himself a bit of a semi-God, as evidenced when he crowned himself Emperor and thought of himself as greater than the pope.  
> 
> The other guys/ quotes are somewhat irrelevant and not exactly verifiable, nor particularly pertinent to the discussion at hand
> ...


Why does any of this make any difference?

If the Constitution says that Congress will make no law establishing a religion, and then we turn around and call ourselves a Christian nation, didn't we just establish a religion?

I always feel that those who say that the United States is a Christian nation are really saying that Christians are the majority and therefore are the ruling class.

Isn't that why there was to be no establishment of religion?  Are we supposed to be a "classless socieity?"

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> Went to war without a declaration.


Link?

----------


## PierzStyx

I'll come out an say it -I'M A FEDERALIST AND PROUD OF IT. I believe the best form of government we could have is the type of federal government laid out in the Constitution of the United States of America. Does this mean I approve of everything every Federalist party member ever did? Heck no. Its similar to how a person can be a conservative but not like what the Republicans are doing. So putting that aside, the ideas of government and freedom enshrined in the Constitution are the source of America's greatness and I believe the formation of the states into a Federal union was the best governmental idea they ever had.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> No, he's just pointing out that all of those people are statists.


Hamilton, Marshall, Washington, and Adams?

----------


## Jtorsella

> I'll come out an say it -I'M A FEDERALIST AND PROUD OF IT. I believe the best form of government we could have is the type of federal government laid out in the Constitution of the United States of America. Does this mean I approve of everything every Federalist party member ever did? Heck no. Its similar to how a person can be a conservative but not like what the Republicans are doing. So putting that aside, the ideas of government and freedom enshrined in the Constitution are the source of America's greatness and I believe the formation of the states into a Federal union was the best governmental idea they ever had.


So you are a pre 1790 federalist then. After that they shifted to being loose constructionists.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Why does any of this make any difference?
> 
> If the Constitution says that Congress will make no law establishing a religion, and then we turn around and call ourselves a Christian nation, didn't we just establish a religion?
> 
> I always feel that those who say that the United States is a Christian nation are really saying that Christians are the majority and therefore are the ruling class.
> 
> Isn't that why there was to be no establishment of religion?  Are we supposed to be a "classless socieity?"



Not at all. Marxism is a classless society. The Constitution acknowledges the different classes in society and does nothing to obliterate them. It simply makes individuals in them equal before the law. Its a way to ensure that one class doesn't dominate another but it does nothing to eliminate them.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Link?


They're called the Barbary Wars. Go Wiki them.

----------


## Jtorsella

> Hamilton, Marshall, Washington, and Adams?


Yes, With Hamilton and Marshall being the most egregious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall
Go to the major supreme court cases, esp. McCulloch v. Maryland and Marbury v. Madison. Every major decision decimated states' rights.

----------


## klamath

> Link?


First Barbary WarMain article: Barbary Wars
When Jefferson became president in 1801, the United States was at the time paying $80,000 to the Barbary states as a 'tribute' for protection against North African piracy. For decades, the pirates had been capturing American ships and crew members and demanding huge ransoms for their release. Before Independence, from 1775 until 1783, American merchant ships were protected from the Barbary pirates by the naval and diplomatic influence of Great Britain. When the American Revolution began, American ships were protected by the 1778 alliance with France, which required the French nation to protect "American vessels and effects against all violence, insults, attacks ...". On December 20, 1777, Morocco's Sultan Mohammed III declared that the American merchant ships would be under the protection of the sultanate and could thus enjoy safe passage into the Mediterranean and along the coast. The Moroccan-American Treaty of Friendship stands as the U.S.'s oldest non-broken friendship treaty.[75][76] The one with Morocco has been the longest-lasting treaty with a foreign power.

After the United States gained independence, it had to protect its own merchant vessels. It also had to pay $80,000 as tribute to the Barbary states, as did Britain and France at this time. When Tripoli made new demands on the new President for a prompt payment of $225,000 and an annual payment of $25,000, Jefferson refused and decided it would be easier to fight the pirates than to continue to pay bribes. On May 10, 1801, the pasha of Tripoli declared war on the United States and the First Barbary War began. As secretary of state and vice president, Jefferson had opposed funds for a Navy to be used for anything more than a coastal defense, however the continued pirate attacks on American shipping interests in the Atlantic and Mediterranean and the systematic kidnapping of American crew members could no longer be ignored. President Jefferson ordered a fleet of naval vessels to various points in the Mediterranean. He forced Tunis and Algiers into breaking their alliance with Tripoli which ultimately forced it out of the fight. Jefferson also ordered five separate naval bombardments of Tripoli, which restored peace in the Mediterranean for a while.[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_...#Personal_life

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

> Why does any of this make any difference?
> 
> If the Constitution says that Congress will make no law establishing a religion, and then we turn around and call ourselves a Christian nation, didn't we just establish a religion?
> 
> I always feel that those who say that the United States is a Christian nation are really saying that Christians are the majority and therefore are the ruling class.
> 
> Isn't that why there was to be no establishment of religion? Are we supposed to be a "classless society?"


Congress cannot establish the Church of the USA, meaning an official denomination which is supported and funded by the government and citizenry.  That is all the Constitution says.  Saying we are a nation that is in the tradition of and governs with Judeo-Christian principles is not establishing a national church.  Christians are and have always undoubtedly been the majority.  However, the Constitution also emphasizes freedom of religion meaning that we are not some ruling class that can strip any other citizens of their right to freely practice whichever religion they choose.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I'll come out an say it -I'M A FEDERALIST AND PROUD OF IT. *I believe the best form of government we could have is the type of federal government laid out in the Constitution of the United States of America.* Does this mean I approve of everything every Federalist party member ever did? Heck no. Its similar to how a person can be a conservative but not like what the Republicans are doing. So putting that aside, the ideas of government and freedom enshrined in the Constitution are the source of America's greatness and I believe the formation of the states into a Federal union was the best governmental idea they ever had.


Why?  The US presidency (in conjunction with congress, of course) has been one of the most murderous regimes in history.  Can you name a non-democratic/non-republican government that has murdered and terrorized as many people, foreign and domestic as the American regime has?

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> First Barbary WarMain article: Barbary Wars
> When Jefferson became president in 1801, the United States was at the time paying $80,000 to the Barbary states as a 'tribute' for protection against North African piracy. For decades, the pirates had been capturing American ships and crew members and demanding huge ransoms for their release. Before Independence, from 1775 until 1783, American merchant ships were protected from the Barbary pirates by the naval and diplomatic influence of Great Britain. When the American Revolution began, American ships were protected by the 1778 alliance with France, which required the French nation to protect "American vessels and effects against all violence, insults, attacks ...". On December 20, 1777, Morocco's Sultan Mohammed III declared that the American merchant ships would be under the protection of the sultanate and could thus enjoy safe passage into the Mediterranean and along the coast. The Moroccan-American Treaty of Friendship stands as the U.S.'s oldest non-broken friendship treaty.[75][76] The one with Morocco has been the longest-lasting treaty with a foreign power.
> 
> After the United States gained independence, it had to protect its own merchant vessels. It also had to pay $80,000 as tribute to the Barbary states, as did Britain and France at this time. When Tripoli made new demands on the new President for a prompt payment of $225,000 and an annual payment of $25,000, Jefferson refused and decided it would be easier to fight the pirates than to continue to pay bribes. On May 10, 1801, the pasha of Tripoli declared war on the United States and the First Barbary War began. As secretary of state and vice president, Jefferson had opposed funds for a Navy to be used for anything more than a coastal defense, however the continued pirate attacks on American shipping interests in the Atlantic and Mediterranean and the systematic kidnapping of American crew members could no longer be ignored. President Jefferson ordered a fleet of naval vessels to various points in the Mediterranean. He forced Tunis and Algiers into breaking their alliance with Tripoli which ultimately forced it out of the fight. Jefferson also ordered five separate naval bombardments of Tripoli, which restored peace in the Mediterranean for a while.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_...#Personal_life


Thomas Woods seems to believe that the Barbary War was legal.

http://www.tomwoods.com/warpowers/

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> Yes, With Hamilton and Marshall being the most egregious.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall
> Go to the major supreme court cases, esp. McCulloch v. Maryland and Marbury v. Madison. Every major decision decimated states' rights.


Nah. Hamilton and Marshall were true Constitutionalists, and great Americans.

----------


## specsaregood

> Why?  The US presidency (in conjunction with congress, of course) has been one of the most murderous regimes in history.  Can you name a non-democratic/non-republican government that has murdered and terrorized as many people, foreign and domestic as the American regime has?


Give us a number to work with.  Plenty of regimes have been brutal throughout history, most of them nondemocratic/non republican and non-american.  And with inferior murderous technology.

----------


## klamath

> Why?  The US presidency (in conjunction with congress, of course) has been one of the most murderous regimes in history.  Can you name a non-democratic/non-republican government that has murdered and terrorized as many people, foreign and domestic as the American regime has?


Yes plenty. China russia, england, france, japan, rome, mongolia......

----------


## SisCyn

> Congress cannot establish the Church of the USA, meaning an official denomination which is supported and funded by the government and citizenry.  That is all the Constitution says.  Saying we are a nation that is in the tradition of and governs with Judeo-Christian principles is not establishing a national church.  Christians are and have always undoubtedly been the majority.  However, the Constitution also emphasizes freedom of religion meaning that we are not some ruling class that can strip any other citizens of their right to freely practice whichever religion they choose.


No, it says religion, not church.

That's why it is correct to say that the United States is not a Christian country.  There is no established religion.

----------


## klamath

> Thomas Woods seems to believe that the Barbary War was legal.
> 
> http://www.tomwoods.com/warpowers/


well I happen to disagree. You are sending american fire and american service members oversea you are at war. If this can be called legal then every other little undeclared war can be to.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> well I happen to disagree. You are sending american fire and american service members oversea you are at war. If this can be called legal then every other little undeclared war can be to.


Jefferson had congressional approval, and the entire war was in self defense.

----------


## klamath

> Jefferson had congressional approval, and the entire war was in self defense.


 wow I don't beleive I am have to agrue this. So did Bush. Did they declare war?

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> Yes plenty. China russia, england, france, japan, rome, mongolia......


Don't forget Germany and Spain.

----------


## noxnoctum

Who voted for Hamilton ?

----------


## klamath

> Don't forget Germany and Spain.


that is what the dots were for

----------


## Bonnieblue

> No, it says religion, not church.
> 
> That's why it is correct to say that the United States is not a Christian country.  There is no established religion.


Actually, your statement is not correct.  The Constitution did not establish the United States; it established the general government which was to serve as the agent of the states which were the principals.  Do not confuse a particular polity of a country with the social order of the country which was historically from its European roots Christian.  In the 18th century, as a little further corrective, the word "religion," basically a new word in the context in which we use it today, meant "church" or "particular faith," i.e. Baptist, Catholic, etc.  Our modern notion of "religion" as the amorphous ether lodging in the individual person was basically alien to the 18th century.  If you read the ratification documents, which are the documents which count since it was the ratification conventions which gave the Constitution any authority it may have or have had, you will see that they understood the phrase to mean that Congress could not establish a church nor could Congress prohibit a state from doing so.  In fact, at the time, there were a number of state churches.  As a matter of rational exercise pertaining to "religion" as something different from "church," do you really think that anyone perceived a danger that a sub-committee of Congress would one day sit down and conjure up some "religion" ex nihilo and foist it on the American people?  No, that is no logical.

You may not want Christianity to have any role in the American social order or in its polity today.  That's fine.  But let's not do a little creative re-writing of history.  Such things are better left to folks like Joe Stalin.

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

> No, it says religion, not church.
> 
> That's why it is correct to say that the United States is not a Christian country. There is no established religion.


Establishing a religion would be establishing a church like many European countries had at that time and many still have today.  The founders recognized that these types of forced beliefs were anti-liberty and had great foresight as Europe has become both relativistic and atheistic while America has remained strongly Christian despite no official state Church.  And the US is a Christian nation in that it was founded on and is largely based off Judeo-Christian thought and the Constitution was written for a moral and religious people (as John Adams said).  And an established religion would mean a particular denomination, in other words, a particular church.  You cant just establish a general Christian religion for the nation; an established religion would have to pick a denomination.  That is why America is a generally Christian Nation but one with liberty for all to choose their belief systems and no particular sect established.  The fact that Congress always started with a prayer goes to show the founders didn't think they were establishing a religion by saying general prayers in a government setting.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Why?  The US presidency (in conjunction with congress, of course) has been one of the most murderous regimes in history.  Can you name a non-democratic/non-republican government that has murdered and terrorized as many people, foreign and domestic as the American regime has?



Sure I can. But that list has already been made for you by another poster. The short answer though is ALL OF THEM. 

As to why? Because when governed by the Constitution, the US is the freest most prosperous nation than can exist. The fact that the people have been idiots and abandoned the Constitution has no bearing upon that fact. Show me a free-er people on the Earth not under a Constitution modeled upon ours.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yes plenty. China russia, england, france, japan, rome, mongolia......


All those examples went through several regimes in their histories.  Russians did not commit mass murder on the scale that the American regime has till after the Tsarist period.  Plus, although those regimes did get pretty big, they never had the power to terrorize anyone and anywhere the way the American regime does.  It's democracies/republics that have committed the most egregious crimes against humanity.  BTW, even in the Soviet Empire, it was still loosely "democratic".  The Duma (the representative body) was established during Nicolas I's regime and was never fully destroyed (it exists to this day).

----------


## specsaregood

> All those examples went through several regimes in their histories.  Russians did not commit mass murder on the scale that the American regime has till after the Tsarist period.  Plus, although those regimes did get pretty big, they never had the power to terrorize anyone and anywhere the way the American regime does.  It's democracies/republics that have committed the most egregious crimes against humanity.  BTW, even in the Soviet Empire, it was still loosely "democratic".  The Duma (the representative body) was established during Nicolas I's regime and was never fully destroyed (it exists to this day).


The japanese were pretty darn brutal, re: nanking.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Sure I can. But that list has already been made for you by another poster. *The short answer though is ALL OF THEM.*


Not even close.  




> As to why? Because when governed by the Constitution, the US is the freest most prosperous nation than can exist. The fact that the people have been idiots and abandoned the Constitution has no bearing upon that fact. Show me a free-er people on the Earth not under a Constitution modeled upon ours.


 This country has the highest percentage of its population in prison than ANY OTHER IN THE WORLD.  You might _think_ you're free, but you can't even buy your way out of government slavery (even slaves of olden days often had the ability to do this).  Unless you're a crony, but that's a different matter.  Gotta cut this short for tonight, but I'll get back to this ASAP.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The japanese were pretty darn brutal, re: nanking.


The death toll there was ~300,000.  More than 16 million died during WWII in Burma alone.

----------


## Davy Crockett

> No, it says religion, not church.
> 
> That's why it is correct to say that the United States is not a Christian country.  There is no established religion.


You are correct.

----------


## SisCyn

> Actually, your statement is not correct.  The Constitution did not establish the United States; it established the general government which was to serve as the agent of the states which were the principals.  Do not confuse a particular polity of a country with the social order of the country which was historically from its European roots Christian.  In the 18th century, as a little further corrective, the word "religion," basically a new word in the context in which we use it today, meant "church" or "particular faith," i.e. Baptist, Catholic, etc.  Our modern notion of "religion" as the amorphous ether lodging in the individual person was basically alien to the 18th century.  If you read the ratification documents, which are the documents which count since it was the ratification conventions which gave the Constitution any authority it may have or have had, you will see that they understood the phrase to mean that Congress could not establish a church nor could Congress prohibit a state from doing so.  In fact, at the time, there were a number of state churches.  As a matter of rational exercise pertaining to "religion" as something different from "church," do you really think that anyone perceived a danger that a sub-committee of Congress would one day sit down and conjure up some "religion" ex nihilo and foist it on the American people?  No, that is no logical.
> 
> You may not want Christianity to have any role in the American social order or in its polity today.  That's fine.  But let's not do a little creative re-writing of history.  Such things are better left to folks like Joe Stalin.



So where does Masonry fit into this fine kettle of soup?

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> All those examples went through several regimes in their histories.  Russians did not commit mass murder on the scale that the American regime has till after the Tsarist period.  Plus, although those regimes did get pretty big, they never had the power to terrorize anyone and anywhere the way the American regime does.  It's democracies/republics that have committed the most egregious crimes against humanity.  BTW, even in the Soviet Empire, it was still loosely "democratic".  The Duma (the representative body) was established during Nicolas I's regime and was never fully destroyed (it exists to this day).


I don't think that any of this is a fair comparison really, because no two governments have ever been in the same situation. The death toll in Pol Pot's Cambodia might have been much lower than what the American governments, but they killed off a third of their people in just a few years. That's the equivilent of the US government killing 100,000,000 people, or China killing 400,000,000. 

The amount of power countries have is important as well. Little Belgium killed ten million people in the Congo by some accounts. Imagine what they might have done with an empire the size of Britains? 

The US government will kill anyone to get more power/wealth if they believe they can get away with it, but the same can be said about most governments in history (especially when they grow as old as ours). But comparing gross death totals might not be the best way to do this.

----------


## specsaregood

> The death toll there was ~300,000.  More than 16 million died during WWII in Burma alone.


yeah and they raped 10's of thousands.  it was a hands-on affair.     sure we have better killing technology.

----------


## Davy Crockett

> So where does Masonry fit into this fine kettle of soup?


You will like this.

The following chart is based on Baylor University sociologist Rodney Stark's study of American Christianity titled What Americans Really Believe. Stark’s new book is anchored in research he’s done on religion in the U.S. for more than 40 years, and relies on recent surveys conducted in 2005, 2006 and 2007 by the Gallup Organization for Baylor University.



Most Christians today are unaware that church attendance in America really did not pick up until after the Civil War and that Christianity was in a decline prior to that.  From the early 19th century to the mid 19th century there was a growing interest in Free Thought in America.  

*Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899)* is too little known today. Yet he was the foremost orator and political speechmaker of late 19th century America -- perhaps the best-known American of the post-Civil War era. On tour after tour, he crisscrossed the country and spoke before packed houses on topics ranging from Shakespeare to Reconstruction, from science to religion. Known as the Great Agnostic, Ingersoll was the best-known and most widely respected ambassador the American freethought movement would ever have.

In an age when oratory was the dominant form of public entertainment, Ingersoll was the unchallenged dean of American orators.* He was seen and heard by more Americans than would see or hear any other human being until the advent of radio and motion pictures.*

*Ingersoll bitterly opposed the Religious Right of his day* -- *yet though he was an outspoken agnostic, he was also the foremost political speechmaker of the Republican Party. During Ingersoll's public life no GOP candidate for whom he declined to campaign attained the White House.*



http://www.freethought-trail.org/pro...=Person&Page=5

----------


## PierzStyx

> You will like this.
> 
> The following chart is based on Baylor University sociologist Rodney Stark's study of American Christianity titled What Americans Really Believe. Stark’s new book is anchored in research he’s done on religion in the U.S. for more than 40 years, and relies on recent surveys conducted in 2005, 2006 and 2007 by the Gallup Organization for Baylor University.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Christians today are unaware that church attendance in America really did not pick up until after the Civil War and that Christianity was in a decline prior to that.  From the early 19th century to the mid 19th century there was a growing interest in Free Thought in America.  
> 
> *Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899)* is too little known today. Yet he was the foremost orator and political speechmaker of late 19th century America -- perhaps the best-known American of the post-Civil War era. On tour after tour, he crisscrossed the country and spoke before packed houses on topics ranging from Shakespeare to Reconstruction, from science to religion. Known as the Great Agnostic, Ingersoll was the best-known and most widely respected ambassador the American freethought movement would ever have.
> ...



There were more famous and better politicians than Ingersoll. U.S. Grant for example. Thaddeus Stephens is another. There are plenty. Your bolded comments are not dependent on one another. Just because he campaigned for someone and they got elected doesn't mean he was the cause. It was impossible for a Republican to NOT be elected during the years after the Civil War.

 And your chart is fascinating but flawed. When you read the history of people who came to America they were astounded by how many people went not just to church, but held religious meetings in their own homes. But religious attendance in church;s did ebb as usually happens after wars where the local population suffer. But this lead to the First and Second Great Awakenings and the retrenchment of religion in everyday American life. Church, not just private religious worship, exploded and that was long before 1850.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Not even close.  
> 
>  This country has the highest percentage of its population in prison than ANY OTHER IN THE WORLD.  You might _think_ you're free, but you can't even buy your way out of government slavery (even slaves of olden days often had the ability to do this).  Unless you're a crony, but that's a different matter.  Gotta cut this short for tonight, but I'll get back to this ASAP.


The US also has one of the largest POPULATIONS in the world. Of course it'll have higher numbers of incarcerated people. That'd be the case even if we didn't feel the need to send everyone to prison for every little thing.

And if you think slaves of "olden" days could buy themselves free your historically wrong. The only nation I know of that had anything near that was ancient Israel, where all slaves were freed every 50 yrs or so as Jehovah commanded. In all other cases slavery was a lifetime thing. very rarely could a slave ever become free in any way. Why do you think so many were willing to fight and die in the gladiator pits of Rome? it was one of the only ways they could even have the dream of liberty.


A

----------


## PierzStyx

> All those examples went through several regimes in their histories.  Russians did not commit mass murder on the scale that the American regime has till after the Tsarist period.  Plus, although those regimes did get pretty big, they never had the power to terrorize anyone and anywhere the way the American regime does.  It's democracies/republics that have committed the most egregious crimes against humanity.  BTW, even in the Soviet Empire, it was still loosely "democratic".  The Duma (the representative body) was established during Nicolas I's regime and was never fully destroyed (it exists to this day).


Man your history is horrible. And to your original point regimes are irrelevant. Who ruled doesn't matter. Your statement was that no other country was as bloody as the US. History proves you wrong. You're also wrong about the size and scope of the power of modern states. The Cold War was all about the fact that the USSR had the same power to reach and kill anyone anywhere that the US had and people were afraid the USSR would use it. And they did. Maoist China as well.  And just because the Duma existed does not make Russia democratic. Not even in quotation marks. You are seriously stretching history here.

----------


## PierzStyx

> The death toll there was ~300,000.  More than 16 million died during WWII in Burma alone.


300,000 in ONE CITY ALONE. The Japanese ended up killing over 20,000,000 civilians during the war, civilians that were neither tied to the war or "caught in the crossfire" for the most part too. Some numbers places the number higher at over 50,000,000. That is more in one war than the US has done in ten years of global adventurism (which is not to say we should ignore our evils but to point out your lose grasp on history.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_W...ese_war_crimes

----------


## Davy Crockett

> It was impossible for a Republican to NOT be elected during the years after the Civil War.


http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/  You may want to take that comment back.  Everyone of those presidential elections were highly contested.  




> And your chart is fascinating but flawed.


That chart is from respected scholar who spent over 40 years studying church attendance in America and is referenced by several Christian organizations.




> There were more famous and better politicians than Ingersoll. U.S. Grant for example. Thaddeus Stephens is another.


The Grant Administration was racked with political corruption scandals and do not even get me started on Thaddeus Stephens.  Any honest historian will tell you that because of Stephens policies, the Klan was born to protect the southern White folks from the Carpetbaggers and Scalawags.  Come down to the South and try to tell folks what a great man Stephens was, and you are likely to get your ass kicked.  

Let me ask you something.  Did they teach you anything in school?  Did you spend much time on reading comprehension?  

What I posted was:  "During Ingersoll's public life no GOP candidate for whom he declined to campaign attained the White House."

That is not the same as saying that he was the cause of their election.  However, the statement does imply that Ingersoll had enough influence within the Republican party to help select the party's candidate and that candidate needed his support to win the general election.

One last comment.  The arrogance of Christians, rewriting history to fit their over-inflated sense of importance to America's history is going to cause a blow-back one of these days, and it is not too far off in the distance.  Go ahead and Google the latest studies on religion in America.  The key terms to search for is "nones", or "non-religious".  Just in the last six years, the "nones" in America has doubled from 10% to 20% and is the fastest growing segment in surveys on religion.   Some surveys even report 47% of the youth today are non-religious.  

We do live in interesting times my friend.  Whether you want to accept it or not, we may be seeing the Second Great Awakening of Free Thought in America.

----------


## Jtorsella

> Nah. Hamilton and Marshall were true Constitutionalists, and great Americans.


You cannot be serious. Hamilton is literally the father of big government. He wanted the president to be appointed for life, for god's sake. He wanted the states to have no rights, and he is the first proponent of the living constitution. Marshall is even worse, because as chief justice he forced federalist policies on Dem-Rep administrations. Together, they screwed our nation big time.

----------


## klamath

> All those examples went through several regimes in their histories.  Russians did not commit mass murder on the scale that the American regime has till after the Tsarist period.  Plus, although those regimes did get pretty big, they never had the power to terrorize anyone and anywhere the way the American regime does.  It's democracies/republics that have committed the most egregious crimes against humanity.  BTW, even in the Soviet Empire, it was still loosely "democratic".  The Duma (the representative body) was established during Nicolas I's regime and was never fully destroyed (it exists to this day).


Sorry but you are really starting to check out of reality. This is where you hate america first believers always fail. You are so intent on finding every fault with america you put blinders on to all other countries to try and make your case. It isn't possible because human nature doesn't just change across the US border and people become all good and wonderful. 
But just for laughs
England was around the world hundreds  of years before before the existent of America invading countries.
Spain was around the world hundreds of years before the US raping and killing in south America and far beyond.
France was around the world hundreds of years before the us.
The dutch were around the world. 
Russia killed 30 to 40 million and had an entire western continent as a penal system and streatched around the world.
China killed 60 million of their own.
The mongals killed from one end of a continent to the other.
germany killed and fought from one end of the world to the other.
The japanese Killed thousands of people in the emperial conquests.
Most of these were done while they were not democrasies.
They may have had the support of their populations but that only goes to show human nature is the same the world around.
Trying to rewrite history in you mind to make it fit you preconcieved notions of political systems will do nothing to solve world problems.

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

> Originally Posted by SisCyn  
> So where does Masonry fit into this fine kettle of soup?
> You will like this.
> 
> The following chart is based on Baylor University sociologist Rodney Stark's study of American Christianity titled What Americans Really Believe. Stark’s new book is anchored in research he’s done on religion in the U.S. for more than 40 years, and relies on recent surveys conducted in 2005, 2006 and 2007 by the Gallup Organization for Baylor University.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Christians today are unaware that church attendance in America really did not pick up until after the Civil War and that Christianity was in a decline prior to that. From the early 19th century to the mid 19th century there was a growing interest in Free Thought in America. 
> ...


A few things.  Some of the founders were indeed Freemasons, but on this list, the only that have been accused of it are Franklin and Washington.  Franklin, as I have already pointed out, self identified as a deist.  Also, being a member of the freemasons does not, and still doesn't today, cause one to give up his Christian faith.  It is more like a very exclusive group with some quirky rules, but it makes sense a few members of the colonial elite would join it.  Further, there was very little participation in freemasonry by the masses in early America as it was contained mostly within elite circles.  Here are a few things from the website: http://www.aboutfreemasons.com/Freemasons

What is the role of Christianity in Freemasonry?
Every Lodge has a sacred book open during meetings and this book is generally the Bible. Members swear their oaths on this book and must even declare their belief in a “Supreme Being” to become Masons. All of this leads some people to conclude that Christianity and Freemasonry are interconnected. In reality, though, the sacred book at every Lodge can be any sacred text chosen by the Lodge and members can choose to believe in any Supreme Being they wish – whether that being is the Christian God, a Muslim deity or Hindu god. In fact, Masons are very clear in indicating that they accept men of all religious faiths and backgrounds. Some Masonic orders – specifically the Knights Templar – are explicitly connected to Christianity.

Can a Christian be a Freemason?
Freemasons and Christianity have a long and sometimes complicated history. Early Freemasons were Christian men and in fact Christianity was incorporated into Freemasonry in some ways. Freemasons need to proclaim a faith in a Supreme Being and most Lodges use the Bible as a scared text. Early Practicing Masons helped to build cathedrals and churches and some of the churches around the world in fact have Masonic symbols upon them.

Is Freemasonry a religion?
Freemasonry is a fraternity or a social society. It is not a religious organization or political organization and in fact has no political or religious affiliations. Muslims, Jewish persons, and Christians can all become Masons and Freemasonry will not interfere with their religious beliefs at all.

As for that chart Crocket posted, all it says is that people are more frequently registering with one local church and choosing that as their sole home.  It has nothing to do with how frequently people attend religious services, nor how religious the people were.  For example, polls have shown many more people went to church (percentage wise) weekly in the 1950s and also more people believed in God than today, yet, if I were to believe your post, Americans would be more religious today.  

Since your so fond of copying and pasting, I'll do a little myself:

II. Religion in Eighteenth-Century America

Against a prevailing view that eighteenth-century Americans had not perpetuated the first settlers' passionate commitment to their faith, scholars now identify a high level of religious energy in colonies after 1700. According to one expert, religion was in the "ascension rather than the declension"; another sees a "rising vitality in religious life" from 1700 onward; a third finds religion in many parts of the colonies in a state of "feverish growth." Figures on church attendance and church formation support these opinions. Between 1700 and 1740, an estimated 75 to 80 percent of the population attended churches, which were being built at a headlong pace.

Toward mid-century the country experienced its first major religious revival. The Great Awakening swept the English-speaking world, as religious energy vibrated between England, Wales, Scotland and the American colonies in the 1730s and 1740s. In America, the Awakening signaled the advent of an encompassing evangelicalism--the belief that the essence of religious experience was the "new birth," inspired by the preaching of the Word. It invigorated even as it divided churches. The supporters of the Awakening and its evangelical thrust--Presbyterians, Baptists and Methodists--became the largest American Protestant denominations by the first decades of the nineteenth century. Opponents of the Awakening or those split by it--Anglicans, Quakers, and Congregationalists--were left behind.

As for Ingersoll, he was not mentioned once in my United States History textbook last year so I highly doubt that "He was seen and heard by more Americans than would see or hear any other human being until the advent of radio and motion pictures."

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Sorry but you are really starting to check out of reality. This is where you hate america first believers always fail. You are so intent on finding every fault with america you put blinders on to all other countries to try and make your case. It isn't possible because human nature doesn't just change across the US border and people become all good and wonderful. 
> But just for laughs
> England was around the world hundreds  of years before before the existent of America invading countries.
> Spain was around the world hundreds of years before the US raping and killing in south America and far beyond.
> France was around the world hundreds of years before the us.
> The dutch were around the world. 
> Russia killed 30 to 40 million and had an entire western continent as a penal system and streatched around the world.
> China killed 60 million of their own.
> The mongals killed from one end of a continent to the other.
> ...


I'm not a "hate America firster".  I would argue that at this point, it's more likely to achieve freedom here in the long term than anywhere else.  That's why I'm not moving anytime soon.  I'm a hate-American government/State-firster.  The people are fine overall.  (conflating people and government is a MAJOR flaw in constitutionalist thought) Besides, the examples above don't really disprove what I said.  Those regimes still didn't kill on the scale that democracies have.  At any rate, if you (and the majority of others) accepted micro-secession, we could choose our own respective governments, and these arguments would be reduced to merely academic ones.  I don't mean to give the impression that I am calling you "anti-freedom" because you don't share my worldview, btw.  We are aiming toward freedom-you just stop before I do.  This is why I'm willing to work with you.  

Notice you said that human nature doesn't change anywhere.  I entirely agree with this.  This is why I don't trust democracies.  Not only do they have many of the flaws of other systems, they lack the incentive to avoid total war that monarchies have (because the monarch generally doesn't want to risk his property too much).  Plus, the monarch can relatively easily be overthrown-while the democratic apparatus exists almost indefinitely.  Look at the American Empire.  We retain many of the trappings of old-fashioned democratic-republicanism, but apply police statism domestically and imperialism abroad.

ETA: notice that the Frace/England/Russia examples you chose didn't occur till after elected bodies were adopted.  They got into petty wars and such, but there was no _total war_ until ideals of democracy came about.  Also note that kings typically went to war along with the people, and as I noted before, they bore the risk of engaging in war-making total war far less likely.

----------


## SisCyn

> What is the role of Christianity in Freemasonry?
> Every Lodge has a sacred book open during meetings and this book is generally the Bible. Members swear their oaths on this book and must even declare their belief in a Supreme Being to become Masons. All of this leads some people to conclude that Christianity and Freemasonry are interconnected. *In reality, though, the sacred book at every Lodge can be any sacred text chosen by the Lodge and members can choose to believe in any Supreme Being they wish  whether that being is the Christian God, a Muslim deity or Hindu god. In fact, Masons are very clear in indicating that they accept men of all religious faiths and backgrounds.* Some Masonic orders  specifically the Knights Templar  are explicitly connected to Christianity.
> 
> Is Freemasonry a religion?
> Freemasonry is a fraternity or a social society. It is not a religious organization or political organization and in fact has no political or religious affiliations. *Muslims, Jewish persons, and Christians can all become Masons and Freemasonry will not interfere with their religious beliefs at all*.


These facts that you are pointing out here above backs up the contention that the United States was never intended to be formed as a Christian nation.  It was Freemasonry, not Christianity, that was the dominant force behind the Constitution.




> "...There were ultimately five dominant and guiding spirits behind the Constitution - Washington, Franklin, Randolph, Jefferson and John Adams. Of these, the first three were active Freemasons, but men who took their Freemasonry extremely seriously - men who subscribed fervently to its ideals, whose entire orientation had been shaped and conditioned by it. And Adam's position, though he himself is not known to have been a Freemason was virtually identical to theirs. When he became president, moreover, he appointed a prominent Freemason, John Marshall, as first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court." (1)
> 
> "Some of the greatest names of the American Revolution were Masons: Ethan Alien, Edmund Burke, John Claypoole, William Daws, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, John Paul Jones, Robert Livingston, Paul Revere, Colonel Benjamin Tupper, and George Washington. Of the 56 signers of The Declaration of Independence, eight were known Masons and seven others exhibited strong evidence of Masonic membership. Of the forty signers of the Constitution, nine were known Masons, 13 exhibited evidence of Masonic membership, and six more later became Masons. 
> "There were many other Masonic influences in early American history: (1) Lafayette, the French liaison to the Colonies, without whose aid the war could not have been won, was a Freemason; (2) the majority of the commanders of the Continental Army were Freemasons and members of "Army Lodges"; (3) most of George Washington's generals were Freemasons; the Boston Tea Party was planned at the Green Dragon Tavern, also known as the "Freemasons' Arms" and "the Headquarters of the Revolution"; (4) George Washington was sworn in as the first President of the United States by Robert Livingston, Grand Master of New York's Masonic lodge, and the Bible on which he took his oath was from his own Masonic lodge; and (5) the Cornerstone of the Capital Building was laid by the Grand Lodge of Maryland." (2)
> 
> From American Masonic History - What Are America's True Roots?



There is another kind of "conspiracy theory" that has been floating around for over 150 years.  That is that the government of the United States was based upon Sir Francis Bacon's utopian vision that was found in his novel New Atlantis:




> Some scholars believe that Bacon's vision for a Utopian New World in North America was laid out in his novel New Atlantis, which depicts a mythical island, Bensalem, located somewhere between Peru and Japan. He envisioned a land where there would be greater rights for women, the abolition of slavery, elimination of debtors' prisons, separation of church and state, and freedom of religious and political expression.[44][45][46][47] Francis Bacon played a leading role in creating the British colonies, especially in Virginia, the Carolinas, and Newfoundland in northeastern Canada.
> 
> His government report on The Virginia Colony was submitted in 1609. In 1610 Bacon and his associates received a charter from the king to form the Tresurer and the Companye of Adventurers and planter of the Cittye of london and Bristoll for the Collonye or plantacon in Newfoundland[48] and sent John Guy to found a colony there. In 1910 Newfoundland issued a postage stamp to commemorate Bacon's role in establishing the province. The stamp describes Bacon as, "the guiding spirit in Colonization Schemes in 1610."[15] Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States wrote: "Bacon, Locke and Newton. I consider them as the three greatest men that have ever lived, without any exception, and as having laid the foundation of those superstructures which have been raised in the Physical and Moral sciences".[49]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_bacon#Influence

I believe that it is possible that the Rosicrucian and Freemasonry movements were secret organizations that were formed in order to subvert the dominance of the Roman Catholic Church that forbade scientific inquiry and free thought.

The founders were well aware of how science and progress had been driven underground for hundreds of years by a ruling religion.  Hence the way that the constituion is worded, conspicuously leaving out the name of Jesus and Christianity, made it clear that there was to be no official or established religion that would be the defacto government of the United States.

----------


## klamath

> I'm not a "hate America firster".  I would argue that at this point, it's more likely to achieve freedom here in the long term than anywhere else.  That's why I'm not moving anytime soon.  I'm a hate-American government/State-firster.  The people are fine overall.  (conflating people and government is a MAJOR flaw in constitutionalist thought) Besides, the examples above don't really disprove what I said.  Those regimes still didn't kill on the scale that democracies have.  At any rate, if you (and the majority of others) accepted micro-secession, we could choose our own respective governments, and these arguments would be reduced to merely academic ones.  I don't mean to give the impression that I am calling you "anti-freedom" because you don't share my worldview, btw.  We are aiming toward freedom-you just stop before I do.  This is why I'm willing to work with you.
> 
> 
> Notice you said that human nature doesn't change anywhere.  I entirely agree with this.  This is why I don't trust democracies.  Not only do they have many of the flaws of other systems, they lack the incentive to avoid total war that monarchies have (because the monarch generally doesn't want to risk his property too much).  Plus, the monarch can relatively easily be overthrown-while the democratic apparatus exists almost indefinitely.  Look at the American Empire.  We retain many of the trappings of old-fashioned democratic-republicanism, but apply police statism domestically and imperialism abroad.
> 
> ETA: notice that the Frace/England/Russia examples you chose didn't occur till after elected bodies were adopted.  They got into petty wars and such, but there was no _total war_ until ideals of democracy came about.  Also note that kings typically went to war along with the people, and as I noted before, they bore the risk of engaging in war-making total war far less likely.


Sorry but they were not democrasies. And yes monarchs did without question engage in foreign war and police brutality. Hitler was a monarch. Ghengis khan was a monarch Stalin was a monarch, Mao was a monarch. I do not ague with you that democrasies are just as brutal but you are flat out wrong in saying they are more brutal. You are confusing the advancement of war making technology with democrasy. Total war would absolutely have been carried out if the war making technology and technical logistitcal support would have been available in centuries past except even more brutal. Even at that warfare was carried to all reaches of the earth even when just the act of crossing an ocean was barely possible without high loss rates to nature.
As far as micro secession I have lived it way before you were born. I still do as much as possible. I live where my nearest neighbor is 7 air miles away. When my family moved here 45 years ago we bothered nobody. We rarely went to town grew much of our own food supplied our own energy, homeschooled, and respected the environment.
But you know what we didn't respect the enviroment like other people thought it should be. Even mankind being in a wilderness was called with a sneer "inholders". Soon the federal agencies were notified and you know what the little dream of microsecession became a joke. Court orders and federal marshalls were the rule of the day. The choices were to give up and run, stand your ground and kill and soon be aniilated  or work with the constitution system we have and work the  court and legal route.
Using that system I am still here. I hate courts and I hate fighting government but there is always some conflicting group of people that do not like how other people are living their lives and the only way to efectively deal with it is our constitution system. It is by no mean perfect and it never will be because human nature makes it that way.

----------


## Lishy

I like Benjamin Franklin. He's like the American version of Karl Marx. His philosophies are astonishing!

----------


## slamhead

Thomas Jefferson would have to be my favorite. He was an intellectual and knew the dangers of letting government get to big. My second choice would be George Washington because of his selflessness. He could have been king if he wanted to. My third choice would be Samuel Adams as he like to stir things up and was promoting a revolution long before anyone else was..just like Ron Paul.

My least favorite is Alexander Hamilton. He was the big government establishment guy. IIRC he wanted the US to be a monarchy. Jefferson and Hamilton were complete opposites. It was fitting that Aaron Burr, Jefferson's vice president shot and killed Hamilton. As we can see now, Hamilton's support for a central bank and Jefferson's opposition, tells us who was the better of the two.

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

> These facts that you are pointing out here above backs up the contention that the United States was never intended to be formed as a Christian nation. It was Freemasonry, not Christianity, that was the dominant force behind the Constitution.


Why because Freemasons almost always used the Bible as their book of choice.  Or the fact that very few of the prominent members of society actually were Masons.  Or the fact that, as you highlighted, Freemasonry doesn't actually interfere with religious beliefs at all.  Or the fact that the masses were overwhelmingly Christian and not just nominally but in practice.  Only a fool would claim this was intended to be a freemasons society.  




> There is another kind of "conspiracy theory" that has been floating around for over 150 years. That is that the government of the United States was based upon Sir Francis Bacon's utopian vision that was found in his novel New Atlantis:


And its just that, a conspiracy theory.  Not a stitch of evidence.  And what was the point of pointing out that a handful of the signers of the Declaration and Constitution were freemasons, they weren't close to a majority and the majority of the Freemasons still remained devoutly Christian.




> I believe that it is possible that the Rosicrucian and Freemasonry movements were secret organizations that were formed in order to subvert the dominance of the Roman Catholic Church that forbade scientific inquiry and free thought.
> 
> The founders were well aware of how science and progress had been driven underground for hundreds of years by a ruling religion. Hence the way that the constituion is worded, conspicuously leaving out the name of Jesus and Christianity, made it clear that there was to be no official or established religion that would be the defacto government of the United States.


Oh do you believe that?  Interesting, thanks for telling me.  Is there any truth to the claim, of course not.  Just another conspiracy theory by you.  As for science and scientific inquiry, the Scientific Revolution came about because of Christians, and Christianity is the only logical basis for science itself.  Without a Godly worldview, there would have been no basis for Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment thinkers to believe that the universe was governed by constant laws.  Check out the book by Rodney Starks called _For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery_.  From Copernicus to Galileo to Newton, the majority of scientists during Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment had Christian world views.  And besides, during the middle ages, it was the church that preserved science and learning of old.  See Aquinas and other monks who saved ancient learnings.  

During the time of the founders, states were seen as the main drivers for religious thought.  The founders, when establishing the national government, knew this.  Massacusetts had an established state church for the first few decades of its existence and nobody freaked out.  Furthermore, children learned out of the Bible and prayed in public schools because state governments could do that.  Because America was and still is a Christian Nation on a state level.  As for the national level though, you can look to John Adams and his National Day of Fasting and Prayer during 1798 to show the founders had no problems appealing to Christ. This was because religious determination was ultimately meant to be left up to the states and local governments.  The reason God is not mentioned in the Constitution is because there was no reason to mention Him; the Constitution was about the function of government.  The Declaration mentioned Him four times previously, and that is the intellectual framework under which the founders were working.  And the Declaration is not deistic as evidenced by its plea for divine providence (God coming into the world and helping the glorious American cause as opposed to a clockmaker who made the world but is now no longer interested in it).

Please read this article before commenting any more, it does a great job of dealing with the "No direct reference to Christ" mention that ignorant rubes such as yourself think "proves" the US is not a Christian nation: http://www.wnd.com/2003/08/20465/

----------


## SisCyn

> You are correct.


Thank you!

----------


## SisCyn

> Please read this article before commenting any more, it does a great job of dealing with the "No direct reference to Christ" mention that ignorant rubes such as yourself think "proves" the US is not a Christian nation: http://www.wnd.com/2003/08/20465/


There are an awfully lot of assumptions and explanations in that article.  Reminds me so much of Biblical apologists who attempt to explain what was in the mind of a writer, and it is anything but what they wrote.

So what are the benefits, advantages, and ultimate goal of being correct in the position that the United States is a Christian nation?

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

Another great choice

Haym Salomon -The Revolution's Indispensable Financial Genius

http://www.revolutionarywararchives.org/salomon.html

----------


## SisCyn

> And its just that, a conspiracy theory.  Not a stitch of evidence.  And what was the point of pointing out that a handful of the signers of the Declaration and Constitution were freemasons, they weren't close to a majority and the majority of the Freemasons still remained devoutly Christian.
> 
> Oh do you believe that?  Interesting, thanks for telling me.  Is there any truth to the claim, of course not.  Just another conspiracy theory by you.  As for science and scientific inquiry, the Scientific Revolution came about because of Christians, and Christianity is the only logical basis for science itself.  Without a Godly worldview, there would have been no basis for Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment thinkers to believe that the universe was governed by constant laws.  Check out the book by Rodney Starks called _For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery_.  From Copernicus to Galileo to Newton, the majority of scientists during Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment had Christian world views.  And besides, during the middle ages, it was the church that preserved science and learning of old.  See Aquinas and other monks who saved ancient learnings.



Good documentary on Freemasonry, should you wish to expand your knowledge on them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7YZ1A_1FX8

----------


## One Last Battle!

Patrick Henry is the obvious choice. He actually stuck to his guns when elected, unlike Jefferson.

----------


## JohnGalt1225

> I disagree. Calvinist thought is a statist form of thinking. The individual has no agency, no free will, no liberty. God is gonna save you and damn what you think or want. Calvinist thought makes God a tyrant. It is not the "foundation of liberty."


Agreed completely.  Calvinism is is anathema to liberty.  Geneva was a theocracy under Calvin.  This idea that Calvinism is the "foundation of liberty" is absurd.

----------


## Humanae Libertas

Patrick Henry -an anti-federalist. He pointed out the many flaws in the Constitution that many of us are pointing out today (ex. the Presidency, lack of States Powers (or Rights). etc.).

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Patrick Henry -an anti-federalist. He pointed out the many flaws in the Constitution that many of us are pointing out today (ex. the Presidency, lack of States Powers (or Rights). etc.).


Henry did not point out a single specific flaw in the Constitution.  That's a pile of baloney.

----------


## osan

> No jefferson would be of a neocon beliefs in modern day. Jefferson like the modern neocon was not satified with the borders of the United States and had visions of a grander country just like modern neocons are not satified with modern US bounderies and hav vision of a grander empire.


This is perhaps an unreasonable assessment.  First of all, political contexts were different in those days.  There were 13 smallish states and a whole load of foreign and possibly unfriendly territories directly attached.  Were I in his place, I may have been of a similar mind and so might you or anyone else with any sense.  It is easy to judge 200+ years later without really understanding the minds of the people in question.

As for favorites, Patrick Henry hands down.  He was not one to compromise on the basics, making him a man after my own heart.

----------


## justinjj

> I beg to differ.  For if you believe the founders "suck" than I don't really understand why you are on these boards supporting Ron Paul/ liberty.  Ron's entire political philosophy can be derived from the thought of different founders (no natl bank from Jefferson, no foreign entanglements from Washington, strong gun supporter like all the founders, etc etc.)  The founding fathers were among the most brilliant men of all times and you owe your current freedom to them.  I don't know what you dislike about them as a whole (I can understand individual disagreements however).  
> 
> And for the record I would choose Demint out of that list.



Americans had much more freedom under British control, up until King George III, they pretty much left us alone.   I probably would have been a Tory in the American Revolution.  I would prefer a centralized government that exists overseas and only occassionally violates our rights over a centralized "representative" government here in America that violates our rights ever day.  How is that taxation *with* representation working out for you?  Besides, any kind of moral high ground was lost during the Whiskey Rebellion.  I'm definitely not a Constitution worshipper like most of the people on here.  As can be seen by our current bloated government, the Constitution is one of the most ineffective documents ever created.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Americans had much more freedom under British control, up until King George III, they pretty much left us alone.   I probably would have been a Tory in the American Revolution.  I would prefer a centralized government that exists overseas and only occassionally violates our rights over a centralized "representative" government here in America that violates our rights ever day.  How is that taxation *with* representation working out for you?  Besides, any kind of moral high ground was lost during the Whiskey Rebellion.  I'm definitely not a Constitution worshipper like most of the people on here.  As can be seen by our current bloated government, the Constitution is one of the most ineffective documents ever created.


+rep  A man after my own heart.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> You cannot be serious. Hamilton is literally the father of big government. He wanted the president to be appointed for life, for god's sake. He wanted the states to have no rights, and he is the first proponent of the living constitution. Marshall is even worse, because as chief justice he forced federalist policies on Dem-Rep administrations. Together, they screwed our nation big time.


Marshall and Hamilton were the two greatest defenders of freedom in US history. Adam's was third (he kept us safe from the French).

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Henry did not point out a single specific flaw in the Constitution.  That's a pile of baloney.


Incorrect, good sir.  He pointed out a lot of them.  In this speech alone he makes 10 arguments against it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Marshall and Hamilton were the two greatest defenders of freedom in US history.* Adam's was third (he kept us safe from the French).


LMAO!!!

----------


## merrimac

Philisophically, Jefferson is my favorite.

But taking everything into account, what they accomplished, their character, I'd have to say George Washington.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> LMAO!!!


If not for the Central Bank, we would still be in debt. Also, the Alien and Sedition Act was needed to keep us safe, and everything would have collapsed if the Whiskey Rebellion had not been crushed. We would be living in chaos. Probably conquered by France too.

----------


## MaxPower

> Thomas Jefferson was a genius. Unfortunately power corrupted him as he became president.





> Thomas Jefferson with his presidency cut out.


These kinds of responses really gall me. Jefferson's presidency was one of the very best our country has ever had.

Granted, the Louisiana Purchase was an act of dubious legality by Jefferson's own admission (in fact, he first tried to push a constitutional amendment to get the job done, but was dissuaded by his own cabinet members, who wanted him to push ahead before Napoleon soured on the deal), but I think it is grossly unfair to ignore all the good he did as president in favor of attacking him over this single act (which was itself still not half as bad as what most other presidents have done). *In conjunction with the Democratic-Republican Congress, President Jefferson cut the national debt by a third, substantially reduced the number of federal employees, repealed the whiskey tax, property taxes, and all other internal taxes- such that the federal government was running on nothing but tariffs, land sales and postage stamps- repealed the Alien and Sedition Acts, freed and pardoned everyone prosecuted under said acts, and banned the trans-Atlantic slave trade.*

Now, again, it did have its holes- the Louisiana Purchase and the Embargo Act chief among them- but Jefferson's presidency ranks near the very top in our country's history in terms of libertarian policy accomplishments.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Incorrect, good sir.  He pointed out a lot of them.  In this speech alone he makes 10 arguments against it.


None of this stuff happened under the Founders Constitution.  The Federal share of the GNP was only 1.75% in 1912, smaller than it was when the Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1781.

----------


## klamath

> This is perhaps an unreasonable assessment.  First of all, political contexts were different in those days.  There were 13 smallish states and a whole load of foreign and possibly unfriendly territories directly attached.  Were I in his place, I may have been of a similar mind and so might you or anyone else with any sense.  It is easy to judge 200+ years later without really understanding the minds of the people in question.
> 
> As for favorites, Patrick Henry hands down.  He was not one to compromise on the basics, making him a man after my own heart.


 No actually it is not an unreasonable ascessment. Expanding ones empire is a very solid trait of political leaders. It is the number one trait behind the drive to seek executive power. Jefferson showed no deviation from this trait. They believe they are doing something great and grand for their country, society and people. Neocons very strongly believe this regardless of how people around here try and paint them. The majority of the people to this day still believe in an interventist government.

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

> Americans had much more freedom under British control, up until King George III, they pretty much left us alone. I probably would have been a Tory in the American Revolution. I would prefer a centralized government that exists overseas and only occassionally violates our rights over a centralized "representative" government here in America that violates our rights ever day. How is that taxation with representation working out for you? Besides, any kind of moral high ground was lost during the Whiskey Rebellion. I'm definitely not a Constitution worshipper like most of the people on here. As can be seen by our current bloated government, the Constitution is one of the most ineffective documents ever created.


I don't think you understand how the Constitution was meant to be followed.  What you see today is people blatantly ignoring the text of quite possibly the greatest document ever created, imo, without divine inspiraton (although I wouldn't be too surprised if God did indeed guide the process of its creation).  And yes there was freedom during the period of salutary neglect when the British left us  alone, and most every American didn't want to break away from that tradition.  However, once the British started to encroach on our God-given rights, colonists felt it necessary to protest.  When the King refused to back down, the war happened.  And then after the war, the Constitution was set up (after the Articles of Confederation).  If we hadn't broken away from Britain, you can bet you would have much less rights today than you do now.  Even though most modern politicians violate the Constitution, I have hope in people like Ron Paul who can bring us back to our true Constitutional foundations, and not just in rhetoric.

----------


## Matthew5

It's hard to pick just one, because each brought such a unique element to our founding. After ready John Adams' biography, I personally identify with his life in many ways. So despite the Alien and Sedition Act, I chose him.

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

> There are an awfully lot of assumptions and explanations in that article. Reminds me so much of Biblical apologists who attempt to explain what was in the mind of a writer, and it is anything but what they wrote.
> 
> So what are the benefits, advantages, and ultimate goal of being correct in the position that the United States is a Christian nation?


The benefit is that you understand the correct historical context of our founding and that much of our liberty that we enjoy today is a result of the Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian foundations that the country's creators were influenced by.  Don't continue to promote the deistic myth that our nation was founded by a bunch of anti-Christian zealots, for nearly the opposite is true.  Also, by understanding the true nature of the Constitution and states rights, you should be able to understand that the phrase "separation of church and state" isn't in the Constitution and was written by Jefferson to Baptists to assure them that there would be no encroachment on their right to believe whatever they want.  It does not mean government is somehow totally aloof from religious influence.  The founders understood that you can never be truly neutral in religious manners and promoting secularism is worse than allowing, for example, the ten commandments outside a courtroom.  From your posts, it seems that you aren't a religious person.  That's fine though.  You should be grateful your right to have free exercise or lack thereof exists.  For any Christian knows religious beliefs can't be forced, it has to be accepted by the individual.  That is partially why countries in europe that do have official national churches are becoming so atheistic.  It's because people don't want to support what they barely believe.  The US, without a national state church, has thriving religious practices.

----------


## pcosmar

Ben Franklin.
Though there are many great minds in the group, Ben strikes me as the most interesting guy to hang out with.

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

> It's hard to pick just one, because each brought such a unique element to our founding. After ready John Adams' biography, I personally identify with his life in many ways. So despite the Alien and Sedition Act, I chose him.


Did you read the David McCullough version.  I read it last summer; my favorite book of all time.  Although, as you pointed out, he did have his problems, he gets the historical shaft so often despite his prolific contributions.  And besides, more people on here should love the guy as he has one huge similarity to Ron Paul: being anti-war in a pro-war party.  When all the High Federalists were clamoring to go to war with France, Adams did the most he could to tune them down.  Even though public opinion wanted to go to war and would have assured his re-election, he kept us at peace and didn't enter into a totally unnecessary war (although there was the "quasi-war" but that was only some very small naval skirmishes and trading problems).

I think I'm going to rank mine (I voted for P. Henry but I'm reconsidering; as much as I love him and his rhetoric, he did not accomplish as much as many of the others on here):
1.  George Washington
2.  Thomas Jefferson
3.  John Adams
4.  Patrick Henry
5.  James Madison
6.  Alexander Hamilton 
7.  John Jay
8.  Thomas Paine
9.  Samuel Adams
10. Ben Franklin (I have this uber liberal english teacher that loves this guy and its forever sullied my image of him)

----------


## Matthew5

> Did you read the David McCullough version.  I read it last summer; my favorite book of all time.  Although, as you pointed out, he did have his problems, he gets the historical shaft so often despite his prolific contributions.  And besides, more people on here should love the guy as he has one huge similarity to Ron Paul: being anti-war in a pro-war party.  When all the High Federalists were clamoring to go to war with France, Adams did the most he could to tune them down.  Even though public opinion wanted to go to war and would have assured his re-election, he kept us at peace and didn't enter into a totally unnecessary war (although there was the "quasi-war" but that was only some very small naval skirmishes and trading problems).


Yep, it was the McCullough version! And yes, the "Quasi-War" was also a big deal. Everyone said his foreign policy was "dangerous" and would destroy the union. Looks like that worked out well!  He also seemed to be the strongest ally to Jefferson, even though they quarreled at times.

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

*PLEASE READ AND RESPOND TO THIS*

I am thinking about rolling with the idea of creating the greatest americans of the 19th century (besides Jefferson and Madison who were in this poll).  So some ideas about who to put in need to get floated around.  Deft the big name presidents like: John Quincy Adams, Andy Jackson, James Polk, Lincoln, Grant (better known as the general than president), and Grover Cleveland (Ron's favorite); and others that get suggested.  Also someone mentioned Lysander Spooner and Thomas Edison to throw in there.  I'd possibly throw Mark Twain, Frederick Douglas, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Joseph Smith, Cyrus McCormick, Noah Webster, John Calhoun, Henry Clay, Lewis and Clark (the pair), Ralph Waldo Emerson, William James, Robert E Lee, Horace Mann, John Marshall, William Lloyd Garrison, Susan B Anthony, JP Morgan, Elizabeth Caddy Stanton, Alexander Graham Bell, Walt Whitman, Andrew Carnegie, and John D. Rockefeller. 

Obviously this list is huge so I need some helping weening it down a lot, or you could throw out any other names that I forgot.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> *PLEASE READ AND RESPOND TO THIS*
> 
> I am thinking about rolling with the idea of creating the greatest americans of the 19th century (besides Jefferson and Madison who were in this poll).  So some ideas about who to put in need to get floated around.  Deft the big name presidents like: John Quincy Adams, Andy Jackson, James Polk, Lincoln, Grant (better known as the general than president), and Grover Cleveland (Ron's favorite); and others that get suggested.  Also someone mentioned Lysander Spooner and Thomas Edison to throw in there.  I'd possibly throw Mark Twain, Frederick Douglas, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Joseph Smith, Cyrus McCormick, Noah Webster, John Calhoun, Henry Clay, Lewis and Clark (the pair), Ralph Waldo Emerson, William James, Robert E Lee, Horace Mann, John Marshall, William Lloyd Garrison, Susan B Anthony, JP Morgan, Elizabeth Caddy Stanton, Alexander Graham Bell, Walt Whitman, Andrew Carnegie, and John D. Rockefeller. 
> 
> Obviously this list is huge so I need some helping weening it down a lot, or you could throw out any other names that I forgot.


Morgan and Rockefeller had great wealth but they were not great!

----------


## Pericles

> Thomas Jefferson was the most brilliant philosopher. 
> 
> Franklin had a remarkably well rounded life. One of the most well rounded lives in history.
> 
> But really, I would say John Jay is being criminally overlooked in this poll. He was one of the writers of the Federalist Papers. 
> 
> He was an abolitionist and non-interventionist, and proponent of a strong currency.
> 
> He served as the 6th President of the Continental Congress, 2nd U.S. Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the 2nd Governor of New York, and the 1st Supreme Court Justice of the United States.


George Mason is also worthy of mention.

----------


## Jtorsella

> *PLEASE READ AND RESPOND TO THIS*
> 
> I am thinking about rolling with the idea of creating the greatest americans of the 19th century (besides Jefferson and Madison who were in this poll).  So some ideas about who to put in need to get floated around.  Deft the big name presidents like: John Quincy Adams, Andy Jackson, James Polk, Lincoln, Grant (better known as the general than president), and Grover Cleveland (Ron's favorite); and others that get suggested.  Also someone mentioned Lysander Spooner and Thomas Edison to throw in there.  I'd possibly throw Mark Twain, Frederick Douglas, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Joseph Smith, Cyrus McCormick, Noah Webster, John Calhoun, Henry Clay, Lewis and Clark (the pair), Ralph Waldo Emerson, William James, Robert E Lee, Horace Mann, John Marshall, William Lloyd Garrison, Susan B Anthony, JP Morgan, Elizabeth Caddy Stanton, Alexander Graham Bell, Walt Whitman, Andrew Carnegie, and John D. Rockefeller. 
> 
> Obviously this list is huge so I need some helping weening it down a lot, or you could throw out any other names that I forgot.


Lincoln? In b4 buchanan.

----------


## Pericles

> It is amusing that Christians claim that America was founded by Christians and "Christian principles", when three of the first four Presidents of the United States, along with several Founding fathers,  were deists.  
> 
> I am not trying to start a fight with anyone, just pointing out the facts.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One could also argue that the second U.S. President, John Adams, was also a deist.  He said:
> 
> ...


And the guy putting together a good bit of the financing of the Revolution, Hyman Saloman, a Jewish founder.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *If not for the Central Bank, we would still be in debt.* Also, the Alien and Sedition Act was needed to keep us safe, and everything would have collapsed if the Whiskey Rebellion had not been crushed. We would be living in chaos. Probably conquered by France too.


That was a quick fix, and never truly resolved the national debt problem.  The supposed aim was to fix the problem of the failed Continental.  However, the dollar and First National Bank weren't rational solutions.  It's true that the war debt was paid off, but this was just short term.  The rational solution then (as now) would have been to get government out of the money business.  

P.S.
"A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national  blessing.  It will be powerful cement of our union.  It will also create  a necessity for keeping up taxation to such a degree which, without  being oppressive, will be a spur to industry." -Alexander Hamilton
The founders of the national bank, as you see, didn't really want a true end to debt.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> That was a quick fix, and never truly resolved the national debt problem.  The supposed aim was to fix the problem of the failed Continental.  However, the dollar and First National Bank weren't rational solutions.  It's true that the war debt was paid off, but this was just short term.  The rational solution then (as now) would have been to get government out of the money business.  
> 
> P.S.
> "A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national  blessing.  It will be powerful cement of our union.  It will also create  a necessity for keeping up taxation to such a degree which, without  being oppressive, will be a spur to industry." -Alexander Hamilton
> The founders of the national bank, as you see, didn't really want a true end to debt.


Nah, we would have gone bankrupt and been conquered by France. Either that or conquered by the Whiskey Rebellion rebels.

You do know I've been kidding about this, right?

----------


## merrimac

I would say Franklin if he followed all of his own sayings and advice.  But Washington was the least hypocritical founding father which is why he gets my vote.

----------


## Bosco Warden

I liked Old Hickory, first POTUS to ever pay off the National Debt, by getting rid of the Second National Bank. but I know he wasnt a "founding father" but still a good POTUS. 

I know he wasnt a favorite of the Native Americans but he was just a product of his environment.

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

> I liked Old Hickory, first POTUS to ever pay off the National Debt, by getting rid of the Second National Bank. but I know he wasnt a "founding father" but still a good POTUS. 
> 
> I know he wasnt a favorite of the Native Americans but he was just a product of his environment.


I will soon be creating another thread with greatest 19th century Americans so good Ol' Andy will appear there.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Nah, we would have gone bankrupt and been conquered by France. Either that or conquered by the Whiskey Rebellion rebels.
> 
> You do know I've been kidding about this, right?


Sorry, your humor didn't translate on the webbernets.  Sorry!  /embarrassed

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> And the guy putting together a good bit of the financing of the Revolution, Hyman Saloman, a Jewish founder.


Ah yes, I mentioned him earlier. For the anti-Jew people.

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

> Ah yes, I mentioned him earlier. For the anti-Jew people.


Georgia i couldn't include every single American from the founding era, I tried to include what I thought the most common responses would be, altho leaving out Jay was admittedly a mistake.  But Hyman Saloman...  (insert stereotypical joke about Jews always being the moneyed in society... jk, excuse my jests)

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> Georgia i couldn't include every single American from the founding era, I tried to include what I thought the most common responses would be, altho leaving out Jay was admittedly a mistake.  But Hyman Saloman...  (insert stereotypical joke about Jews always being the moneyed in society... jk, excuse my jests)


No, I wasn't calling you a Jew-hater.

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

> No, I wasn't calling you a Jew-hater.


Ok good, I wasn't sure if you had meant that or not.  But did you really think Saloman should have been included?

----------


## ConsideringRonPaul

Also how does I make it so when I quote someone it says "originally posted by ...so and so..." because mine just look like anonymous quotes whenever I do them?

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> Ok good, I wasn't sure if you had meant that or not.  But did you really think Saloman should have been included?


Yeah Saloman isn't well known but in terms of significance I think he should be included.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> Also how does I make it so when I quote someone it says "originally posted by ...so and so..." because mine just look like anonymous quotes whenever I do them?


Not sure. Ask a mod

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Samuel Adams
> 
> He is the father of Calvinist political action.


^^^Am I the only one who picked an abolitionist founding father?

----------

