# News & Current Events > U.S. Political News >  Was America founded on Judeo-Christian Principles?  Of Course it was!

## Deborah K

The following thread prompted this one:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...125338&page=38

I reject the obvious desire to revise history on this matter. It is as though our  heritage is something that should be feared and reviled, and so it must be denied.  An Orwellian trait to be sure.

Ive decided to share some facts about this issue, but before I get into it, allow me to preface this by stating that I believe in a Creator, and I believe that Christ was the human manifestation of that Creator.  However, I do not belong to a religious organization.  I am a recovering Catholic.  I come from a very long line of Catholics that includes priests and nuns on my French-Canadian Fathers side.  My Mother was raised with no religion as her Father was an atheist. I was baptized right after birth, but my parents did not raise me Catholic.  I practiced Catholicism of my own volition as a young girl, up until the Priest molestation scandal and subsequent illegal alien advocacy of the Catholic Church.

While I believe there is a place in the world for religion, I also believe that way too many people see it as an end, rather than a means to an end.  This undermines a persons wisdom and sense of balance. Instead of viewing the church as a vehicle in which to teach people about the source of divine power and through which divine power can be channeled into mans nature, people view the church as the power itself. And the church allows and even encourages this line of thinking. I believe this is extremely deceptive and destructive. 

I see organized religion in the same way as I see government.  If it is allowed to be corrupted, it will be.  The idea of religion, as in the idea of capitalism is not, in and of itself, corrupt. But human nature dictates that those who are left to their own devices without any oversight or intervention, will inevitably succumb to the greed and corruption that comes with too much power.  

The founders knew this.  You can tell they did when you read the Declaration of Independence.  Read how they describe King George.  Their goal was to protect us against corruption of power. [They] delivered to us a system of government which has enjoyed unprecedented success: we are now the worlds longest on-going constitutional republic.  Two hundred years under the same document- and under one form of government  is an accomplishment unknown among contemporary nations.  For example: Russia, Italy, Spain, and other nations underwent revolutions about the same time as the American Revolution, but with very different results.   Consider France: in the last 200 years it has gone through seven completely different forms of governments; Italy has over 50 tries, yet we are still in our first.

Where then, did our Founding Fathers acquire the ideas that produced such longevity?   Other nations certainly had access to what our Founders utilized, yet evidently chose not to.  From what sources did our Founders choose their ideas?

This question was asked by political science professors at the University of Houston.  They rightfully felt that they could determine the source of the Founders ideas if they could collect the writings from the Founding Era and see whom the Founders were quoting.

The researchers assembled 15,000 writings from the founding Era  no small sample  and searched those writings.  That project spanned ten years; but at the end of that time, the researchers had isolated 3,154 direct quotes made by the Founders and had identified the source of those quotes.

The researchers discovered that Baron Charles de Montesquieu was the man quoted most often by the founding fathers, with 8.3 percent of the Founders quotes being taken from his writings.  Sir William Blackstone was the second most-quoted individual with 7.9 percent of the Founders quotes, and John Locke was third with 2.9 percent. 

Surprisingly, the researchers discovered that the founders quoted directly out of the bible 4 times more than they quoted Montesquieu, 4 times more often than they quoted Blackstone, and 12 times more often than they quoted John Locke.  Thirty four percent of the Founders quotes came directly out of the bible.

The study was even more impressive when the source of the ideas used by Montesquieu, Blackstone, and Locke were identified. Consider for example, the source of Blackstones ideas.  Blackstones Commentaries on the Laws was first introduced in 1768, and for the next 100 years Americas courts quoted Blackstone to settle disputes, to define words, and to examine procedure; Blackstones Commentaries were the final word in the Supreme Courts.  So what was a significant source of Blackstones ideas?  Perhaps the best answer to that question can be given through the life of Charles Finney. 

Charles Finney is known as a famous revivalist, minister, and preacher from one of Americas greatest revivals; the Second Great Awakening in the early 1800s.  Finney, in his autobiography, spoke of how he received his call to ministry.  He explained that  having determined to become a lawyer  he, like all other law students at the time, commenced the study of Blackstones Commentaries on the Laws. Finney observed that Blackstones Commentaries not only provided the laws, it also provided the Biblical concepts on which those laws were based.  Finney explained that in the process of studying Blackstone, he read so much of the Bible that he became a Christian and received his call to the ministry.  Finneys life story clearly identified a major source of Blackstones ideas for law.

So, while 34% of the Founders quotes came directly out of the Bible, many of their quotes were taken from men  like Blackstone  who had used the Bible to arrive at their own conclusions.

This doesnt even include Supreme Court decisions, Congressional records, speeches, inaugurations, etc. all of which include sources of Biblical content and concepts.  I can produce those as well, if need be ,as well as what was taught in American schools for the first 175 years.

Bear in mind, the above is not some made up opinion, it is well documented, irrefutable research into actual quotes from the Founders. 


Sources: 

David Barton, Original Intent, 1997

Donald Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism 1988   

The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thought  American Political Science Review

----------


## NeoRayden

Even though it wasnt founded on Christian values if that is what makes you vote for Paul then so be it.

----------


## Tdcci

That is the definitive proof that America was "founded on Judeo-Christian Principles"? Laughable. There are many cute things in the bible- the teachings of Jesus, turn the other cheek etc which are never actually practiced in Christianity or Judaism. These are what are most quoted (see: Thomas Jefferson's Bible). The dogma, the laws in Deuteronomy are what are actually followed by Jews and Christians, and manipulated for the church's political desires. You didn't answer the question of what these "Judeo-Christian Principles" are. You don't have to be a Christian to quote the bible. In fact, I will quote the bible now.




> Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death.  Such evil must be purged from Israel.  (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)





> You should not let a sorceress live.  (Exodus 22:17 NAB)





> "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."  (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)





> Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death.  (Exodus 21:15 NAB)





> If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness.  (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)





> All who curse their father or mother must be put to death.  They are guilty of a capital offense.  (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)





> If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death.  (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)





> A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death.  (Leviticus 21:9 NAB





> Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed.  (Exodus 22:19 NAB)





> They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.  (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)





> If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord."  When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through.  (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)





> Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods.  In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully.  If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock.  Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it.  Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God.  That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt.  Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction.  Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you.  He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors.  "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him."  (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)





> But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house.  Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.  (Deuteronomy  22:20-21 NAB)





> If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him.  Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you.  You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery.  And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst.  (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)





> Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden.  When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death.  (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)





> Suppose there are prophets among you, or those who have dreams about the future, and they promise you signs or miracles,  and the predicted signs or miracles take place.  If the prophets then say, 'Come, let us worship the gods of foreign nations,' do not listen to them.  The LORD your God is testing you to see if you love him with all your heart and soul.  Serve only the LORD your God and fear him alone.  Obey his commands, listen to his voice, and cling to him.  The false prophets or dreamers who try to lead you astray must be put to death, for they encourage rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of slavery in the land of Egypt.  Since they try to keep you from following the LORD your God, you must execute them to remove the evil from among you.  (Deuteronomy 13:1-5 NLT)





> But any prophet who claims to give a message from another god or who falsely claims to speak for me must die.'  You may wonder, 'How will we know whether the prophecy is from the LORD or not?'  If the prophet predicts something in the LORD's name and it does not happen, the LORD did not give the message.  That prophet has spoken on his own and need not be feared.  (Deuteronomy 18:20-22 NLT)





> So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired.  As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies.  Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies.  So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever.  Amen.  That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires.  Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.  And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other.  Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.  When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.  Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip.  They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful.  They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents.  They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving.  They are fully aware of God's death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway.  And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.  (Romans 1:24-32 NLT)





> For the LORD had said to Moses, 'Exempt the tribe of Levi from the census; do not include them when you count the rest of the Israelites.  You must put the Levites in charge of the Tabernacle of the Covenant, along with its furnishings and equipment.  They must carry the Tabernacle and its equipment as you travel, and they must care for it and camp around it.  Whenever the Tabernacle is moved, the Levites will take it down and set it up again.  Anyone else who goes too near the Tabernacle will be executed.'  (Numbers 1:48-51 NLT)





> The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever.  It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy.  Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy.  Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community.  Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest.  I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.'  (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)




If I were to go on (and believe me I could) it would be a significant percentage of my writings, I'm sure.

----------


## Deborah K

Tdcc, you have, not surprisingly, completely missed the point.  Your biblical quotes do not refute the fact that our  Founders chose a majority of their ideas for our Founding documents(based on their own writings) from the bible and biblical concepts.

NeoRayden:



> Even though it wasnt founded on Christian values if that is what makes you vote for Paul then so be it.


If you even read what I wrote, then tell me exactly how you can defend that erroneous argument.  Start by refuting what I wrote, if you would, please.

So what if our nation was founded on Biblical principles? What exactly is it about this that threatens you so?

----------


## ForLiberty-RonPaul

oh my goodness. read a history book please. 

one word - JAMESTOWN

----------


## Cleaner44

Who cares if if was founded on judeo or karate or kung fu values?

----------


## Patriot123

Um, no. Sorry, but no. America was not founded on Jewish values, Christian values, or anything in between. Our founders were not Christian, nor were they Jewish, and again nor where they anything in between.

----------


## ToryNotion

Liberty and Liberal (properly understood) ideas have only flourished in this world where Christianity has flourished because Christian doctrine affirms the worth of each and every human being.  Where Christianity has not taken a foothold collectivism reigns (and its making a comeback in Christendom as well, unfortunately).

----------


## Deborah K

> Um, no. Sorry, but no. America was not founded on Jewish values, Christian values, or anything in between. Our founders were not Christian, nor were they Jewish, and again nor where they anything in between.


ROFL!!!  Thirty five of the Founding Fathers who worked on the Constitution were members of the orthodox Christian Churches and others were evangelical Christians.  Heheh are you implying they were all atheists?  Where is your evidence of this?  LOL

----------


## Deborah K

> Who cares if if was founded on judeo or karate or kung fu values?


I don't care either.  But I'll be damned if I'm going to stand by and let these fools who refuse to crack open a history book revise history. 

Has anyone read 1984?  I had to read it in high school 200 years ago.....anyway.....the job of the main character, Winston, was to rewrite history to fit the agenda of big brother.  If atheists and the like keep parroting the lies regarding the founders and their documents, sooner or later, most of the media-mall zombies are going to believe it as the truth much like they already do about the lie of 'Separation of Church and State'.

----------


## Paulitician

While I agree to an extent, I don't believe only Christianity or Judaism can lay claim to those principles.  So to me, it's rather irrelevant.

----------


## Tdcci

> ROFL!!!  Thirty five of the Founding Fathers who worked on the Constitution were members of the orthodox Christian Churches and others were evangelical Christians.  Heheh are you implying they were all atheists?  Where is your evidence of this?  LOL


Typical backwards Christian logic. When you claim a god exists, and I ask you to prove it, you can't ask me to prove it DOESNT exist because YOU made the assertion! Likewise, YOU must prove that a) they were religious and b) it wholly influenced America's creation; something EASILY attributed to religion like a state religion, not using general attributes like kindness or perserverance!

----------


## mtmedlin

1. I would like a list of the people who you claim were christians.

2. Many ideas parroted in the Bible are not ideas solely of the Bible. To say that they used a certain principle that turn up in the Bible is one thing. To attempt to say that those principles originated from the Bible is another. I believe that many of the principles that are attributed to Christianity were actually laid out by Plato roughly 330 years before Jesus ever existed. This argument is typical of Christian arrogance.

3. The majority of our laws are based on English Common law, NOT THE BIBLE. English Common law has major components added to it by Germanic Law and ISLAMIC law. 

I have done my history on this and Christians and Christianity DID play a part in the formation of our country and her founding documents but the bloated sense of accomplishment that many christian "historians" have is insulting to those of us that dont take in false propaganda.

----------


## mtmedlin

> I don't care either.  But I'll be damned if I'm going to stand by and let these fools who refuse to crack open a history book revise history. 
> 
> Has anyone read 1984?  I had to read it in high school 200 years ago.....anyway.....the job of the main character, Winston, was to rewrite history to fit the agenda of big brother.  If atheists and the like keep parroting the lies regarding the founders and their documents, sooner or later, most of the media-mall zombies are going to believe it as the truth much like they already do about the lie of 'Separation of Church and State'.


The lie of Seperation of Church and State. What lie? It was a suggestion by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a church. The first amendment supports his opinion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"

If they cannot make any laws resecting or prohibiting isnt this a "wall of Seperation between church and state"?

----------


## clouds

this is ridiculous. You guys are nitpicking what each other say. A good bit of America's founding did have to do with religious freedom, obviously. The USA, on the other hand, has more to do with political freedom.

----------


## jglapski

What did the Founders actually write?
"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 tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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."
-passed unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams

With respect to Blackstone's thoughts being based on Christianity, let's hear from Founding Father Thomas Jefferson:
"And Blackstone repeats, in the words of Sir Matthew Hale, that 'Christianity is part of the laws of England,' citing Ventris and Strange ubi surpa. 4. Blackst. 59. Lord Mansfield qualifies it a little by saying that 'The essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law." In the case of the Chamberlain of London v. Evans, 1767. But he cites no authority, and leaves us at our peril to find out what, in the opinion of the judge, and according to the measure of his foot or his faith, are those essential principles of revealed religion obligatory on us as a part of the common law." 
Thus we find this string of authorities, when examined to the beginning, all hanging on the same hook, a perverted expression of Priscot's, or on one another, or nobody." 

(Priscot's expression was "ancien scripture"; the perversion was that it meant "Holy" scripture.)

Jefferson also writes:
"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it."

". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

Think about that: "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law," courtesy of Thomas Jefferson.

Was America founded as a Pagan country?
http://www.nobeliefs.com/pagan.htm

And as far as your quote count goes:

"atheist" has 3 hits. "Jesus" has 0. I guess you must be an atheist.

----------


## IcyPeaceMaker

This from wikipedia:

The history of the Jews in the United States comprises a theological dimension, with a three-way division into Orthodox, Conservative and Reform. In social terms *the Jewish community began with small groups of merchants in colonial ports* such as New York City and Charleston. In the mid and late 19th century well-educated German Jews arrived and settled in cities across the United States. From 1880 to 1924 large numbers of Yiddish-speaking Jews arrived from Eastern Europe, settling in New York City and other large cities. After 1926 numbers came as refugees from Europe; after 1980 many came from the Soviet Union, and there has been a flow from Israel. By the year 1900 the 1.5 million Jews residing in the United States were the third most of any nation, behind Russia and Austria-Hungary. The proportion of the population has been about 2 to 3% since 1900, but in the 21st century Jews were widely diffused in major metropolitan areas in New York, South Florida, Philadelphia, California, New England, Ohio, and Illinois.

----------


## Tdcci

> *the Jewish community began with small groups of merchants in colonial ports*


That doesn't mean anything.

----------


## IcyPeaceMaker

> That doesn't mean anything.


Maybe not to you, but the cities and ports were up and running, the country started in 1492, settled in 1533, and they showed up in the early 1800's. Maybe you can cypher it for yourself?

This from a jewish site:
http://jewishwebindex.com/unitedstates.htm

----------


## Deborah K

> Typical backwards Christian logic. When you claim a god exists, and I ask you to prove it, you can't ask me to prove it DOESNT exist because YOU made the assertion! Likewise, YOU must prove that a) they were religious and b) it wholly influenced America's creation; something EASILY attributed to religion like a state religion, not using general attributes like kindness or perserverance!


What in the hell are you talking about?!  What does this have to do with anything?  I never asked you to prove God *didn't* exist.  I've already proven what I set out to prove.  Regardless of your apparent cognitive dissonance.

----------


## IcyPeaceMaker

This will shed much light on the Johnny-come-lately "judeo" thingy:
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

----------


## Deborah K

> The lie of Seperation of Church and State. What lie? It was a suggestion by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a church. The first amendment supports his opinion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
> 
> If they cannot make any laws resecting or prohibiting isnt this a "wall of Seperation between church and state"?


You are right that the words come from a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Church in an attempt to calm their concerns over a rumor they heard that the government was planning to choose a 'state religion'.  The lie I refer to is the one that has been perpetuated ever since the Engle v. Vitale case in which the attorney took those words out of context in an effort to remove religion from public affairs, specifically prayer from schools.   Since then, that phrase has been taken to mean "freedom FROM religion" and completely ignores the second clause "...prohibiting the free exercise thereof".  If you ask the average Media mall zombie if that phrase, SOCS,  is in the first amendment, they'll answer "yes".  

 No where in the amendment, or any where else in the Constitution does it prohibit the free exercise of religious practices in public forums yet ever since that unprecedented ruling, the 'free exercise' clause has been systematically removed from public arenas. And thus, we now have a movement in this country that is denying our godly heritage altogether. 

I don't have time tonight, but I'll answer your questions about who was what religion, etc.

----------


## IcyPeaceMaker

*Want to know why there is an attack on Christianity?*


Written by a Jew (a real one)
WHY JEWS DESPISE THE IDEA OF AMERICAN NATIONHOOD 

Here are 3 reason why Jews wage war on American nationalism:


1) The soul of the American nation is built *not* upon ideals such as the Jew-promoted ideas of democracy & equality for all men. But rather on our common memory of Americas Christian roots, Her heroes, and a shared hope in Christs Providential care. 

~~ But Jews despise Christianity and hate the Lord Jesus Christ! ~~

2) The soul of the American nation is built upon love for Americas soil upon which Her heroes fought for freedom. These heroes were Christians such as George Washington, Patrick Henry, Jonathan Edwards, Davy Crockett, Daniel Boone, Fanny Crosby, William Jennings Bryan, and Louis T. McFadden. 

~~ But Jews despise Christian heroes and their love of the Christian cause! ~~

3) The soul of the American nation is built upon the common culture and customs of America. The customs of America which have formed American culture are Christian holy days such as Christmas, Easter, and Thanksgiving.

~~ But Jews despise Christian holy days and wage war on all public expressions of love for Christian holy days! ~~

Please see the whole article here: http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=159

----------


## Patriot123

> ROFL!!!  Thirty five of the Founding Fathers who worked on the Constitution were members of the orthodox Christian Churches and others were evangelical Christians.  Heheh are you implying they were all atheists?  Where is your evidence of this?  LOL


Benjamin Franklin was quite possibly if not definitely an Atheist, however an overwhelming majority of them were Deists. This includes the most notable founders. Just to set the stage light metaphorically speaking, Thomas Paine even wrote a book to disprove the religion of Christianity. Even if you want to delve into trying to dispute this and arguing these facts, what you cannot argue is that our founders created a nation and society where religious freedom was an absolute right. They did not, never intended to and would likely to have refused to base the country off of any religion including Christianity and Judaism. There were no Jews, if not one or two in America when it was founded, anyway. So *even* if you want to argue that the founders were Christian [which a large majority of them were abolutely not] you cannot dispute the fact that our nation was not founded on the basis of any religion, because our founders knew that with an established religion came persecution, hatred, etcetera.





> 1) The soul of the American nation is built *not* upon ideals such as the Jew-promoted ideas of “democracy” & “equality for all men.” But rather on our common memory of America’s Christian roots, Her heroes, and a shared hope in Christ’s Providential care. 
> 
> ~~ But Jews despise Christianity and hate the Lord Jesus Christ! ~~
> 
> 2) The soul of the American nation is built upon love for America’s soil upon which Her heroes fought for freedom. These heroes were Christians such as George Washington, Patrick Henry, Jonathan Edwards, Davy Crockett, Daniel Boone, Fanny Crosby, William Jennings Bryan, and Louis T. McFadden. 
> 
> ~~ But Jews despise Christian heroes and their love of the Christian cause! ~~
> 
> 3) The soul of the American nation is built upon the common culture and customs of America. The customs of America which have formed American culture are Christian holy days such as Christmas, Easter, and Thanksgiving.
> ...


Oh, please. George Washington was a *deist.* Not a Christian. And this nation was never founded as a Christian nation, ever. And I love how you're trying to come across as making all Jews out to be these, "evil pigs who are trying to take over America"

----------


## IcyPeaceMaker

My friend, thay aren't trying..........they rule America today.

There is alot of proof, even Harvard University knows these facts:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Who+r...e=utf8&oe=utf8

Even Harvard University knows they control America: 
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-83-page-...ntrols-USA.pdf

----------


## Patriot123

> My friend, thay aren't trying..........they rule America today.
> 
> There is alot of proof, even Harvard University knows these facts:
> http://www.google.com/search?q=Who+r...e=utf8&oe=utf8
> 
> Even Harvard University knows they control America: 
> http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-83-page-...ntrols-USA.pdf


Ah... We're *ruling* America, now? Like dictators? Sorry, believe I'm ten pages back in the conspircay book about the "Holohoax"one. I'm sorry, perhaps you bring me up to speed on Alex Jones' newest page?

----------


## Deborah K

[QUOTE]


> Benjamin Franklin was quite possibly if not definitely an Atheist, however an overwhelming majority of them were Deists. This includes the most notable founders. Just to set the stage light metaphorically speaking, Thomas Paine even wrote a book to disprove the religion of Christianity. Even if you want to delve into trying to dispute this and arguing these facts, what you cannot argue is that our founders created a nation and society where religious freedom was an absolute right. They did not, never intended to and would likely to have refused to base the country off of any religion including Christianity and Judaism. There were no Jews, if not one or two in America when it was founded, anyway. So *even* if you want to argue that the founders were Christian [which a large majority of them were abolutely not] you cannot dispute the fact that our nation was not founded on the basis of any religion, because our founders knew that with an established religion came persecution, hatred, etcetera.


So what you're saying is, the research done by the University of Houston which I presented in my OP and which is based on 15,000 writings and their origins, is just bunk because you said so??? Sorry but you're going to have to do a much better job of disproving the research.

As far as your claim that the founders were atheists, deists, etc.  blah, blah, blah.
Debunk the following then, and do it with the research of reputable sources otherwise please stop wasting my time and everyone else's who would like to have an intellectually honest debate about this.

*Religious Affiliation of the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, including the Signers of the Constitution of the United States of America.*

There were 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 at which the U.S. Constitution was drafted and signed. All participated in the proceedings which resulted in the Constitution, but only 39 of these delegates were actually signers of the document. 

From: Robert G. Ferris (editor), Signers of the Constitution: Historic Places Commemorating the Signing of the Constitution, published by the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service: Washington, D.C. (revised edition 1976), page 138: 

Most of the [signers of the Constitution] married and fathered children. Sherman sired the largest family, numbering 15 by two wives... Three (Baldwin, Gilman, and Jenifer) were lifetime bachelors. In terms of religious affiliation, the men mirrored the overwhelmingly Protestant character of American religious life at the time and were members of various denominations. Only two, Carroll and Fitzsimons, were Roman Catholics.  

Religious Affiliation              # of delegates                 % of delegates 

Episcopalian/Anglican                           31                              56.4% 
Presbyterian                                        16                               29.1% 
Congregationalist                                  8                               14.5% 
Quaker                                                   3                                 5.5% 
Catholic                                                  2                                 3.6% 
Methodist                                               2                                 3.6% 
Lutheran                                                2                                 3.6% 
Dutch Reformed                                     2                                 3.6% 

TOTAL 55 100% 


*Name of Signer State Religious Affiliation* 

Daniel Carroll Maryland Catholic 
Thomas Fitzsimons Pennsylvania Catholic 
Roger Sherman Connecticut Congregationalist 
Nathaniel Gorham Massachusetts Congregationalist 
John Langdon New Hampshire Congregationalist 
Nicholas Gilman New Hampshire Congregationalist 
Abraham Baldwin Georgia Congregationalist; Episcopalian 
William Samuel Johnson Connecticut Episcopalian; Presbyterian 
James Madison Jr. Virginia Episcopalian
George Read   -  Delaware Episcopalian 
Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer Maryland Episcopalian 
David Brearly New Jersey Episcopalian 
Richard Dobbs Spaight, Sr. North Carolina Episcopalian 
Robert Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian 
Gouverneur Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian 
John Rutledge South Carolina Episcopalian 
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney South Carolina Episcopalian 
Charles Pinckney South Carolina Episcopalian 
Pierce Butler South Carolina Episcopalian 
George Washington Virginia Episcopalian 
Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Episcopalian (Deist) 
William Blount North Carolina Episcopalian; Presbyterian 
James Wilson Pennsylvania Episcopalian; Presbyteran 
Rufus King Massachusetts Episcopalian; Congregationalist 
Jacob Broom Delaware Lutheran 
William Few Georgia Methodist 
Richard Bassett Delaware Methodist 
Gunning Bedford Jr. Delaware Presbyterian 
James McHenry Maryland Presbyterian 
William Livingston New Jersey Presbyterian 
William Paterson New Jersey Presbyterian 
Hugh Williamson North Carolina Presbyterian 
Jared Ingersoll Pennsylvania Presbyterian 
Alexander Hamilton New York Huguenot; Presbyterian; Episcopalian 
Jonathan Dayton New Jersey Presbyterian; Episcopalian 
John Blair Virginia Presbyterian; Episcopalian 
John Dickinson Delaware Quaker; Episcopalian 
George Clymer Pennsylvania Quaker; Episcopalian 
Thomas Mifflin Pennsylvania Quaker; Lutheran 


Name of Non-Signing Delegate State Religious Affiliation 
Oliver Ellsworth Connecticut Congregationalist 
Caleb Strong Massachusetts Congregationalist 
John Lansing, Jr. New York Dutch Reformed 
Robert Yates New York Dutch Reformed 
William Houstoun Georgia Episcopalian 
William Leigh Pierce Georgia Episcopalian 
Luther Martin Maryland Episcopalian 
John F. Mercer Maryland Episcopalian 
Elbridge Gerry Massachusetts Episcopalian 
George Mason Virginia Episcopalian 
Edmund J. Randolph Virginia Episcopalian 
George Wythe Virginia Episcopalian 
James McClurg Virginia Presbyterian 
William C. Houston New Jersey Presbyterian 
William R. Davie North Carolina Presbyterian 
Alexander Martin North Carolina Presbyterian 


Source:  http://www.adherents.com/gov/Foundin..._Religion.html

----------


## LibertiORDeth

Although a large part of the founders were Christians, there was a large group of atheists/pagans such as the Masons who laid the foundation for this country.  And I find this who discussion ludicrous.

----------


## mtmedlin

So what is your argument? Are you saying that because these men self identified themselves as one of the many factions of Christianity that our government is founded on Christian principles? My question is this, what was Christianity founded on? Many of the "ideals" that were laid out in the carefully selected scrolls commonly refered to as the Bible are nothing more then ancient principles handed down by vocal tradition or writings of other great thinkers. Plato played a much bigger role in the formation of our country then the biblical principles of the christians.

IN PLATO WE TRUST!

----------


## Deborah K

> So what is your argument? Are you saying that because these men self identified themselves as one of the many factions of Christianity that our government is founded on Christian principles? My question is this, what was Christianity founded on? Many of the "ideals" that were laid out in the carefully selected scrolls commonly refered to as the Bible are nothing more then ancient principles handed down by vocal tradition or writings of other great thinkers. Plato played a much bigger role in the formation of our country then the biblical principles of the christians.
> 
> IN PLATO WE TRUST!


As I mentioned in my first post, my argument is that I reject the desire to revise history on this matter.  First it was the misinterpretation of "Separation of Church and State" and now all we hear is how our Founders were atheists and deists.  Granted, some were, but a very small number.  It's sickening how people with an agenda will advance a lie and repeat it often enough that people begin to believe it is the truth.

I am making an attempt at quelling yet another lie about the founders, the founding documents, and the role Christianity has played in our nation's history.

That's it.

----------


## Deborah K

> 1. Which documents created this country?
> 2. Where in those documents does it say that this nation is founded as a CHRISTIAN nation?
> 3. Where in those documents does it say that this nation is founded on CHRISTIAN principles?


additional quote from Kade:




> Alright, my entire point comes to this...
> 
> Judeo-Christian "values" are completely void of any useful original philosophical thought. Commonly, the Ten Commandments are considered part of this value system. Anything adapted from ancient Judaism into Christianity... although the word really didn't exist before the 1890s. 
> 
> The motivation behind the creation of our country were mostly enlightenment principles. These were influenced by many people, not excluding Burke, Hobbes, Locke, Spinoza, Hume, Kant, Voltaire, Rousseau, and Adam Smith...etc. Our most cherished founding fathers, who wrote the MOST important documents leading up to and within the creation of this beautiful nation, were HIGHLY influenced by these Principles... these founders include: 
> 
> Hamilton, Adams, Madison, Mason, Franklin, Paine, and Jefferson.
> 
> Enlightenment Principles:
> ...


And to the above I ask  you your own questions:

2. Where in those documents does it say that this nation is founded on an *enlightenment* nation?
3. Where in those documents does it say that this nation is founded on *enlightenment* principles?

And here again is my response to your second quote above:




> I actually like what you wrote there, Kade, and I agree with most of it - except for the obvious exclusion of Judeo-Christian principles.  Your complete denial of this reveals much about your own agenda as an atheist.  *It is the very reason I wrote this thread in the first place. *   And you have just proven my point.
> 
> I have put forth an argument that is substantiated by research.  The fact that you have categorically ignored the research leads me to the conclusion that you have no way to refute what I'm contending other than to disparage one of my sources.  You keep bringing up Barton to the exclusion of Lutz's writings and research, as well as other scholars who have cited Lutz's work in their own works.  This speaks volumes as to the weakness of your argument.


And here is more on Lutz:


http://www.polsci.uh.edu/faculty/vita/Donald%20Lutz.htm

Here is : The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thought American Political Science Review

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=000...rigin=crossref

Another book written by several scholars that uses the above as a source: http://books.google.com/books?id=QkUliRcSJXwC

and here is where they use the source: http://books.google.com/books?id=QkU...l=en#PPA256,M1

Here is his book and an abstract of it: Donald Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism 1988 
http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Americ.../dp/0807115061

----------


## Deborah K

> So our nation and her laws were founded on these principles:
> 
> *
> Deuteronomy 29:19-20
> If anyone should think to himself, "I will do well enough if I follow the dictates of my heart," Yahweh will not pardon him. His wrath shall burn against him. And all the curses written in the book will come upon him.*
> 
> Jeremiah 48:10 (NIV)
> "*Cursed* be he who does the Lord's work remissly, cursed he who holds back his *sword from blood*."
> 
> ...


Have you resorted to cherry-picking quotes from the bible to make your point?  LOL!

----------


## Kade

> Have you resorted to cherry-picking quotes from the bible to make your point?  LOL!


I don't know a single person who doesn't.

----------


## Kade

> additional quote from Kade:
> 
> 
> 
> And to the above I ask  you your own questions:
> 
> 2. Where in those documents does it say that this nation is founded on an *enlightenment* nation?
> 3. Where in those documents does it say that this nation is founded on *enlightenment* principles?
> 
> ...


Okay, let's get to be meat of this... if you agree that the principles I've mentioned are what the nation was founded on, and you believe strongly that those principles are Christian principles, we are just playing word games.

If you intend to use your definition of Christian principles to change the law to _unmentioned principles_, the problem arises... does that make sense?

If you say that Christan doctrine preaches freedom of conscience, fine.
If you say that Christian doctrine preaches freedom of thought, fine.
If you say that Christian doctrine preaches freedom of expression, fine.

If you suggest that because you believe Christian doctrine teaches these things that we ought to place ALL Christian doctrine as the foundation on this country, I draw the line... in fact, those are words worthy of a rebellion. 

So you can attribute all the good things about our nation to Christianity, but the second you try to impose one of the many and numerous bad things, Theocrat's ideology being a perfect example of one of those things, than you have crossed the line.

I don't personally agree with you. I've studied your religion all my life, and I have a theology degree. I believe there was a strong division between a liberal and progressive vision of the enlightenment and revealed Christian doctrine. You can disagree, and you can give Christianity any value system it wants, it is fair to say that you could justify just about anything with the bible. 

Application of whatever implied principle you are employing here is the heart of all this. Theocrat wants to see a real life Theocracy. People like him are not rare. Some Christians, many of my own family, worship in their communities, do great charity work, contribute meaningfully to work and the community and life. They believe in "live and let live", and they see no desire to impose a biblical worldview on people. They may believe in certain changes to the government, but often they are equally compelled by the realization that some people simply don't believe what they do... but they believe strongly in the doctrine of separation of church and state, because it is fair to all.

It is important to note that the principles set forth by the founding fathers, the spirit of Jefferson, Washington, and Madison, uniformly was one of neutrality and fairness, and ultimately freedom and liberty. You may say these things exist in the bible, and therefore we ought to use the bible in law and I could suggest we should just govern with Origin of Species, and we could go back and forth forever... or we could both say, you know what, I'm okay with what you believe, and I'll protect fiercely your right to believe it... and that principle doesn't have to be written down. That principle is in our hearts, and it has been chiseled upon the spirit of America.

----------


## Theocrat

> 1. Which documents created this country?
> 2. Where in those documents does it say that this nation is founded as a CHRISTIAN nation?
> 3. Where in those documents does it say that this nation is founded on CHRISTIAN principles?


Well, if you had read the H. Res. 888, you would already know the answers to those questions, Kade.




> So our nation and her laws were founded on these principles:
> 
> *
> Deuteronomy 29:19-20
> If anyone should think to himself, "I will do well enough if I follow the dictates of my heart," Yahweh will not pardon him. His wrath shall burn against him. And all the curses written in the book will come upon him.*
> 
> Jeremiah 48:10 (NIV)
> "*Cursed* be he who does the Lord's work remissly, cursed he who holds back his *sword from blood*."
> 
> ...


This is your problem, Kade. You like to take things in the Bible out of their *proper contexts*, and to what avail? You obviously have no understanding of the differences between the *"letter of the law"* and *"the spirit of the law."* Besides, I find it silly that you would even quote the Bible as if you're trying to prove something when, on your worldview, you don't even believe God exists and He has revealed Himself to mankind. As Deborah K has said, your cherry-picking of the Scriptures is simply funny.

----------


## Deborah K

> Okay, let's get to be meat of this... if you agree that the principles I've mentioned are what the nation was founded on, and you believe strongly that those principles are Christian principles, we are just playing word games.
> 
> If you intend to use your definition of Christian principles to change the law to _unmentioned principles_, the problem arises... does that make sense?
> 
> If you say that Christan doctrine preaches freedom of conscience, fine.
> If you say that Christian doctrine preaches freedom of thought, fine.
> If you say that Christian doctrine preaches freedom of expression, fine.
> 
> If you suggest that because you believe Christian doctrine teaches these things that we ought to place ALL Christian doctrine as the foundation on this country, I draw the line... in fact, those are words worthy of a rebellion. 
> ...


Your unfounded assumptions divert from the original intent of the thread.




> ....and you believe strongly that those principles are Christian principles, we are just playing word games.


I agree that the founders were interested in and influenced by the enlightenment era, however that does not preclude a Christian influence.  My point in that post was to expose your blatant exclusion of Christian influence on the founding of this nation. 




> If you intend to use your definition of Christian principles to change the law to _unmentioned principles_, the problem arises... does that make sense?


Show me what post I wrote that would lead you to that conclusion.




> If you suggest that because you believe Christian doctrine teaches these things that we ought to place ALL Christian doctrine as the foundation on this country, I draw the line... in fact, those are words worthy of a rebellion.


What the hell?  How can you draw that conclusion from ANYTHING I've written????

You are clearly trying to imply that because I believe that, and have given evidence to, the fact that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles that somehow you can turn that into an assertion on my part that  the country was therefore founded on Christian doctrine.  As a theology major, you should know the difference between the words "principles" and "doctrine".

Again, your complete denial of my assertion speaks for itself.  The evidence is at hand and no amount of wordsmithing or distortion that you attempt to put forth will change any of it.  

Christians settled in this nation,  fought for her freedom and  wrote the founding documents.  People who refuse to accept it are only revealing their fear and contempt for Christianity.

----------


## Theocrat

> Christians settled in this nation,  fought for her freedom and  wrote the founding documents.  People who refuse to accept it are only revealing their fear and contempt for Christianity.


Amen!

----------


## Deborah K

> ... or we could both say, you know what, I'm okay with what you believe, and I'll protect fiercely your right to believe it... and that principle doesn't have to be written down. That principle is in our hearts, and it has been chiseled upon the spirit of America.


This is great.  But again, this isn't about what I or you believe, this is about history.  We each don't get to have our own set of history books.  Either this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles or it wasn't. The study I put forth revealed, using 15,000 writings, that the founders quoted from the bible more often than they quoted from other sources.  That ,along with the fact that most Americans during that era were practising Christians, would lead most clear thinking individuals to the conclusion that we were founded on Christian principles.

----------


## micahnelson

> Christians settled in this nation,  fought for her freedom and  wrote the founding documents.  People who refuse to accept it are only revealing their fear and contempt for Christianity.



The key question is, so what?

Christians overwhelmingly voted for George W. Bush. Many Slave owners were Christians, and the Bible addresses the righteous manner in which to treat slaves. 

Again, so what?

Did members of other faiths not own slaves, vote for the Bushes, fight for freedom, or settle in this nation? Let us not be so vain to think that the American experience is a Christian experience. The American experience is one of equality under the law. 

You believe that people who undermine the truth of America's Christian founding do so with a purpose in mind, to strip Christianity from American culture. What then is the purpose of affirming it? Are we wrong to assume that this attempt to turn Washington into a Southern Baptist doesn't come with similar strings attached?

Are nonbelievers to be made to feel second class, aliens in a country of the devout?

If you want to claim America for Christendom, then you cannot separate the evils of slavery, mistreatment of the Indians, the Salem witch trials, the civil war atrocities, or any other element of American history from the Religion you claim established our nation.

Are you willing to stain Christianity with those indiscretions simply out of an urge to claim precedence? 

Religion has no place in government, other than in the hearts of the individuals that run for office. Religion may guide their choices, and often does, but this is not to be misconstrued as anything more than a private expression of faith. 

Only failed ideologies need government subsidies, why should we run to the government to defend our God? Morality is in decline not because of the federal government, but because of a religion that has lost it's soul. 

James 1:26-27 tells us that our religion can be worthless if it doesn't impact our own lives. 

Look at the percentage of Christians in prison or giving up on their own marriages, all while we fight for tougher laws and legislating "traditional marriage". Our religion has become worthless- it isn't even impacting US. 

Here is what God says about worthless religion, from Amos 5. 



> 18 Alas, you who are longing for the day of the LORD,
> For what purpose will the day of the LORD be to you?
> It will be darkness and not light;
> 19 As when a man flees from a lion
> And a bear meets him,
> Or goes home, leans his hand against the wall
> And a snake bites him.
> 20 Will not the day of the LORD be darkness instead of light,
> Even gloom with no brightness in it?
> ...


SO have your symbolic votes in congress affirming how wonderful we are. Have your gay marriage ban while you cheat on your wife. Pass every law in the books establishing a Christian theocracy and watch as society crumbles before your very eyes. We are losing this spiritual war because we are fighting it on the wrong terms. This is not a battle for government, this is a battle for souls. 

Im sorry if I sound extreme, but I am tired of this symbolic posturing by believers. The problem is not in Washington, it is in our churches. We have all become duped. We have rejected grace and are clinging again to the law. We want war and authoritarianism in the name of justice. 

And a word on theocracy, that system of government led to the death sentence for Jesus. He was called a blasphemer.

----------


## sophocles07

> What the hell? How can you draw that conclusion from ANYTHING I've written????


I think one should note that in the back of my mind (and probably Kade’s) is that we’re arguing against one member here (Theocrat) who actually *does* advocate theocracy.  




> Christians settled in this nation, fought for her freedom and wrote the founding documents. People who refuse to accept it are only revealing their fear and contempt for Christianity.


What exactly are you wanting here?  I think Kade’s admitted that Christianity had “an impact” on the founding of the country.  He’s saying that Enlightenment philosophy _the_ most important factor—a fact I can’t see any reason to disagree with.  The enlightenment gave rise to new interpretations of the Christian religion, and produced the potential of a death to orthodoxy.  Are you advocating no separation between church and state, or what? 




> Either this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles or it wasn't.


OR

it’s not that simple.  

“Judeo-Christian” principles means any number of things based on who is doing the interpreting, as I’ve stated before in this thread.  It’s not an absolute.  What Jefferson took from Christianity was not the same as what Aquinas—who supported monarchy, and thought it was divine-right—took from it.  The same goes for Adams, Madison, or whomever.  To reduce this extremely complex issue to “CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES, $#@! DUHH!” or “NO CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES, ...” is just a pitiful execution of historical interpretation.  




> The study I put forth revealed, using 15,000 writings, that the founders quoted from the bible more often than they quoted from other sources.


This means very little.  Context is the matter.  The same could be said of Nietzsche, the writer of The Anti-Christ.  He probably quotes the Bible more than anything else; it doesn’t mean his writings were based in “Judeo-Christian principles.”  Jefferson quotes it all the time; he didn’t have the same Christianity in mind that Pope Leo the Great did.

----------


## Deborah K

> The key question is, so what?



I see.  Now that there is no one to refute the study, the rebuttle has gone from: "NO, America was NOT founded on Judeo-Christian principles" 

to : 

"So what?"

LOL!!

As to the rest of your post..... off topic and irrelevant to the debate at hand.

----------


## Deborah K

> I think one should note that in the back of my mind (and probably Kades) is that were arguing against one member here (Theocrat) who actually *does* advocate theocracy.  
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly are you wanting here?  I think Kades admitted that Christianity had an impact on the founding of the country.  Hes saying that Enlightenment philosophy _the_ most important factora fact I cant see any reason to disagree with.  The enlightenment gave rise to new interpretations of the Christian religion, and produced the potential of a death to orthodoxy.  Are you advocating no separation between church and state, or what? 
> 
> 
> 
> OR
> ...


My, how the winds of this debate have changed.  Now, all of the sudden, the issue is "extremely complex".   There's no more outright denial of Christian influence on the founding of this country.  I think we're making progress.   

As to your last comment, I suggest you read the study before you make blanket statements about from where the quotes were taken.  

And, btw, your vulgar use of language to make your point just makes you appear juvenile and weakens your argument.

----------


## sophocles07

> My, how the winds of this debate have changed. Now, all of the sudden, the issue is "extremely complex". There's no more outright denial of Christian influence on the founding of this country. I think we're making progress.


If you look over my posts in this thread, you'll find I never denied this.  And always maintained the complexity of the situation.




> As to your last comment, I suggest you read the study before you make blanket statements about from where the quotes were taken.


Fair enough.




> And, btw, your vulgar use of language to make your point just makes you appear juvenile and weakens your argument.


I don't consider it vulgar.  I consider it vernacular.  BUT, I was also mocking someone being simplistic and immature about complexity, so it could be argued that the above use is indeed employed in the way you read it.  "Bad words" as a concept is something I do not accept; Dante uses "bad words"; Catullus, Joyce, Pound, etc., all use "bad words"; the concept is one completely devoid of backing, and is simply used by people without thinking to call someone else "immature" or "vulgar" (which means "common" in Latin by the way, i.e., vernacular).  See Petronius.

----------


## Deborah K

> If you look over my posts in this thread, you'll find I never denied this.  And always maintained the complexity of the situation.
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't consider it vulgar.  I consider it vernacular.  BUT, I was also mocking someone being simplistic and immature about complexity, so it could be argued that the above use is indeed employed in the way you read it.  "Bad words" as a concept is something I do not accept; Dante uses "bad words"; Catullus, Joyce, Pound, etc., all use "bad words"; the concept is one completely devoid of backing, and is simply used by people without thinking to call someone else "immature" or "vulgar" (which means "common" in Latin by the way, i.e., vernacular).  See Petronius.


Because I don't agree with you that the issue is "extremely complex" that makes me immature?  I used the word "vulgar" in its proper context so I'm not following your line of logic on this.  At any rate, quibbling about this is a waste of time.  This is not as complex as you are trying to make it out to be.

----------


## sophocles07

> Because I don't agree with you that the issue is "extremely complex" that makes me immature? I used the word "vulgar" in its proper context so I'm not following your line of logic on this. At any rate, quibbling about this is a waste of time. This is not as complex as you are trying to make it out to be.


It has nothing to do with "agreeing with me".  This is applicable to almost any--I would say probably "all"--historical circumstance, especially one dealing with very intelligent men founding a revolutionary society.  

My point is that an urge to say "that's it" is ridiculous.  I don't even understand the urge to do so.  It demotes our Founding Fathers to pitiful simpletons.  It demotes thought processes--including the reading of texts, the interpretation thereof, the relation of thought and philosophy of the contemporary moment to the reading and interpretation of texts, and all of this as it manifested itself into concrete action and written word--to something not even human in its simplicity.

Again: what are you wanting me to admit here?  I've already said Judeo-Christian texts and ideas influenced the founding of the nation.  I'm not an atheist (I am agnostic).  I'm merely asking for a little less one-sidedness to the subject, and less narrow evaluation of any such subject.  

As to "my line of logic on this"..."bad words"...yeah, as far as I can tell there _is no other line of logic because the repulsion at "bad words" is illogical_.  It's such a petty, irrational issue; I get tired of people saying "you're immature" when they hear a "curse" word.  It's ridiculous.

----------


## sophocles07

See for Aeschylus' use of obscenity, too: _The American Journal of Philology_ Vol 101, No 1, 1980, pp/ 44-6.

They're all over the place.

----------


## Deborah K

> As to "my line of logic on this"..."bad words"...yeah, as far as I can tell there _is no other line of logic because the repulsion at "bad words" is illogical_.  It's such a petty, irrational issue; I get tired of people saying "you're immature" when they hear a "curse" word.  It's ridiculous


I use foul language regularly.  But there is a time and place for it, imo.  In this case, it diminishes the debate.  Enough already about this, please.  




> Again: what are you wanting me to admit here?  I've already said Judeo-Christian texts and ideas influenced the founding of the nation.  I'm not an atheist (I am agnostic).  I'm merely asking for a little less one-sidedness to the subject, and less narrow evaluation of any such subject.


I don't want anything from you.  It was you who initiated dialogue with me.  I merely responded.  If you don't have a problem with my assertion then we have no debate.  

Look,  I have already stated that I agree the founders were influenced by the enlightenment era, etc.  My objective in starting this thread was to quell the ridiculous notion that Christianity had nothing to do with the founding of this country as is put forth by the atheist community.  Their claim is that the founders were all deists and atheists and that Christian principles had no influence.  They deny that the first Americans were Christian (Jamestown), and that the subsequent colonies were populated by practising Christians, and that the majority of founding fathers were Christians and that our founding documents were influenced by Christian principles.  They vehemently deny all of this using lies and distorted truths, resulting in legions of uninformed people (sheeple) thinking that we were founded as a secular nation.  We were NOT. It's the revisionist history that I have a problem with.

I think it was Lenin who said 'If you repeat a lie often enough, people will begin to believe it.'

----------


## sophocles07

> I don't want anything from you. It was you who initiated dialogue with me. I merely responded. If you don't have a problem with my assertion then we have no debate.


Alright. 




> Look, I have already stated that I agree the founders were influenced by the enlightenment era, etc. My objective in starting this thread was to quell the ridiculous notion that Christianity had nothing to do with the founding of this country as is put forth by the atheist community. Their claim is that the founders were all deists and atheists and that Christian principles had no influence. They deny that the first Americans were Christian (Jamestown), and that the subsequent colonies were populated by practising Christians, and that the majority of founding fathers were Christians and that our founding documents were influenced by Christian principles. They vehemently deny all of this using lies and distorted truths, resulting in legions of uninformed people (sheeple) thinking that we were founded as a secular nation. We were NOT. It's the revisionist history that I have a problem with.
> 
> I think it was Lenin who said 'If you repeat a lie often enough, people will begin to believe it.'


Alright.  I suppose we have no real argument here.

My question, though, would be: what’s your position on the relationship of church to state?  Allowing that Christianity influenced the founding of the country, does that have any bearing on the separation of these two institutions?  I think it’s clear from reading the Founders that the idea was that you were free to believe whatever you want, god or no god or many gods, and that should have no influence on how you are treated, how laws are passed, etc.

----------


## Deborah K

> Alright. 
> 
> 
> 
> Alright.  I suppose we have no real argument here.
> 
> My question, though, would be: whats your position on the relationship of church to state?  Allowing that Christianity influenced the founding of the country, does that have any bearing on the separation of these two institutions?  I think its clear from reading the Founders that the idea was that you were free to believe whatever you want, god or no god or many gods, and that should have no influence on how you are treated, how laws are passed, etc.


Agreed.  I believe exactly what the first amendment states on this issue.  That the government has no business establishing a religion for the people, and that the government has no right to prohibit the free exercise of religion.  So when a valedictorian wants to include in his speech that he is grateful to God for his blessings, or when a football team wants to kneel and pray before a game, it puts my panties in a big tight knot when the school prohibits it.  Or when the Boy Scouts are suddenly prohibited from using a public park, or the local school to have their meetings, or when an atheist sues a city over a cross on a mountain, I see red.  It violates the free exercise clause and cannot be interpreted as the government establishing a religion, which is the excuse used for all of this nonsense. 

If you want to debate the so-called Separation of Church and State issue, then we should start another thread.

----------


## adara7537

> Righteous of me to claim that the orginal settlers to this nation were Christians?  Righteous of me to claim that the founding documents were written by Christians using Christian principles?
> 
> It is a fact and it is beyond me why there are so many people who feel sooooo threatened by it to the degree that they will twist this issue up into a pretzel in order to make themselves feel better about this.
> 
> Again, my point in starting this thread was to produce research that gives evidence to the fact that Christian principles played a significant role in the founding of this country.  To categorically deny this flies in the face of an intellectually  honest debate.


Yes, yes that's what I said righteous. 

Hmmm, must be nice for you but I can understand completely why people would feel so threatened. I already briefly discussed this in a different thread and do not care to do so again in this one. 

I think what you are missing in what I am trying to say is that the founding documents were not written by Christians alone. The founding settlers where of other religions besides Christianity. That is all I am saying, don't disregard this and try to make it seem as though Christianity is the only thing that played a hand in it. Don't disregard the fact that what the country was really founded on is HUMAN principles. Ones we ALL agree on regardless of religion or anything else. And don't disregard the fact that these principles were in place well before Christianity.

----------


## familydog

What empiracle evidence is there to suggest the Enlightenment was the most important in terms of influence? I've made the case that Christianity played as much of a role as the Enlightenment with regards to the founding. I didn't argue to prove my side is better than anyone else's side. Deborah K is correct in her assertion that Christniaty has been downplayed in the founding. I can speak specifically for the academic community. I don't care what Jerry Fallwell thinks, I care what academia thinks. 

As for the "who cares" line of questioning, it matters because the matter is not settled. As someone with a passionate interest in history, questions without answers matter. They may not matter to you, but in terms of intellectual thinking, if you have a set a questions, and set out to answer those questions, it matters. Even if only three people in the world care besides you. That is what the pursuit of knowledge, and the stimulation of intellect is all about.

----------


## Deborah K

> Yes, yes that's what I said righteous.


You think that because you have not read everything I've written about this.  Don't you think you should read everything a person writes before you pass judgement on them?




> Hmmm, must be nice for you but I can understand completely why people would feel so threatened. I already briefly discussed this in a different thread and do not care to do so again in this one.


Fear and contempt are not good reasons for revising history.





> I think what you are missing in what I am trying to say is that the founding documents were not written by Christians alone. The founding settlers where of other religions besides Christianity. That is all I am saying, don't disregard this and try to make it seem as though Christianity is the only thing that played a hand in it. Don't disregard the fact that what the country was really founded on is HUMAN principles. Ones we ALL agree on regardless of religion or anything else. And don't disregard the fact that these principles were in place well before Christianity



Produce the evidence that shows that there were founders of other religions who wrote the DOI and the Constitution.  If you are going to make such claims, you should back them up with evidence.  Here is my evidence that the founders were Christians: http://www.adherents.com/gov/Foundin..._Religion.html

The argument that these principles were in place long before Christianity is fallacious because it completely misses the point.  I am getting bored with having to explain this over and over again.  Read my previous post to understand my intention for this thread and try to stick to the debate at hand.

----------


## sophocles07

> Agreed. I believe exactly what the first amendment states on this issue. That the government has no business establishing a religion for the people, and that the government has no right to prohibit the free exercise of religion. So when a valedictorian wants to include in his speech that he is grateful to God for his blessings, or when a football team wants to kneel and pray before a game, it puts my panties in a big tight knot when the school prohibits it. Or when the Boy Scouts are suddenly prohibited from using a public park, or the local school to have their meetings, or when an atheist sues a city over a cross on a mountain, I see red. It violates the free exercise clause and cannot be interpreted as the government establishing a religion, which is the excuse used for all of this nonsense.


I agree with all of this.




> If you want to debate the so-called Separation of Church and State issue, then we should start another thread.


Well, unless you have some sort of Christian-centered view on this (that they should not be separated), there is no reason for such a thread.




> What empiracle evidence is there to suggest the Enlightenment was the most important in terms of influence?


I could go through writings and find quotes, etc., but that’s a lot of work.  I know for sure that Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Franklin, etc. were all influenced by various Enlightenment ideas.  Jefferson in particular.  There’s probably also ample information on this on the internet and in history books.  Also, I think it’s very important to note that the modern ideas of republican government sprang out of Enlightenment thought (Voltaire, Rousseau, Paine, Locke, Spinoza, Tocqueville, Hume, Smith, etc. etc.), as did ideas of equality, modern conceptions of “rights” etc.  I don’t see how, even without detailed analysis, anyone could think this wasn’t the major philosophical and social influence on the thought of the Founders.  It comes directly from it; many of the Founders are considered figures of the Enlightenment themselves.  

I’m not providing a database of source information...it’s there though, in the writings of the Founders.  Perhaps Kade or someone else here has an easy link with some information.

----------


## adara7537

> You think that because you have not read everything I've written about this.  Don't you think you should read everything a person writes before you pass judgement on them?
> 
> 
> 
> Fear and contempt are not good reasons for revising history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Perhaps, but this is a long thread.

I won't touch that one.

I know that this has been discussed on several other threads and I don't feel like wasting my time rehashing it. Inevitably we would get into arguments such as I say Paine and then you say-he didn't write the DOI or the Constitution. And then we could argue about Madison and it could go on and on and on and I just don't feel like it. I don't much like debate online. As you can see I don't post much, I suppose I should keep it that way.

I don't see how it misses the point. Maybe I missed your rebuttal to whomever originally pointed this out, this is a LONG thread. 

To spare you wasting your time, I won't be back, so no need for rebuttal.

----------


## Deborah K

> I agree with all of this.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, unless you have some sort of Christian-centered view on this (that they should not be separated), there is no reason for such a thread.
> 
> 
> 
> I could go through writings and find quotes, etc., but thats a lot of work.  I know for sure that Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Franklin, etc. were all influenced by various Enlightenment ideas.  Jefferson in particular.  Theres probably also ample information on this on the internet and in history books.  Also, I think its very important to note that the modern ideas of republican government sprang out of Enlightenment thought (Voltaire, Rousseau, Paine, Locke, Spinoza, Tocqueville, Hume, Smith, etc. etc.), as did ideas of equality, modern conceptions of rights etc.  I dont see how, even without detailed analysis, anyone could think this wasnt the major philosophical and social influence on the thought of the Founders.  It comes directly from it; many of the Founders are considered figures of the Enlightenment themselves.  
> ...


I do have a Christian-centered view on SOCS but my view is based primarily on the Supreme Court cases that have systematically removed religion from the public arena, as in the case of the Ten Commandments being stripped away from court houses, etc.  and prayer in school being prohibited.  These things were considered perfectly Constitutional for over 175 years.  

But, as to your question of whether I think the religion of Christianity should be inseparable from the government, that would violate the first amendment, so no, I don't agree with it.  I don't want laws passed that are based on religious morality like making adultery or homosexuality illegal, etc.  I just don't think that religion should be boxed up and hidden away from the public arena the way the secularists are trying to make it.  People should be free to practise it where ever they want.  I mean, Congress prays before each session for Pete's sake.

----------


## sophocles07

> I do have a Christian-centered view on SOCS but my view is based primarily on the Supreme Court cases that have systematically removed religion from the public arena, as in the case of the Ten Commandments being stripped away from court houses, etc. and prayer in school being prohibited. These things were considered perfectly Constitutional for over 175 years.


Well, all we would really go into is: I don’t think the Ten Commandments should be up, though I think prayer should be allowed (though who really ever wants to pray in school?  I’ve never seen a child, during my entire career as student—over 20 years—, have this impulse...I’ve come to believe it’s essentially a wedge issue to get people to vote for people like Huckabee).  You would say you think the 10 commandments should be up, etc etc.  It gets nowhere.




> But, as to your question of whether I think the religion of Christianity should be inseparable from the government, that would violate the first amendment, so no, I don't agree with it. I don't want laws passed that are based on religious morality like making adultery or homosexuality illegal, etc. I just don't think that religion should be boxed up and hidden away from the public arena the way the secularists are trying to make it. People should be free to practise it where ever they want. I mean, Congress prays before each session for Pete's sake.


I agree with all this.  Though...we’d have to allow also all religions or non-religions the right to express themselves whenever they wish.  (Meaning, if a Hindu wants to pray in school, he should be allowed to.)  

I suspect you and I would have to re-define what we mean when we say “separation of Church and State”.  I don’t use the term in the sense of “banning religion” from the public sphere; I use it in the sense that the government does not do anything that endorses any religion—which means that I think school prayer is ok as long as the employees in public schools don’t organize it, and that I don’t think the 10 commandments should be up because many commandments are superfluous and simply antithetical to the beliefs of many individuals (really, having “have no god before me” on the courthouse?  It’s absolutely repulsive to me; they are supposed to _represent_ me and everybody else, not represent only Christians who believe in this religious law).

----------


## Patriot123

You know, you've just got to love this... Thirty five pages all ready. This has got to be ended rightfully, logically and respectfully. 

Our nation was the *first* to establish the best form of government known to man to this day; a Republic. We were also the *FIRST* to break off from Christian rule and dominance, ie the Church. Those who believe that our founders would actually found this country on Christian principles after fighting a war against the Church itself is beyond me. We had the chance to be the first nation *ever,* to have such freedoms. To be so... Independent, and distance ourselves from religion in terms of the state. The Romans couldn't do it. The French couldn't do it after they so proclaimed the idea. We were the first. What we fought for was liberty, and that includes freedom from the Church... to practice whatever religion you like. And now... Three hundred years after what we fought for... There are *still* people who wish to pervert what this nation was founded *for, on, and why.* For those that wish to believe this, I simply would like to kindly ask them to take a crash course in Americanism. Because Christianity, a religion which has ruled the world for G-d knows how long, is *not* going to pervert how _this_ nation was founded, and I apologies for that remark, but I have to lay down the facts now to set this straight, because _thirty five pages of this?_ Really. I don't care what people say, I don't care what conspiracies people come up with, because our founders would drop dead at this hypocrisy. We did not fight a revolution for what people are saying we founded this nation on. It's insane.

The one special thing about this nation was that it wasn't founded with any religion in mind. Without any national religion, or anything of the such. That's the *one reason why half the population loves this country so much, and would fight to the death for it.* And people are actually trying to turn us right back into Great Britain? That's not what my ancestors fought for. The one reason why America is so great is because of the fact that it was founded with no religious affiliation. Separation of Church and State. Three hundred years... And people are actually trying to pervert the founding of this nation. Disgusting.

I'm done with this thread, after what I've read so far. Disgusting.

----------


## familydog

> I agree with all of this.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, unless you have some sort of Christian-centered view on this (that they should not be separated), there is no reason for such a thread.
> 
> 
> 
> I could go through writings and find quotes, etc., but that’s a lot of work.  I know for sure that Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Franklin, etc. were all influenced by various Enlightenment ideas.  Jefferson in particular.  There’s probably also ample information on this on the internet and in history books.  Also, I think it’s very important to note that the modern ideas of republican government sprang out of Enlightenment thought (Voltaire, Rousseau, Paine, Locke, Spinoza, Tocqueville, Hume, Smith, etc. etc.), as did ideas of equality, modern conceptions of “rights” etc.  I don’t see how, even without detailed analysis, anyone could think this wasn’t the major philosophical and social influence on the thought of the Founders.  It comes directly from it; many of the Founders are considered figures of the Enlightenment themselves.  
> ...


I'm not disagreeing with you. Enlightenment played a major role. I'm just suggesting it didn't play the *most* important role.

----------


## familydog

> You know, you've just got to love this... Thirty five pages all ready. This has got to be ended rightfully, logically and respectfully. 
> 
> Our nation was the *first* to establish the best form of government known to man to this day; a Republic. We were also the *FIRST* to break off from Christian rule and dominance, ie the Church. Those who believe that our founders would actually found this country on Christian principles after fighting a war against the Church itself is beyond me. We had the chance to be the first nation *ever,* to have such freedoms. To be so... Independent, and distance ourselves from religion in terms of the state. The Romans couldn't do it. The French couldn't do it after they so proclaimed the idea. We were the first. What we fought for was liberty, and that includes freedom from the Church... to practice whatever religion you like. And now... Three hundred years after what we fought for... There are *still* people who wish to pervert what this nation was founded *for, on, and why.* For those that wish to believe this, I simply would like to kindly ask them to take a crash course in Americanism. Because Christianity, a religion which has ruled the world for G-d knows how long, is *not* going to pervert how _this_ nation was founded, and I apologies for that remark, but I have to lay down the facts now to set this straight, because _thirty five pages of this?_ Really. I don't care what people say, I don't care what conspiracies people come up with, because our founders would drop dead at this hypocrisy. We did not fight a revolution for what people are saying we founded this nation on. It's insane.
> 
> The one special thing about this nation was that it wasn't founded with any religion in mind. Without any national religion, or anything of the such. That's the *one reason why half the population loves this country so much, and would fight to the death for it.* And people are actually trying to turn us right back into Great Britain? That's not what my ancestors fought for. The one reason why America is so great is because of the fact that it was founded with no religious affiliation. Separation of Church and State. Three hundred years... And people are actually trying to pervert the founding of this nation. Disgusting.
> 
> I'm done with this thread, after what I've read so far. Disgusting.


Who is trying to turn this country back to Great Britain? You're suggesting because some people say that religion was major part of the founding, but not part of the constitution, that we want a fusion of Church and State? Theocrat doesn't speak for the rest of us. That's one person, so I'm not sure what exactly your talking about. Chill out

----------


## sophocles07

> I'm not disagreeing with you. Enlightenment played a major role. I'm just suggesting it didn't play the most important role.


You’d also have to give credit to the philosophers of Greece and the statesmen of Rome, both influencing the movement of thought through the Renaissance on down to the birth of modern science, all of this converging in the Enlightenment; to me, these things converged to give a rational, scientific basis for republican government—whereas Christianity can be used to support a monarchy, the Catholic church’s rule of Italy for many, many years, aristocratic/feudal societies, and republican government.  To me, you _really_ have to pick and choose from the Bible to use it as a republican model, which is fine; I just don’t think it manifested republican government principles on its own, or even in the major role.  One could use all of Jesus’ main tenets—golden rule, etc etc—but these were already expressed by the Greeks and Romans in different ways (and by Confucius)...so I’m not sure you could say they are specifically “Christian” values...most of what I like that Jesus says is purely rational and humane (love thy neighbor, etc).  I don’t even know why we need a code to tell us that.




> Who is trying to turn this country back to Great Britain?


Well, Macon, GA and Theocrat.  Really, they’re crazy.

----------


## Deborah K

> You know, you've just got to love this... Thirty five pages all ready. This has got to be ended rightfully, logically and respectfully. 
> 
> Our nation was the *first* to establish the best form of government known to man to this day; a Republic. We were also the *FIRST* to break off from Christian rule and dominance, ie the Church. Those who believe that our founders would actually found this country on Christian principles after fighting a war against the Church itself is beyond me. We had the chance to be the first nation *ever,* to have such freedoms. To be so... Independent, and distance ourselves from religion in terms of the state. The Romans couldn't do it. The French couldn't do it after they so proclaimed the idea. We were the first. What we fought for was liberty, and that includes freedom from the Church... to practice whatever religion you like. And now... Three hundred years after what we fought for... There are *still* people who wish to pervert what this nation was founded *for, on, and why.* For those that wish to believe this, I simply would like to kindly ask them to take a crash course in Americanism. Because Christianity, a religion which has ruled the world for G-d knows how long, is *not* going to pervert how _this_ nation was founded, and I apologies for that remark, but I have to lay down the facts now to set this straight, because _thirty five pages of this?_ Really. I don't care what people say, I don't care what conspiracies people come up with, because our founders would drop dead at this hypocrisy. We did not fight a revolution for what people are saying we founded this nation on. It's insane.
> 
> The one special thing about this nation was that it wasn't founded with any religion in mind. Without any national religion, or anything of the such. That's the *one reason why half the population loves this country so much, and would fight to the death for it.* And people are actually trying to turn us right back into Great Britain? That's not what my ancestors fought for. The one reason why America is so great is because of the fact that it was founded with no religious affiliation. Separation of Church and State. Three hundred years... And people are actually trying to pervert the founding of this nation. Disgusting.
> 
> I'm done with this thread, after what I've read so far. Disgusting.


Good riddance.  You have nothing of any real value to contribute anyway.  Your contempt for Christianity is transparent as is your lack of respect toward anyone with a differing view from your own.

----------


## familydog

> Youd also have to give credit to the philosophers of Greece and the statesmen of Rome, both influencing the movement of thought through the Renaissance on down to the birth of modern science, all of this converging in the Enlightenment; to me, these things converged to give a rational, scientific basis for republican governmentwhereas Christianity can be used to support a monarchy, the Catholic churchs rule of Italy for many, many years, aristocratic/feudal societies, and republican government.  To me, you _really_ have to pick and choose from the Bible to use it as a republican model, which is fine; I just dont think it manifested republican government principles on its own, or even in the major role.  One could use all of Jesus main tenetsgolden rule, etc etcbut these were already expressed by the Greeks and Romans in different ways (and by Confucius)...so Im not sure you could say they are specifically Christian values...most of what I like that Jesus says is purely rational and humane (love thy neighbor, etc).  I dont even know why we need a code to tell us that.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Macon, GA and Theocrat.  Really, theyre crazy.


Again, I'm not going to disagree that the Greek city-states, the Roman republic, and the ancient Greek philosphers played a role. I would argue the Enlightenment had more of an impact than they did, but that is a different debate. 

If we are to believe the likes John Locke, then we do need a code for love thy neighbor. It comes in the form of the social contract, which inspired many of our founders.  

I guess it all boils down to how one defines a "founding" and who are the "founders."

----------


## Deborah K

> Well, all we would really go into is: I dont think the Ten Commandments should be up, though I think prayer should be allowed (though who really ever wants to pray in school?  Ive never seen a child, during my entire career as studentover 20 years, have this impulse...Ive come to believe its essentially a wedge issue to get people to vote for people like Huckabee).  You would say you think the 10 commandments should be up, etc etc.  It gets nowhere.


I don't care about the Ten Commandments being displayed or not.  I care that for almost 2 centuries this sort of thing was never considered unconstitutional and now it is due in part to the revisionism that is going on in this country as of the last 50 years or so.  When it comes to this, prayer in school (whether orchestrated by the faculty or not), boy scout meetings, etc. etc., I think each community should be allowed to determine whether they want it or not.  The Federal gov't should stay the hell out of it.  People seem to forget that the religious pay taxes too, not just the secularists.  In fact, I would venture an estimate that there are more tax paying "believers" than tax paying "non believers".  Since when does the minority get to pull rank over the majority in a community?  Since the secularists became more vocal and began distorting the truth.

I live just outside of San Diego where there has been an ongoing battle over a cross on a mountain.  I've been in this misinterpretation of SOCS fight for many years.  As time passes, I find myself constantly having to educate people on the fact that those words aren't in the Constitution, that they were taken out of context in a 1947(circa) case by a  SC Justice, from a letter written by Jefferson in 1801(circa). The case was Everson v. Board of Education.  Ever since that unprecedented ruling a new meaning emerged from the orginal phrase. 




> I agree with all this.  Though...wed have to allow also all religions or non-religions the right to express themselves whenever they wish.  (Meaning, if a Hindu wants to pray in school, he should be allowed to.)


I firmly believe all religions should be allowed to freely exercise their religious beliefs in public arenas.  Let the communities determine what is acceptable and unacceptable.  This is the true essence of religious freedom.

----------


## sophocles07

> Again, I'm not going to disagree that the Greek city-states, the Roman republic, and the ancient Greek philosphers played a role. I would argue the Enlightenment had more of an impact than they did, but that is a different debate.


I agree on this; I was trying to delineate the origins of the Enlightenment.




> If we are to believe the likes John Locke, then we do need a code for love thy neighbor. It comes in the form of the social contract, which inspired many of our founders.


I disagree with Locke on many things; this appears to be one of them.




> I don't care about the Ten Commandments being displayed or not. I care that for almost 2 centuries this sort of thing was never considered unconstitutional and now it is due in part to the revisionism that is going on in this country as of the last 50 years or so. When it comes to this, prayer in school (whether orchestrated by the faculty or not), boy scout meetings, etc. etc., I think each community should be allowed to determine whether they want it or not. The Federal gov't should stay the hell out of it. People seem to forget that the religious pay taxes too, not just the secularists. In fact, I would venture an estimate that there are more tax paying "believers" than tax paying "non believers". Since when does the minority get to pull rank over the majority in a community? Since the secularists became more vocal and began distorting the truth.


Why do you think a public school should be able to orchestrate prayer?  My view is that if you want religious education, you should send your child specifically to a faith-based school.  As I said, I have no problem with students praying in school of their own volition.

Whether or not the religious pay taxes is not the issue; they’re not paying their taxes to accomplish something that is in promotion of one religion.




> I live just outside of San Diego where there has been an ongoing battle over a cross on a mountain. I've been in this misinterpretation of SOCS fight for many years. As time passes, I find myself constantly having to educate people on the fact that those words aren't in the Constitution, that they were taken out of context in a 1947(circa) case by a SC Justice, from a letter written by Jefferson in 1801(circa). The case was Everson v. Board of Education. Ever since that unprecedented ruling a new meaning emerged from the orginal phrase.


Well, crosses on mountains...to be honest I could care less about the issue.  I don’t know why people spend money trying to get such generally meaningless pieces of symbolism off vaguely public areas.  




> Let the communities determine what is acceptable and unacceptable.


I’m not sure what you mean by this exactly; do you mean that if a Hindu happens to live in a Mormon town, the Mormons can enforce an anti-Hindu “acceptability” social contract that eliminates their rights?  I’m for INDIVIDUAL rights first of all.

----------


## Deborah K

> Why do you think a public school should be able to orchestrate prayer?  My view is that if you want religious education, you should send your child specifically to a faith-based school.  As I said, I have no problem with students praying in school of their own volition.


Because prior to Engel v. Vitale (1962) this was the case in American schools.  




> Whether or not the religious pay taxes is not the issue; theyre not paying their taxes to accomplish something that is in promotion of one religion.


For me, it is part of the issue.  The point is, why should tax paying believers fund a government that does not represent them?  Public schools are funded by tax payers.




> Im not sure what you mean by this exactly; do you mean that if a Hindu happens to live in a Mormon town, the Mormons can enforce an anti-Hindu acceptability social contract that eliminates their rights?  Im for INDIVIDUAL rights first of all.[/


These sorts of hypothetical arguments remind me of pro-abortion advocates who want no restrictions whatsoever on abortions right up to full term and use the rape and incest excuse for everything. Really.  I doubt a Hindu would move into an area with people he didn't have anything in common with.  If he does, he's either stupid or trying to stir up trouble.  We humans tend to stick with our own kind, there is nothing racist, or bigoted about that, it is our nature to do so, like it is in the animal world.  That is not to say we don't mix it up because we love to do that as well.  But we tend to associate with people who have the same moral, political and philosophical beliefs that we do.  Of course there are always exceptions to everything.

----------


## Minestra di pomodoro

> Because prior to Engel v. Vitale (1962) this was the case in American schools.


Before the 13th amendment SLAVERY was the case in American schools. Should we bring that back too?!

----------


## Theocrat

> Youd also have to give credit to the philosophers of Greece and the statesmen of Rome, both influencing the movement of thought through the Renaissance on down to the birth of modern science, all of this converging in the Enlightenment; to me, these things converged to give a rational, scientific basis for republican governmentwhereas Christianity can be used to support a monarchy, the Catholic churchs rule of Italy for many, many years, aristocratic/feudal societies, and republican government.  To me, you _really_ have to pick and choose from the Bible to use it as a republican model, which is fine; I just dont think it manifested republican government principles on its own, or even in the major role.  One could use all of Jesus main tenetsgolden rule, etc etcbut these were already expressed by the Greeks and Romans in different ways (and by Confucius)...so Im not sure you could say they are specifically Christian values...most of what I like that Jesus says is purely rational and humane (love thy neighbor, etc).  I dont even know why we need a code to tell us that.


You know, for someone who claims to be such an empiricist and constantly makes appeals to evidentiary claims of truth, you are very inconsistent in your reasoning, sophocles07. You have not given *ONE* iota of evidence to support your theory that the Founders used Enlightenment priniciples as the *primary source* of their political writings. Plus, you still haven't dealt with the propositions in H. Res. 888 which have acknowledged that our nation was indeed founded primarily on Christian religious principles. All you've stated were sarcastic grumblings and personal attacks against the U.S. House of Representatives. *Where is your comparative, analytic proof of the writings of the Founders that would conclusively show that they preferred Enlightenment principles over those of Christianity?*

If you can't provide that, then quite frankly, you need to refrain from any further discussion on this thread. Deborah K has more than once shown that Christianity was the major influence of political thought in our Founders' establishment of the American republican system. You, on the other hand, have not proven anything contrary to this besides your continual ridicule, vulgarity, and ignorance. That's not rational, and it's not in the good and fair spirit of debate for the purposes of the original intent of this forum thread. So, my advice to you, sophist-cles07, is either *put up, or shut up*!




> Well, Macon, GA and Theocrat.  Really, theyre crazy.


You are such a liar. Please show me where I have even remotely implied that I wish for America to turn back to Great Britain in this or any other thread in these Ron Paul Forums.

----------


## sophocles07

> Because prior to Engel v. Vitale (1962) this was the case in American schools.


Yes, but I mean logically, why?  It seems obvious to me that public officials—government officials—organizing a prayer is an act of religious preference.  What if a large group of students wanted to recite Nietzsche every day at the beginning of the day and a group of teachers organized this?  Etc.  This is blatant establishment of one religion over another.  Black was/is right.  Simply the fact of it not being that way before 1962 is not an argument for the correctness of that state of things.




> For me, it is part of the issue. The point is, why should tax paying believers fund a government that does not represent them? Public schools are funded by tax payers.


You pay taxes to uphold the Constitution and the American way of life; not to wedge Christianity into the power structure.




> These sorts of hypothetical arguments remind me of pro-abortion advocates who want no restrictions whatsoever on abortions right up to full term and use the rape and incest excuse for everything. Really. I doubt a Hindu would move into an area with people he didn't have anything in common with.


Law is not based on probability; it is based on securing the rights of individuals from intrusion of rights; one of these intrusions is the dominance of collectivist opinion (most of which I consider absolutely insane and would never submit to).




> If he does, he's either stupid or trying to stir up trouble.


What if he was offered a very good job in the area?  Again, it’s not probability-based; it’s based on covering all the ground.




> We humans tend to stick with our own kind, there is nothing racist, or bigoted about that, it is our nature to do so, like it is in the animal world. That is not to say we don't mix it up because we love to do that as well. But we tend to associate with people who have the same moral, political and philosophical beliefs that we do. Of course there are always exceptions to everything.


YES: “exceptions.”  Let’s not make laws so that your religion—which happens to be in the majority—gets to dominate everyone else.




> You know, for someone who claims to be such an empiricist and constantly makes appeals to evidentiary claims of truth, you are very inconsistent in your reasoning, sophocles07. You have not given ONE iota of evidence to support your theory that the Founders used Enlightenment priniciples as the primary source of their political writings.


That’s because it’s not based on Jefferson or Adams saying “Yep, they’re my primary source.”  It’s based on the history of philosophy and its influence on the Founders.  As I said, I could go through all of their writings and dig out the parts where they quote such and such, and give quotes where they were clearly influenced by this or that idea.  Unfortunately, I have work and school to see to, and I can’t spend all my time providing you, laziness incarnate, with quotes.




> Plus, you still haven't dealt with the propositions in H. Res. 888 which have acknowledged that our nation was indeed founded primarily on Christian religious principles. All you've stated were sarcastic grumblings and personal attacks against the U.S. House of Representatives.


They weren’t personal attacks you moron; they are killing hundreds of thousands of people through inaction; I certainly don’t put anything they say as valuable.  




> Where is your comparative, analytic proof of the writings of the Founders that would conclusively show that they preferred Enlightenment principles over those of Christianity?


I didn’t even suggest these things were two competing sources of influence.  I am saying that Christianity, if it influenced the founding of the nation (which it did), did so through the light of Enlightenment philosophy.  This amounts to saying that Aquinas saw Christianity through the light of Aristotle’s philosophy.  I am saying that Christianity can amount to any number of government orders, and that the way you use the Bible in drawing principles from it is based in large on the contemporaneous philosophy, and the personal reading, and the political and historical movements during the time when coming upon it.  That is to say, the movements around and of Enlightenment enabled the rise of republican government to re-emerge from monarch-based Christian tyranny.  




> If you can't provide that, then quite frankly, you need to refrain from any further discussion on this thread. Deborah K has more than once shown that Christianity was the major influence of political thought in our Founders' establishment of the American republican system. You, on the other hand, have not proven anything contrary to this besides your continual ridicule, vulgarity, and ignorance. That's not rational, and it's not in the good and fair spirit of debate for the purposes of the original intent of this forum thread. So, my advice to you, sophist-cles07, is either put up, or shut up!


You have such a slanted, insane view of my posts in this thread I once again am doubting the presence of human brain in head.




> You are such a liar. Please show me where I have even remotely implied that I wish for America to turn back to Great Britain in this or any other thread in these Ron Paul Forums.


Dude...you posted in the “Persecution of Atheists” thread for 55 pages or so supporting the idea of a theocracy.  Anyone can search for the thread and find it.  I didn’t say you wanted to turn it back into Great Britain; my take is that you want something more Saudi Arabia.

----------


## Deborah K

> Before the 13th amendment SLAVERY was the case in American schools. Should we bring that back too?!



Are you equating prayer in schools with slavery????  Puleeeze!

----------


## Minestra di pomodoro

> Are you equating prayer in schools with slavery????  Puleeeze!


You're right, slavery wasn't all that bad.

----------


## Deborah K

> Yes, but I mean logically, why?  It seems obvious to me that public officialsgovernment officialsorganizing a prayer is an act of religious preference.  What if a large group of students wanted to recite Nietzsche every day at the beginning of the day and a group of teachers organized this?  Etc.  This is blatant establishment of one religion over another.  Black was/is right.  Simply the fact of it not being that way before 1962 is not an argument for the correctness of that state of things.You pay taxes to uphold the Constitution and the American way of life; not to wedge Christianity into the power structure.
> 
> 
> 
> Law is not based on probability; it is based on securing the rights of individuals from intrusion of rights; one of these intrusions is the dominance of collectivist opinion (most of which I consider absolutely insane and would never submit to).
> 
> 
> 
> What if he was offered a very good job in the area?  Again, its not probability-based; its based on covering all the ground.
> ...


See, here's where we part ways and should start a new thread.  I disagree with just about everything you wrote here.  So, as soon as I can, I'll start another thread on SOCS and we'll take this up on it, okay?  Unless of course, you would like to start the thread?

----------


## Deborah K

> You're right, slavery wasn't all that bad.


Great!  Another bigot.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> The following thread prompted this one:
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...125338&page=38
> 
> I reject the obvious desire to revise history on this matter. It is as though our  heritage is something that should be feared and reviled, and so it must be denied.  An Orwellian trait to be sure.
> 
> I’ve decided to share some facts about this issue, but before I get into it, allow me to preface this by stating that I believe in a Creator, and I believe that Christ was the human manifestation of that Creator.  However, I do not belong to a religious organization.  I am a recovering Catholic.  I come from a very long line of Catholics that includes priests and nuns on my French-Canadian Father’s side.  My Mother was raised with no religion as her Father was an atheist. I was baptized right after birth, but my parents did not raise me Catholic.  I practiced Catholicism of my own volition as a young girl, up until the Priest molestation scandal and subsequent illegal alien advocacy of the Catholic Church.
> 
> While I believe there is a place in the world for religion, I also believe that way too many people see it as an end, rather than a means to an end.  This undermines a person’s wisdom and sense of balance. Instead of viewing the church as a vehicle in which to teach people about the source of divine power and through which divine power can be channeled into man’s nature, people view the church as the power itself. And the church allows and even encourages this line of thinking. I believe this is extremely deceptive and destructive. 
> 
> ...


There is a difference between worshipping the Christian faith which has not been that long secularized into our American culture and the worshipping of the legal precedents which were set up by the many Popes who ruled over a Catholic State Church for some 1700 years.  The true nature of this political organization was to regain lost power over the old Roman Empire as the new center for the Holy Roman Empire.  This new political power managed to create a lucrative business for itself in Vatican city by establishing the world of pergatory where people needing constant salvation gladly gave for the sake of the forgiveness of their past sins and even their future indulgencies.       
We can see secularized in our culture even today the influence these types of money changers have on the representatives of our government in how former law makers graduate to become lobbyists who purchase for special interest groups the forgiveness of sins and of future indulgencies.  
On the other hand, the idea that "atheism" has long been established secularly into our culture is unfounded in history demonstrating clearly that our desire for freedom derived not from it but out from our Protestant and Puritan heritages.

----------


## sophocles07

> See, here's where we part ways and should start a new thread. I disagree with just about everything you wrote here. So, as soon as I can, I'll start another thread on SOCS and we'll take this up on it, okay? Unless of course, you would like to start the thread?


You can if you want to.  I’m not that eager (I’ve been spending too much time arguing about these issues on here lately).  But I’m sure others would respond/debate also, so...

----------


## Todd

Hegelian philosophy:




> The completion of the historical process for Hegel was for the secularization of the Christian religion..that is a translantion of the Christian idea of freedom and equality in the eyes of God for later redemption... into the here and now.
> 
> The Christian religion realized that the weak would overcome the strong using guilt and conscience.  In modern times this prejudice became widespread and irresistable, not necessarily because it was true, but because of the greater numbers of the weak.
> 
> The Roman empire ultimately collapses because it established the universal legal equality of all men, but without recognizing their rights and human dignity.  This could only be found in the Judeo-christian tradition whichestablished the universal equality of man on the basis of his moral freedom.



I believe philosophers like Nietzche and Hegel found contempt in Democratic institutions, but they weren't benighted and ideologically blinded to understand liberty and equalities origins.

I agree with everyone who stated that we have much influence from Greek culture and other influences, but I think there is little denial in how much the Christian religon played a part in what we take for granted as "self evident" these days.

----------


## Ozwest

All religions offer so much. a smorgasborg of "treats'

As an athiest, I look forward to the miriad of choices.

How am I able to function as a human being, without the guidance of Religion?

Surely I'm lost...

----------


## Theocrat

> Thats because its not based on Jefferson or Adams saying Yep, theyre my primary source.  Its based on the history of philosophy and its influence on the Founders.  As I said, I could go through all of their writings and dig out the parts where they quote such and such, and give quotes where they were clearly influenced by this or that idea.  Unfortunately, I have work and school to see to, and I cant spend all my time providing you, laziness incarnate, with quotes.


Once again, where is your proof that Enlightenment philosophy had more influence on the Founders than Christianity? You keep making this claim without substantiating it, so until you do, I will conclude that you have no such evidence and are being arbitrary.

I'm "laziness incarnate," yet you are the one who can't even go through the Founders' writings just to prove such a simple claim that the Enlightenment influenced the Founders more than Christianity. Your hypocrisy abounds.




> They werent personal attacks you moron; they are killing hundreds of thousands of people through inaction; I certainly dont put anything they say as valuable.


I guess then you don't believe Congressman Paul has anything valuable to say, either, because he's a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, too, right? Guilt by association, my friend. What a shame...




> I didnt even suggest these things were two competing sources of influence.  I am saying that Christianity, if it influenced the founding of the nation (which it did), did so through the light of Enlightenment philosophy.  This amounts to saying that Aquinas saw Christianity through the light of Aristotles philosophy.  I am saying that Christianity can amount to any number of government orders, and that the way you use the Bible in drawing principles from it is based in large on the contemporaneous philosophy, and the personal reading, and the political and historical movements during the time when coming upon it.  That is to say, the movements around and of Enlightenment enabled the rise of republican government to re-emerge from monarch-based Christian tyranny.


Where's your proof of this, "Mr. Empiricist"?




> You have such a slanted, insane view of my posts in this thread I once again am doubting the presence of human brain in head.


You'll have to excuse those electrochemical processes in my brain which evolved from nothing for millions of years... 




> I didnt say you wanted to turn it back into Great Britain; my take is that you want something more Saudi Arabia.


Oh, yeah? What about this?




> Who is trying to turn this country back to Great Britain?





> Well, Macon, GA and Theocrat.  Really, theyre crazy.


You are a liar, sophist-cles07.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Hegelian philosophy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe philosophers like Nietzche and Hegel found contempt in Democratic institutions, but they weren't benighted and ideologically blinded to understand liberty and equalities origins.
> 
> I agree with everyone who stated that we have much influence from Greek culture and other influences, but I think there is little denial in how much the Christian religon played a part in what we take for granted as "self evident" these days.


But most of that influence happened as Aristotle's philosophy and a lot of Plato's philosphy were being introduced into Western Europe for the first time from Arab philosophers in southern Spain during the 13th century ACE.  Before that time, Saint Augustine used Plato's philosophy in the 4th centery ACE to fabricate a foundation for emperor Constantine's own Christian faith so that he would not have to stoop to convert to an unofficial Christian movement that existed during that time.   This new "official" creation became a new State religion known as the Catholic Church.  So, the  Catholic religion had Greek philosophy as its foundation -- Plato's theory of the Forms -- long before Aristotle's works were later incorporated into the Church by St. Thomas Aquinas as "God's natural laws."  
This catholic religion became deeply secularized into Western European culture just as paganism itself remained as an influence.  Later Martin Luther started the Reformation movement which spawned Protestant Catholics.  As the Protestants moved away from following of the legal precedents set down by the Vatican in favor of the following of the real meaning in the bible, the Puritans later on chose to abandon the State Church of England later on.  All of these factors of paganism, catholicism, protestantism and puritanism have been deeply secularized into our American culture.
Add to these cultures the influence of American transcendentalism and we have the complex American character.  The idea of Atheism as an influence on this culture is very new in comparison in that it has a very short history.

----------


## Theocrat

I believe the following article from Pastor Chuck Baldwin is appropriate to the subject of this forum thread. Even he recognizes such things as *"Noah Webster, the man who is called the Father of American Education, said, 'Education is useless without the Bible.' He also said, 'The Bible was America's basic textbook in all fields.'"* Continue on reading by clicking the link below.

"He is Risen"

----------


## Robert Jenkins

> LOLZ HAX JEWISH CONSPIRACY.
> 
> Sarcasm intended.
> 
> So... We're Supremacists, now. Huh? So just... Sitting around and having our asses handed to us is Supremacism now, right? I mean, you could have that argument now assuming you don't twist it which you Conspiracists always do, now that Israel just isn't taking any crap anymore right after Munich, but previously? Best to read up, my friend. And not from your 9/11 Truth Movement sites.
> 
> Ah. All of the neo-cons are Jewish, now. Huh? I guess just because someone is Jewish and is brainwashed like the rest of us, it means the entire race is full of neo-cons... Right? I guess I'm a neo-con right now, so I must have infiltrated this forum, and I must hacking it right now, like the neo-con I am. Right? There's a lot more neo-con Christians out there, so maybe the entire religion of Christianity is run by neo-cons. The pope is a neo-con. GASP! The entire Christian religion is a neo-con movement set to take over the entire world with their bibles and crosses and eat countries OMG HAX RUN FOR YOUR LIVEZZZZ THE FOURTH CRUSADE IS COMING
> 
> Oh, really? We have? As a race in whole? Filing a lawsuit against Christianity? Proof? Oh, yeah. Of course. We've gotta' take out those damn Christian fanatics. They're all a bunch of cross hugging Commies. Gotta' stop them all before they take over the world with their bibles. Come on, everyone. Let's go whack a Christian before they all unleash their secret plot to take over North America and turn it into the Vatican.


Jews are supremacists.  Here's a good link for those who would like to see what the Talmud actually says:

http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=156

Now, before some politically correct person goes nuts, and makes hysterical accusations, let me say this:  Exposing the truth about the Talmud does not make one a gas chamber operating National Socialist.

Here's the deal.  Truth is a disinfectant.  Once people recognize the truth regarding the matter, they will no longer support zionist wars against people who aren't our enemies.  John Hagee's influence and money making ministry will go down the drain.  People will no longer be afraid to admit that much of the rot coming out of Hollywood is produced by Jews who hate our culture.  And people will start standing up for our heritage.

Admitting the truth about someone who wants to hurt you is not a bad thing.  It's a positive thing.

----------


## Robert Jenkins

Oh, and I had one other thought.  I see the pictures of those little kids murdered by the IOF.  I read about the starvation imposed on the Palestinians, and I just want to cry.

And, of course, I would be accused of antisemitism for opposing cruelty to the Semitic Palestinians.  And that's another thought; the misappropriation of the term "antisemitism".  Jews are just a tiny fraction of all Semitic peoples.  Yet, Abe Foxcrap of the ADL accused the Semitic Lebanese of antisemitism for defending themselves against the Israeli invasion.  Weird.

What if the English said that any criticism of England was anti-Europeanism?  And let's say a Frenchman criticized the English PM.  Well, that vile Frenchman is a nasty, no good, racist, anti-Europeanite.

There are two terms which need to be banned from the English language.  The first is "judeo-Christian".  The other is "anti-semitism".

Edit:  This is a little off-topic, but another term I hate is "emergency situation".  Can't people just say "emergency" and drop the needless "situation"?

----------


## sophocles07

> Once again, where is your proof that Enlightenment philosophy had more influence on the Founders than Christianity? You keep making this claim without substantiating it, so until you do, I will conclude that you have no such evidence and are being arbitrary.


How else can I state this, you turdy little self-echo?  I don’t have a link to give you.  READ their writings.  STUDY history.  This isn’t something that can fit into a few sentences; it’s a wide, extremely complex topic.  The influence of philosophical movements over many YEARS on very INTELLIGENT, vanguard-minded individuals will not reduce itself to “SEE, here it is!!! here’s where it says they were MORE INFLUENCED by Enlightenment philosophy than CHRISTIANITY!!!! GET NOW???”  It’s not that simple.  My impression is that the Enlightenment influenced enormously the views of the Founders, and that the Enlightenment had a large impact on how Christianity was interpreted.  This is, by the way, the view generally held to be true by any historian I’ve ever read.  I didn’t pull this out of my ass; it’s the common perception of anyone who looks over history.  




> I'm "laziness incarnate," yet you are the one who can't even go through the Founders' writings just to prove such a simple claim that the Enlightenment influenced the Founders more than Christianity. Your hypocrisy abounds.


Go to the nearest library with well-stocked shelves of the Founders’ writings.  How many 500-1000 page books do you see for each Founder?  Washington alone fills out over 15 volumes.  This is what I’m saying: there is no way I could go through all of their writings and find you detailed quotes without a very long time gap, a lot more free time, etc.  I could, obviously, search on google for quotes—which is what everyone else here seems to do, athiest or Christian, to support their claims—but I don’t want to do that; it simplifies and disgraces the breadth and complexity of the subject.  I’m sure you can type in “Enlightenment influence on the Founders” and find any number of sites that give you information; you don’t need me for that.  

YOU are lazy because you want that, apparently.  You don’t accept the answer that that’s far too much reading to do in the time-frame of a forum thread.




> I guess then you don't believe Congressman Paul has anything valuable to say, either, because he's a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, too, right? Guilt by association, my friend. What a shame...


That’s one man.  So any law that comes out of the House you immediately accept?  I find this bill an absolute waste of time while our soldiers (and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis) are being killed through the inaction of the House members (and Senate).  Also, this isn’t even a law; it’s a non-binding “statement.”  Apparently supported by a bunch of $#@!s.

Also, let’s look at some of the sponsors of this thing:

J. Randy Forbes:

•	


> Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007) 
> •	Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006) 
> •	Voted YES on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004) 
> •	Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)





> •	Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005) 
> •	Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004) 
> •	Voted YES on promoting free trade with Peru. (Nov 2007) 
> •	Voted NO on assisting workers who lose jobs due to globalization. (Oct 2007) 
> •	Voted YES on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005) 
> •	Voted YES on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Jul 2004) 
> •	Voted YES on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. (Jul 2003) 
> •	Voted YES on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003) 
> •	Rated 56% by CATO, indicating a mixed record on trade issues. (Dec 2002)


http://www.ontheissues.org/VA/Randy_Forbes.htm

ETC.  

(The rest of this information comes from the same site but on each congressman’s page unless stated otherwise.)

Mike McIntyre:

•	


> Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007) 
> •	Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006) 
> •	Voted YES on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004) 
> •	Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002) 
> •	Voted NO on disallowing the invasion of Kosovo. (May 1999) 
> •	Solidarity with Israel in its fight against terrorism. (Apr 2002)


Robert Aderholt:




> •	Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007) 
> •	Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006) 
> •	Voted YES on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004) 
> •	Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002) 
> •	Solidarity with Israel in its fight against terrorism. (Apr 2002)


Gresham Barrett:

•	


> Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007) 
> •	Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006) 
> •	Voted YES on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004)


Todd Akin:

•	


> Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007) 
> •	Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006) 
> •	Voted YES on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004) 
> •	Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)


Donald Young:

•	


> Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007) 
> •	Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006) 
> •	Voted YES on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004) 
> •	Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)


ETC.

I could go one; there are this many sponsors:




> Rep. Robert Aderholt [R-AL]
> Rep. Todd Akin [R-MO]
> Rep. James Barrett [R-SC]
> Rep. Rob Bishop [R-UT]
> Rep. Sanford Bishop [D-GA]
> Rep. Roy Blunt [R-MO]
> Rep. John Boozman [R-AR]
> Rep. John Culberson [R-TX]
> Rep. David Davis [R-TN]
> ...


To my knowledge Ron Paul is not involved.  I’d be surprised if any of these other congressman differed much from the few I have provided information for.  SO I’m not generalizing; these people are of the same breed: they vote for war and then make up these phony, bull$#@! wedge issues to disorient Evangelicals from figuring out they are supporting monsters for petty reasons.



> Oh, yeah? What about this?


Fair enough.  I forgot about that.  Anyway: I don’t even think the oppression in Great Britain is extreme enough to capture your malframed vision of how things should be.

----------


## Robert Jenkins

"How else can I state this, you turdy little self-echo?"

Soph, I'm not taking sides in your debate, but I thought that was funny.  I might use that sometime.

----------


## familydog

> How else can I state this, you turdy little self-echo?  I don’t have a link to give you.  READ their writings.  STUDY history.  This isn’t something that can fit into a few sentences; it’s a wide, extremely complex topic.  The influence of philosophical movements over many YEARS on very INTELLIGENT, vanguard-minded individuals will not reduce itself to “SEE, here it is!!! here’s where it says they were MORE INFLUENCED by Enlightenment philosophy than CHRISTIANITY!!!! GET NOW???”  It’s not that simple.  My impression is that the Enlightenment influenced enormously the views of the Founders, and that the Enlightenment had a large impact on how Christianity was interpreted.  This is, by the way, the view generally held to be true by any historian I’ve ever read.  I didn’t pull this out of my ass; it’s the common perception of anyone who looks over history.  
> 
> 
> 
> Go to the nearest library with well-stocked shelves of the Founders’ writings.  How many 500-1000 page books do you see for each Founder?  Washington alone fills out over 15 volumes.  This is what I’m saying: there is no way I could go through all of their writings and find you detailed quotes without a very long time gap, a lot more free time, etc.  I could, obviously, search on google for quotes—which is what everyone else here seems to do, athiest or Christian, to support their claims—but I don’t want to do that; it simplifies and disgraces the breadth and complexity of the subject.  I’m sure you can type in “Enlightenment influence on the Founders” and find any number of sites that give you information; you don’t need me for that.  
> 
> YOU are lazy because you want that, apparently.  You don’t accept the answer that that’s far too much reading to do in the time-frame of a forum thread.


Hmm, it's interesting you call others lazy, but then tell them to go look at books in a library and they'll see all they need to know.

You seem to think of the founders as just a few. People like Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Madison, etc. 

I issued a challenge in this thread that went unanswered. I've strongly suggested that our "founders" go beyond the few famous people. I've suggested that the "founders" are everybody that participated in the revolution, not just a few intellectuals up at the top. Surely the average farmer/soldier matters as much Jefferson? After all, there wouldn't be a revolution if there wasn't popular support. Where does popular support come from? The great masses. Surely their opinion matters just as much. Surely they are considered founders as well.  

In fact, let me quote you a passage from Ray Raphael's book "Founding Myths." "The _central_ theme of the American Revolution was popular soverignty: all power resides with the people. How, then, can 'the people' be reduced to the periphery of the story? In fact, regular Americans were at the very center of the drama:

     -Common farmers, without any help at all from Ellis's featured players, were the first to overthrow British political authority (See chapter 4.)

     -Poor men and boys fought the British army. Without them, the founders might all have been hanged. (See chapter 5.)

     -If it weren't for a popular clamoring for independence, Congress would not have passed their final declaration. (See chapter 6.)

     -If it weren't for the labor of hundreds of thousands of 'Founding Sisters,' American society could never have survived the war. Whatever the 'Founding Brothers' were able to accomplish in political chambers would have proven futile. (See chapter 2.)" p. 133.

That's just a small piece of an entire chapter devoted to why the "founders" are more than just Jefferson and Co.

Isn't it true that the majority of the common people of the revolutionary era were Christians? 

Surely their Christianity should be taken into account with regards to the founding. The laws they put into place at the creation of the country, the pre-Constitution documents, the very religious Congress under the Articles of Confederation, etc.

With all that said, I'm arguing that the majority deserve to have their say, not just the minority. Right?

----------


## Theocrat

> How else can I state this, you turdy little self-echo?  I dont have a link to give you.  READ their writings.  STUDY history.  This isnt something that can fit into a few sentences; its a wide, extremely complex topic.  The influence of philosophical movements over many YEARS on very INTELLIGENT, vanguard-minded individuals will not reduce itself to SEE, here it is!!! heres where it says they were MORE INFLUENCED by Enlightenment philosophy than CHRISTIANITY!!!! GET NOW???  Its not that simple.  My impression is that the Enlightenment influenced enormously the views of the Founders, and that the Enlightenment had a large impact on how Christianity was interpreted.  This is, by the way, the view generally held to be true by any historian Ive ever read.  I didnt pull this out of my ass; its the common perception of anyone who looks over history.


In all honesty, I don't really care what your *impression* of the Founding Fathers' political/philosophical influences were. That's the problem with liberal scholars and revisionists today. They no longer record history based on hard facts like actual documents and journal writings from original sources; they simply interpret the information from their own point of view and present that as fact instead. What I've asked you to do is provide *evidence* of your claims, but you continue with lame excuses of how it's such a complex subject and you not having time to provide the research. Yet, many of us who believe the Founders were Christians and influenced by the Bible have already provided numerous evidences which simply prove this to be the case. Until you provide any information contrary to what's been proven true in this forum thread, it will conclusively remain that you have indeed pulled your claims *"out of your ass,"* as you've put it. Anyone who studies true American history will know that our Founders were nothing but pious Christian men who used the Bible as the major source of their political writings. Go back and read the study Deborah K provided in the beginning of this thread.




> Go to the nearest library with well-stocked shelves of the Founders writings.  How many 500-1000 page books do you see for each Founder?  Washington alone fills out over 15 volumes.  This is what Im saying: there is no way I could go through all of their writings and find you detailed quotes without a very long time gap, a lot more free time, etc.  I could, obviously, search on google for quoteswhich is what everyone else here seems to do, athiest or Christian, to support their claimsbut I dont want to do that; it simplifies and disgraces the breadth and complexity of the subject.  Im sure you can type in Enlightenment influence on the Founders and find any number of sites that give you information; you dont need me for that.  
> 
> YOU are lazy because you want that, apparently.  You dont accept the answer that thats far too much reading to do in the time-frame of a forum thread.


This is simply a weak excuse, sophocles07. You made the claim, so, to me, that means you provide the evidence that shows our Founders were more influenced by the Enlightenment than Christianity. I believe this claim of yours is a lie, unfounded by anything but the pernicious, sinister beliefs of non-Christians who simply hate God and seek to destroy any institution which inculcates the principles of the Christian faith.




> Thats one man.  So any law that comes out of the House you immediately accept?  I find this bill an absolute waste of time while our soldiers (and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis) are being killed through the inaction of the House members (and Senate).  Also, this isnt even a law; its a non-binding statement.  Apparently supported by a bunch of $#@!s.
> 
> Also, lets look at some of the sponsors of this thing:
> 
> J. Randy Forbes:
> 
> 	
> 
> 
> ...


You need to study some logic because all you've done here is provide another _ad hominem_ argument, as you usually do when you disagree with someone's point of view. Their voting records, particularly on the Iraq War have *nothing* to do with the *truth or falsity of the propositions* written in their H. Res. 888. Your argument is totally irrelevant.

----------


## sophocles07

> In all honesty, I don't really care what your impression of the Founding Fathers' political/philosophical influences were. That's the problem with liberal scholars and revisionists today. They no longer record history based on hard facts like actual documents and journal writings from original sources; they simply interpret the information from their own point of view and present that as fact instead. What I've asked you to do is provide evidence of your claims, but you continue with lame excuses of how it's such a complex subject and you not having time to provide the research. Yet, many of us who believe the Founders were Christians and influenced by the Bible have already provided numerous evidences which simply prove this to be the case. Until you provide any information contrary to what's been proven true in this forum thread, it will conclusively remain that you have indeed pulled your claims "out of your ass," as you've put it. Anyone who studies true American history will know that our Founders were nothing but pious Christian men who used the Bible as the major source of their political writings. Go back and read the study Deborah K provided in the beginning of this thread.


Alright.  Go rub oils on the Virgin Mary, I’m done arguing with psychos about this.




> You need to study some logic because all you've done here is provide another ad hominem argument, as you usually do when you disagree with someone's point of view. Their voting records, particularly on the Iraq War have nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the propositions written in their H. Res. 888. Your argument is totally irrelevant.


I use a generality, you accuse me of being unfounded; I go get details to back up the generality, you accuse me of it being irrelevant.  You are pathetic.  I don’t think you understand what an “ad hominem” attack is.  

If you consider pointing out a near-monolithically horrible voting record—including the Iraq War, Patriot act, etc., the former which I brought up specifically as something they were ignoring; if you consider looking at the POLICIES they have voted on an ad hominem attack...what exactly am I suppose to base anything on that’s not ad hominem?  THEY’RE CONGRESSMEN—THEY SHOULD BE VALUED ON THEIR VOTING RECORD.  If this is an ad hominem attack, Ron Paul uses ad hominem attacks all the time.  

My original point was that these kind of “Republicans” bring up wedge issues—Gay marriage, Christian “Month”, etc etc—to avoid doing anything about the larger, more important issues, like the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, the income tax, the Federal Reserve, etc.  This is Politics 101.  Everybody knows the Republican neo-cons and the Democrat neo-cons make use of wedge issues; and the Evangelical community falls for it every time.  Why do you think Huckabee did so well?  Why do you think Bush did so well?  Where’d that get us?  These congressmen are stooges—“foot soldiers,” as John McCain uses the word—for the complete degradation of our Constitution.  

To say that one vote has nothing to do with another is entirely ridiculous.  You are one of the most pathetic, _stupid_ individuals if you really think these guys go around voting for every corrupt, genocidal policy they can, and then are really sincere—and not merely using Christianity to get the votes of people who don’t know the issues well enough—about Christian values of “love thy neighbor” and “Do not murder.”

----------


## sophocles07

family dog, I responded to your thread last night but it didn't post for some reason.

Summarized, simplified version of my response:

I didn't mean "go read that stuff"; I meant it's too much for me to read quickly and give a view.  That I don't want to go google this stuff....which would just take one or the the other side.  I find that shameful; I'd rather read the stuff in the original (which I'm doing, it just takes a while).

On the commoners, etc.

I don't think by any stretch that Jefferson is on par with the farmer.  You have to consider the architects of the revolution vs. the masses they guided.  Yes, they did revolt at certain times, but this wasn't guided by ideological, rational planning of the kind that brought about the Constitution, developed thoughts on economy, trade, foreign policy, RIGHTS, etc.  Farmers rebelled shortly after the Black Death in Europe; they didn't do it because they were visionaries, they did it because they were immediately oppressed materially.  Jefferson and Adams &co. rebelled based on ideals, and were the designers of the nation.  To equate Jefferson with the farmer, I think, is a bit of a stretch.

----------


## Kade

> The key question is, so what?
> 
> Christians overwhelmingly voted for George W. Bush. Many Slave owners were Christians, and the Bible addresses the righteous manner in which to treat slaves. 
> 
> Again, so what?
> 
> Did members of other faiths not own slaves, vote for the Bushes, fight for freedom, or settle in this nation? Let us not be so vain to think that the American experience is a Christian experience. The American experience is one of equality under the law. 
> 
> You believe that people who undermine the truth of America's Christian founding do so with a purpose in mind, to strip Christianity from American culture. What then is the purpose of affirming it? Are we wrong to assume that this attempt to turn Washington into a Southern Baptist doesn't come with similar strings attached?
> ...


Wow Micah. *tear*

I swear to you, your version of the faith is summarily redeemed with you and a few others on this board that just seem to get "it". It actually makes me want to go listen to your dad preach, just to see if he is like you.

----------


## Kade

> Well, all we would really go into is: I dont think the Ten Commandments should be up, though I think prayer should be allowed (though who really ever wants to pray in school?  Ive never seen a child, during my entire career as studentover 20 years, have this impulse...Ive come to believe its essentially a wedge issue to get people to vote for people like Huckabee).  You would say you think the 10 commandments should be up, etc etc.  It gets nowhere.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with all this.  Though...wed have to allow also all religions or non-religions the right to express themselves whenever they wish.  (Meaning, if a Hindu wants to pray in school, he should be allowed to.)  
> 
> I suspect you and I would have to re-define what we mean when we say separation of Church and State.  I dont use the term in the sense of banning religion from the public sphere; I use it in the sense that the government does not do anything that endorses any religionwhich means that I think school prayer is ok as long as the employees in public schools dont organize it, and that I dont think the 10 commandments should be up because many commandments are superfluous and simply antithetical to the beliefs of many individuals (really, having have no god before me on the courthouse?  Its absolutely repulsive to me; they are supposed to _represent_ me and everybody else, not represent only Christians who believe in this religious law).


You were absolutely correct in your assumption that in the back of my mind I maintained that I was arguing against Theocrat and reconstructionism. I maintain still that enlightenment principles were chiefly the foundational cornerstone of our Democracy.


As for the issue of separation of church and state, I may have a stronger opinion about it's strictness, but I do sympathize with your version of it.

I look at the most recent case, Lee v Weisman, to help navigate what is in respect a complex argument either way... this one specifically deals with Graduation Ceremonies is of great interest, because it was decided by a rather conservative court, including an opinion piece by the newly appointed (at the time) Justice Kennedy. 

For Reference 
*Lemon Test:
(1) reflect a clearly secular purpose; (2) have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and (3) avoid excessive government entanglement with religion.
*
Abridged: 

The record in this case is sparse in many respects, and we are unfamiliar with any fixed custom or practice at middle school graduations, referred to by the school district as "promotional exercises." We are not so constrained with reference to high schools, however. *High school graduations are such an integral part of American cultural life that we can with confidence describe their customary features, confirmed by aspects of the record and by the parties' representations at oral argument.* In the Providence school system, most high school graduation ceremonies are conducted away from the school, while most middle school ceremonies are held on school premises. Classical High School, which Deborah now attends, has conducted its graduation ceremonies on school premises. Agreed Statement of Facts  37, id., at 17. The parties stipulate that attendance at graduation ceremonies is voluntary. Agreed Statement of Facts  41, id., at 18. The graduating students enter as a group in a processional, subject to the direction of teachers and school officials, and sit together, apart from their families. We assume the clergy's participation in any high school graduation exercise would be about what it was at Deborah's middle school ceremony. There the students stood for the Pledge of Allegiance and remained standing during the rabbi's prayers. Tr. of Oral Arg. 38. Even on the assumption that there was a respectful moment of silence both before and after the prayers, the rabbi's two presentations must not have extended much beyond a minute each, if that. We do not know whether he remained on stage during the whole ceremony, or whether the students received individual diplomas on stage, or if he helped to congratulate them.

The school board (and the United States, which supports it as amicus curie) argued that these short prayers and others like them at graduation exercises are of *profound meaning to many students and parents throughout this country who consider that due respect and acknowledgment for divine guidance and for the deepest spiritual aspirations of [505 U.S. 577, 584]   our people ought to be expressed at an event as important in life as a graduation. We assume this to be so in addressing the difficult case now before us, for the significance of the prayers lies also at the heart of Daniel and Deborah Weisman's case.* 

Deborah's graduation was held on the premises of Nathan Bishop Middle School on June 29, 1989. Four days before the ceremony, Daniel Weisman, in his individual capacity as a Providence taxpayer and as next friend of Deborah, sought a temporary restraining order in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island to prohibit school officials from including an invocation or benediction in the graduation ceremony. The court denied the motion for lack of adequate time to consider it. Deborah and her family attended the graduation, where the prayers were recited. In July, 1989, Daniel Weisman filed an amended complaint seeking a permanent injunction barring petitioners, various officials of the Providence public schools, from inviting the clergy to deliver invocations and benedictions at future graduations. We find it unnecessary to address Daniel Weisman's taxpayer standing, for a live and justiciable controversy is before us. Deborah Weisman is enrolled as a student at Classical High School in Providence and from the record it appears likely, if not certain, that an invocation and benediction will be conducted at her high school graduation. Agreed Statement of Facts  38, App. at 17.


The court decided, based on its reading of our precedents, *that the effects test of Lemon is violated whenever government action "creates an identification of the state with a religion, or with religion in general," 728 F.Supp., at 71, or when "the effect of the governmental action is to endorse one religion over another, or to endorse religion in general." Id., at 72.* The court determined that the practice of including invocations and benedictions, even so-called nonsectarian ones, in public school graduations creates an identification of governmental power with religious practice, endorses religion, and violates the Establishment Clause. In so holding, the court expressed the determination not to follow Stein v. Plainwell Community Schools, 822 F.2d 1406 (1987), in which the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, relying on our decision in Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783  (1983), held that benedictions and invocations at public school graduations are not always unconstitutional. In Marsh, we upheld the constitutionality of the Nebraska State Legislature's practice of opening each of its sessions with a prayer offered by a chaplain paid out of public funds. The District Court in this case disagreed with the Sixth Circuit's reasoning because it believed that Marsh was a narrow decision, "limited to the unique situation of legislative prayer," and did not have any relevance to school prayer cases. 728 F.Supp., at 74.


*These dominant facts mark and control the confines of our decision: State officials direct the performance of a formal religious exercise at promotional and graduation ceremonies for secondary schools. Even for those students who object to the religious exercise, their attendance and participation in the state-sponsored religious activity are, in a fair and real sense, obligatory, though the school district does not require attendance as a condition for receipt of the diploma.*

This case does not require us to revisit the difficult questions dividing us in recent cases, questions of the definition and full scope of the principles governing the extent of permitted accommodation by the State for the religious beliefs and practices of many of its citizens. See County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573 (1989); Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985); Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984). For without reference to those principles in other contexts, the controlling precedents as they relate to prayer and religious exercise in primary and secondary public schools compel the holding here that the policy of the city of Providence is an [505 U.S. 577, 587]   unconstitutional one. *We can decide the case without reconsidering the general constitutional framework by which public schools' efforts to accommodate religion are measured.* Thus, we do not accept the invitation of petitioners and amicus the United States to reconsider our decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, supra. The government involvement with religious activity in this case is pervasive, to the point of creating a state-sponsored and state-directed religious exercise in a public school. Conducting this formal religious observance conflicts with settled rules pertaining to prayer exercises for students, and that suffices to determine the question before us. 
*
The principle that government may accommodate the free exercise of religion does not supersede the fundamental limitations imposed by the Establishment Clause. It is beyond dispute that, at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which "establishes a [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to do so."* Lynch, supra, at 678; see also County of Allegheny, supra, at 591, quoting Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 15 -16 (1947). The State's involvement in the school prayers challenged today violates these central principles.

*That involvement is as troubling as it is undenied. A school official, the principal, decided that an invocation and a benediction should be given; this is a choice attributable to the State, and, from a constitutional perspective, it is as if a state statute decreed that the prayers must occur.* The principal chose the religious participant, here a rabbi, and that choice is also attributable to the State. The reason for the choice of a rabbi is not disclosed by the record, but the potential for divisiveness over the choice of a particular member of the clergy to conduct the ceremony is apparent.

*The First Amendment's Religion Clauses mean that religious beliefs and religious expression are too precious to be either proscribed or prescribed by the State. The design of the Constitution is that preservation and transmission of religious beliefs and worship is a responsibility and a choice committed to the private sphere, which itself is promised freedom to pursue that mission. It must not be forgotten, then, that, while concern must be given to define the protection granted to an objector or a dissenting nonbeliever, these same Clauses exist to protect religion from government interference. [505 U.S. 577, 590]    James Madison, the principal author of the Bill of Rights, did not rest his opposition to a religious establishment on the sole ground of its effect on the minority. A principal ground for his view was: [E]xperience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments (1785), in 8 Papers of James Madison 301 (W. Rachal, R. Rutland, B. Ripel, & F. Teute eds. 1973).*

The opinion also goes DEEPLY into the rights of the students after this section, which everyone hear should read. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...5&page=577#581

----------


## familydog

> family dog, I responded to your thread last night but it didn't post for some reason.
> 
> Summarized, simplified version of my response:
> 
> I didn't mean "go read that stuff"; I meant it's too much for me to read quickly and give a view.  That I don't want to go google this stuff....which would just take one or the the other side.  I find that shameful; I'd rather read the stuff in the original (which I'm doing, it just takes a while).
> 
> On the commoners, etc.
> 
> I don't think by any stretch that Jefferson is on par with the farmer.  You have to consider the architects of the revolution vs. the masses they guided.  Yes, they did revolt at certain times, but this wasn't guided by ideological, rational planning of the kind that brought about the Constitution, developed thoughts on economy, trade, foreign policy, RIGHTS, etc.  Farmers rebelled shortly after the Black Death in Europe; they didn't do it because they were visionaries, they did it because they were immediately oppressed materially.  Jefferson and Adams &co. rebelled based on ideals, and were the designers of the nation.  To equate Jefferson with the farmer, I think, is a bit of a stretch.


Let me quote you another part of Raphael's book. 

"Without the participation of these people, the American Revolution would have been altogather different--or, more likely, there would have been no Revolution at all. By dismissing so many Americans as 'marginal or peripheral,' Ellis and other practitioners of Founders Chic, both misread history and set a dangerous precedent: when we marginalize common people in the past, we learn how to marginalize common people in the present." p. 133-134

The "common folk" were not just bumbling idiots roaming around until they were rescued by an enlightened few. Historian Bernard Bailyn points out that many of these farmers were literate (how were they literate? well, they read the Bible of course!), and regularly read Enlightenment thinkers work and discussed them at the local tavern. Jefferson prided himself as being a representitive of these farmers. Does the term "Jeffersonian yeoman" ring a bell?

"In the early months of 1776, with Tom Paine's _Common Sense_ as a catalyst, ordinary citizens gathered in taverns and meeting houses throughout the land to debate the issue of independence." p. 136 --Raphael

This is the problem in society. We are not much of a democracy at all and we don't believe in popular soverignty. If we did, we would include the average person in on the founding, rather than tossing them aside like some historians  (Heres looking at you David McCullough). 

Historian Pauline Maier in her book _American Scripture_ shows at least 90 state and local communities issued their own declarations of independence and urged their representitive bodies to go ahead with indepedence. Who made these 90 state and local declarations? It certainly wasn't Jefferson, and many of these reference Christianity. 

To suggest that they may have revolted here or there, but it didn't mean much or it wasn't driven by belief is intellectually dishonest. As Raphael said, there likely wouldn't be a revolution if it weren't for the "common people."  Why were they fighting? Just some guy gave them money to? They fought because they wanted freedom. They wanted exaclty what Jefferson and Madison wanted. Who was responsible for Lexington and Concord? The common people. Sam Adams didn't play nearly as big of a role there as we learn in school.  In fact, let's go a step further and say that Lexington and Concord wasn't even the begining of the revolution.

"The American Revolution did not begin with the 'the shot heard 'round the world.' It started more than a half year earlier, when tens of thousands of angry patriotic militia men ganged up on a few unarmed officials and overthrew British authority throughout all of Massachusetts outside of Boston." p. 69--Raphael

"In Cambridge, on September 2, 4,000 patriots forced the lieutenent governor of Massachusetts to resign his seat on the Council. Responding to rumors that the British army had fired at and killed six patriots, an estimated 20,000-60,000 men throughout the countryside headed toward Boston to confront the Redcoats. In some towns, nearly every male of fighting age participated in the 'Powder Alarm,' as it was called." p. 71--Raphael

They believed in the cause of freedom, therefore we have what happened at Lexington and Concord which, at least is popular consensus, started the entire Revolution. About 25,000 of these commoners died for what they believed in during the entire 8 years of the war, the same things Jefferson believed in and risked his life for. Not every soldier was educated, literate, and cared about independence, but to suggest that most didn't is untrue.

So, I go back to my original premise. If we take into account *all* of the founders, we see an incredible influence of Christianity on the founding...going by my previous evidence I posted.

Look at the Ron Paul revolution. Is it all him? No, it's everybody that believes in what he does. We are all equally important in fighting for the cause.

----------


## sophocles07

> They believed in the cause of freedom, therefore we have what happened at Lexington and Concord which, at least is popular consensus, started the entire Revolution. About 25,000 of these commoners died for what they believed in during the entire 8 years of the war, the same things Jefferson believed in and risked his life for. Not every soldier was educated, literate, and cared about independence, but to suggest that most didn't is untrue.
> 
> So, I go back to my original premise. If we take into account all of the founders, we see an incredible influence of Christianity on the founding...going by my previous evidence I posted.
> 
> Look at the Ron Paul revolution. Is it all him? No, it's everybody that believes in what he does. We are all equally important in fighting for the cause.


Well, you (and Raphael) have a point.  At the same time, I have a hard time imagining the framing of the nation's founding documents as it happened without the profound impression of the will of Jefferson &co.  I don't exactly agree that we are all equal in the Ron Paul cause.  Ron Paul is the figurehead.  There is a definite inequality, based in who does what for the cause.  I'm not equal to Ron Paul for instance; Theocrat is definitely not.

Also, do we even have data to know what these 'common people' believed or thought in their hearts?  I find it very spurious to assume they were all full-out Christians.  Were I to accept the premise of including them with the Founders, you would have to present an ample amount of evidence to prove to me that they were Christian-based minds, or that their ideas were Christian.  Further, you'd have to prove that their Christian ideas impacted in a direct way the actual documents our nation is founded on.

But I don't "spit on" them by any means.  They're very important.

----------


## familydog

> Well, you (and Raphael) have a point.  At the same time, I have a hard time imagining the framing of the nation's founding documents as it happened without the profound impression of the will of Jefferson &co.  I don't exactly agree that we are all equal in the Ron Paul cause.  Ron Paul is the figurehead.  There is a definite inequality, based in who does what for the cause.  I'm not equal to Ron Paul for instance; Theocrat is definitely not.
> 
> Also, do we even have data to know what these 'common people' believed or thought in their hearts?  I find it very spurious to assume they were all full-out Christians.  Were I to accept the premise of including them with the Founders, you would have to present an ample amount of evidence to prove to me that they were Christian-based minds, or that their ideas were Christian.  Further, you'd have to prove that their Christian ideas impacted in a direct way the actual documents our nation is founded on.
> 
> But I don't "spit on" them by any means.  They're very important.


As there was no census or polling or anything of the like in colonial days, we can't say that "75% of people believed this" or whatever. Were all colonists Christian? No, but as historian Gordon Wood points out in his book _The Radicalism of the American Revolution_:

"All along, of course, varieties of Protestantism had been a major adhesive force for ordinary Americans, often the principles source of community and order in their lives. But the Revolution had disrupted American Religion; it scattered congregations, destroyed church buildings, interupted the training of ministers, and politicized people's thinking. The religious yearnings of common people, however, remained strong, stronger than any of the revolutionary leaders realized. During the last quarter of the eighteenth century powerful currents of popular religious feeling flowed beneath the genteel and secular surface of public life, awaiting only the developing democratic revolution to break through the rationalistic and skeptical crust of the Enlightenment and sweep over and transform the lanscape of the country. The consequences were far-reaching, not just for the mass of ordinary people but for many of the enlightened revolutionary leaders themselves, who were frightened and bewildered by this democratic revolution." --p.329

There is a general consensus, using primary resources, among the historical community that the majority of the colonists were religious. The colonists were afraid of Catholics. Jews, athiests, deists, and every other kind of religion were rare. So that leaves the majority of people Protestant, obviously, a sect of Christianity. Also, I have presented Tocqueville's _Democracy in America_ which excplicitly states the religious nature of Americans. He wrote it after the Revolution, but if the colonists weren't religious before, why did they change in the mid 19th century?

I have shown that Christianity impacted certain founding documents. I've showed the Virginia Declaration of rights as a great example. Also, Maier points out that many of those 90 declarations had religious sentiments and mentions. I've pointed out that the while the Articles of Confederation was similar to the later Constitution when it came to religion, the Congress itself were heavily Christian (hired chaplains, ran the army on Christian morals, published the Bible, etc). I'm not suggesting that if it weren't for religion, there wouldn't be any founding documents, I'm simply suggesting that the faith of the colonists played as much of a role in their thinking as Enlightenment principles (one of those principles "natural law" owes a debt of gratitude to Christian thinkers). Why would those documents specifically mention religion/Christianity/Christ Himself if it wasn't important or as important? The general consensus of Jefferson is that the Enlightenment influenced him more than Christianity. Ok, I won't disagree. That is why he only mentions "creator" in the Declaration and not specifically Christianity.

----------


## sophocles07

> As there was no census or polling or anything of the like in colonial days, we can't say that "75% of people believed this" or whatever. Were all colonists Christian? No, but as historian Gordon Wood points out in his book The Radicalism of the American Revolution:
> 
> "All along, of course, varieties of Protestantism had been a major adhesive force for ordinary Americans, often the principles source of community and order in their lives. But the Revolution had disrupted American Religion; it scattered congregations, destroyed church buildings, interupted the training of ministers, and politicized people's thinking. The religious yearnings of common people, however, remained strong, stronger than any of the revolutionary leaders realized. During the last quarter of the eighteenth century powerful currents of popular religious feeling flowed beneath the genteel and secular surface of public life, awaiting only the developing democratic revolution to break through the rationalistic and skeptical crust of the Enlightenment and sweep over and transform the lanscape of the country. The consequences were far-reaching, not just for the mass of ordinary people but for many of the enlightened revolutionary leaders themselves, who were frightened and bewildered by this democratic revolution." --p.329
> 
> There is a general consensus, using primary resources, among the historical community that the majority of the colonists were religious. The colonists were afraid of Catholics. Jews, athiests, deists, and every other kind of religion were rare. So that leaves the majority of people Protestant, obviously, a sect of Christianity. Also, I have presented Tocqueville's Democracy in America which excplicitly states the religious nature of Americans. He wrote it after the Revolution, but if the colonists weren't religious before, why did they change in the mid 19th century?
> 
> I have shown that Christianity impacted certain founding documents. I've showed the Virginia Declaration of rights as a great example. Also, Maier points out that many of those 90 declarations had religious sentiments and mentions. I've pointed out that the while the Articles of Confederation was similar to the later Constitution when it came to religion, the Congress itself were heavily Christian (hired chaplains, ran the army on Christian morals, published the Bible, etc). I'm not suggesting that if it weren't for religion, there wouldn't be any founding documents, I'm simply suggesting that the faith of the colonists played as much of a role in their thinking as Enlightenment principles (one of those principles "natural law" owes a debt of gratitude to Christian thinkers). Why would those documents specifically mention religion/Christianity/Christ Himself if it wasn't important or as important? The general consensus of Jefferson is that the Enlightenment influenced him more than Christianity. Ok, I won't disagree. That is why he only mentions "creator" in the Declaration and not specifically Christianity.



This is a good argument.  I haven’t read enough of Gordon Wood (I’m aware of who he is, and that he wrote that book) to judge what his credentials are (I’d really have to take a careful look at above book to know for sure, and compare it to other versions of American history).  

I think the primary difference between my position and yours, and possibly everyone else here, is that I view this as a problem of literary interpretation.  I don’t think that the Christian religion has one set of “principles” so much as a Bible full of texts that are viewed differently through the added layers of history, philosophy, other literary texts, and so on.  To take another example, one could take the literary criticism, and interpretation, of Homer’s _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ through the ages.  Start with those writers of ancient Greece just following Homer—the Attic Tragedians.  Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides all have differing interpretations—implicit in their many plays—of Homer’s text, which was for them also an interpretation of the mythology of their people, and thus a interpretation of existence itself in relation to the giant shadow cast by Homer’s religious epics.  After this, go down through time.  One finds Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Longinus, and the Alexandrian grammarians with differing ideas of Homer.  He becomes non-literal in most cases, becomes a model of almost wholly aesthetic and literary form; he is, as Longinus says, _sublime_—but he does not enforce as immediate a religious intensity, and at times terror, on the reader as he did.  As Euripides’ interpretation of Homer depended in large part on the Socratic philosophy—one need only read _Hippolytus_ or _Heracles_ or _Bacchae_ to see this—the grammarians’ varying views depended on late Greek philosophers in large degree, ranging from the Stoic to Epicurean views of the world.  They were also very much influenced by their own quasi-philological understanding of “how to read”.  This is akin to the German philological movement in the 1700-1800s, which continues in modified form to this day.  One can continue on through Rome (anyone who read Homer in Rome and wrote about it was influenced in their take on Homer by the contemporary philosophers, the contemporary historical situation, their own traditions, and so on) on through until we reach the Medieval times to early Europe.  Each period varies greatly in its readers based on the world situation of the time (and by ‘world situation’ I factor in the above philosophical currents, tradition, etc., all involved); Samuel Butler’s Homer is largely different than Matthew Arnold’s; Samuel Johnson, Pope, and Dryden—the myth entirely dead for them—interpreted it almost strictly morally, with a relation of that morality to their ideal aesthetic.  Yeats’ Homer is very enigmatic—as is everything he criticizes—and different than his Romantic precursors in several ways (look at Blake vs. Yeats in this respect; they are, though closely related as poets, far away on concept in this area).  In all cases, the power of the text, though it may have lost supernatural power, remained to be interpreted in 1,000 different ways by 1,000 different great minds.  The Bible is just as—probably more, actually—alternatively interpreted as Homer.  No two Christianities are precisely alike; Harold Bloom’s _The American Religion_ is a good read on this—the manifestation in America of an entirely new kind of Christ, different as can be from the European version.  So, to me, to say “Christian principles” as if we’re speaking of one thing is to blind oneself to the immense subtlety of the interpretation a reader makes even instinctually upon reading a text.  As with Shakespeare’s Hamlet or Homer’s Odysseus, there is always more than one Jesus (even within the gospels, splendidly enough); for me to say that Jefferson &co. saw Christianity through the light of Enlightenment philosophy is not to say much, it is a meager assessment.  This is why I’m a bit taken aback by suggestions that I “prove” the Enlightenment did this or that; it’s not a addition/subtraction math problem; it’s very complex, and you’d have to go at it man by man.  If we don’t bring some depth to these kinds of issues, I can’t understand how we can ever properly understand them.

----------


## mtmedlin

All this for two sides of a group going back and forth saying that the other isnt providing enough prrof to prove their point.

Plain and simple.

Christians are arrogant enough to claim that their religion is the cause of everything.

Atheist are arrogant enough to claim that some of the founders werent influenced by christianity.

Either way, who gives a $#@!. Christians do not deserve any additional freedoms or liberties over anybody else. Our money should not say "In god we trust" because we all dont and neutrality is what makes us strong. Christians dont believe this is true because they have been getting away with forcing their views down others throats for so long that they claim some historical reason for being able to continue. Its BS. Neutrality in governance is a necessity when you have such large diverse groups.

I have read page after page of this argument and what it comes down to is that Christians in this country are losing their power to force their will through legislation of the gospel. Even if the founders wrote the entire Constitution based on the bible, it wouldnt change the fact that the principles that they wrote, were for freedom for all, including the freedom of those of us that do not prescribe to chisritians views to not have it shoved down our throats or have our monies used to promote it. Plain and simple.

----------


## yongrel

> All this for two sides of a group going back and forth saying that the other isnt providing enough prrof to prove their point.
> 
> Plain and simple.
> 
> Christians are arrogant enough to claim that their religion is the cause of everything.
> 
> Atheist are arrogant enough to claim that some of the founders werent influenced by christianity.
> 
> Either way, who gives a $#@!. Christians do not deserve any additional freedoms or liberties over anybody else. Our money should not say "In god we trust" because we all dont and neutrality is what makes us strong. Christians dont believe this is true because they have been getting away with forcing their views down others throats for so long that they claim some historical reason for being able to continue. Its BS. Neutrality in governance is a necessity when you have such large diverse groups.
> ...


QFT

----------


## sophocles07

> All this for two sides of a group going back and forth saying that the other isnt providing enough prrof to prove their point.
> 
> Plain and simple.
> 
> Christians are arrogant enough to claim that their religion is the cause of everything.
> 
> Atheist are arrogant enough to claim that some of the founders werent influenced by christianity.
> 
> Either way, who gives a $#@!. Christians do not deserve any additional freedoms or liberties over anybody else. Our money should not say "In god we trust" because we all dont and neutrality is what makes us strong. Christians dont believe this is true because they have been getting away with forcing their views down others throats for so long that they claim some historical reason for being able to continue. Its BS. Neutrality in governance is a necessity when you have such large diverse groups.
> ...


I agree here.  (Notwithstanding my role in the thread.)

----------


## familydog

> All this for two sides of a group going back and forth saying that the other isnt providing enough prrof to prove their point.
> 
> Plain and simple.
> 
> Christians are arrogant enough to claim that their religion is the cause of everything.
> 
> Atheist are arrogant enough to claim that some of the founders werent influenced by christianity.
> 
> Either way, who gives a $#@!. Christians do not deserve any additional freedoms or liberties over anybody else. Our money should not say "In god we trust" because we all dont and neutrality is what makes us strong. Christians dont believe this is true because they have been getting away with forcing their views down others throats for so long that they claim some historical reason for being able to continue. Its BS. Neutrality in governance is a necessity when you have such large diverse groups.
> ...


Um, what? This makes no sense at all and has nothing to do with the thread topic.

Rant against Chrisianity and Christians in another thread.

----------


## familydog

> This is a good argument.  I havent read enough of Gordon Wood (Im aware of who he is, and that he wrote that book) to judge what his credentials are (Id really have to take a careful look at above book to know for sure, and compare it to other versions of American history).  
> 
> I think the primary difference between my position and yours, and possibly everyone else here, is that I view this as a problem of literary interpretation.  I dont think that the Christian religion has one set of principles so much as a Bible full of texts that are viewed differently through the added layers of history, philosophy, other literary texts, and so on.  To take another example, one could take the literary criticism, and interpretation, of Homers _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ through the ages.  Start with those writers of ancient Greece just following Homerthe Attic Tragedians.  Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides all have differing interpretationsimplicit in their many playsof Homers text, which was for them also an interpretation of the mythology of their people, and thus a interpretation of existence itself in relation to the giant shadow cast by Homers religious epics.  After this, go down through time.  One finds Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Longinus, and the Alexandrian grammarians with differing ideas of Homer.  He becomes non-literal in most cases, becomes a model of almost wholly aesthetic and literary form; he is, as Longinus says, _sublime_but he does not enforce as immediate a religious intensity, and at times terror, on the reader as he did.  As Euripides interpretation of Homer depended in large part on the Socratic philosophyone need only read _Hippolytus_ or _Heracles_ or _Bacchae_ to see thisthe grammarians varying views depended on late Greek philosophers in large degree, ranging from the Stoic to Epicurean views of the world.  They were also very much influenced by their own quasi-philological understanding of how to read.  This is akin to the German philological movement in the 1700-1800s, which continues in modified form to this day.  One can continue on through Rome (anyone who read Homer in Rome and wrote about it was influenced in their take on Homer by the contemporary philosophers, the contemporary historical situation, their own traditions, and so on) on through until we reach the Medieval times to early Europe.  Each period varies greatly in its readers based on the world situation of the time (and by world situation I factor in the above philosophical currents, tradition, etc., all involved); Samuel Butlers Homer is largely different than Matthew Arnolds; Samuel Johnson, Pope, and Drydenthe myth entirely dead for theminterpreted it almost strictly morally, with a relation of that morality to their ideal aesthetic.  Yeats Homer is very enigmaticas is everything he criticizesand different than his Romantic precursors in several ways (look at Blake vs. Yeats in this respect; they are, though closely related as poets, far away on concept in this area).  In all cases, the power of the text, though it may have lost supernatural power, remained to be interpreted in 1,000 different ways by 1,000 different great minds.  The Bible is just asprobably more, actuallyalternatively interpreted as Homer.  No two Christianities are precisely alike; Harold Blooms _The American Religion_ is a good read on thisthe manifestation in America of an entirely new kind of Christ, different as can be from the European version.  So, to me, to say Christian principles as if were speaking of one thing is to blind oneself to the immense subtlety of the interpretation a reader makes even instinctually upon reading a text.  As with Shakespeares Hamlet or Homers Odysseus, there is always more than one Jesus (even within the gospels, splendidly enough); for me to say that Jefferson &co. saw Christianity through the light of Enlightenment philosophy is not to say much, it is a meager assessment.  This is why Im a bit taken aback by suggestions that I prove the Enlightenment did this or that; its not a addition/subtraction math problem; its very complex, and youd have to go at it man by man.  If we dont bring some depth to these kinds of issues, I cant understand how we can ever properly understand them.


You can apply this logic and argument to anything that claims to have principles. And haven't you suggested I provide proof of my claims that Christianity had a role in this or that? Certainly one can "prove" a role certain things had an event. All along we've agreed that the Enlightenment played a major role in the founding, and this is somehow different for Christianity?

If you are going to throw this out, we need to apply it to everything. What are Enlightenment principles? Are the same for everybody? Do we all interpret them the same? If we are going to use your logic (and I'm not saying it's 'bad' logic) then there is no basis to say we live by certain principles at all.

----------


## sophocles07

> You can apply this logic and argument to anything that claims to have principles.


Yes, you can.  That is one reason I dislike anyone attempting to “prove” we were founded on some monolithic absolutist principle(s).



> And haven't you suggested I provide proof of my claims that Christianity had a role in this or that? Certainly one can "prove" a role certain things had an event.


What I mean (if you mean your “common people” posts) is to verify whether or not these people were all/mostly Christians in the sense that they understood the term—did they consider themselves “Christians,” go to rituals, etc.  I didn’t mean “prove”—at least I don’t remember saying to do this—in the way I’ve been asked to “prove” Enlightenment influence.



> All along we've agreed that the Enlightenment played a major role in the founding, and this is somehow different for Christianity?


What I mean by the Enlightenment role is that it colored the glass through which we viewed all past texts, principles, etc.  I don’t mean it absolutely influenced the founding.  I mean in the same way that Aquinas saw Christianity through the light of Aristotle or the way Euripides viewed the Greek religion through in a time coming after the philosophy of Socrates.



> If you are going to throw this out, we need to apply it to everything. What are Enlightenment principles? Are the same for everybody? Do we all interpret them the same? If we are going to use your logic (and I'm not saying it's 'bad' logic) then there is no basis to say we live by certain principles at all.


While I would be very cautious in equating the very wide gap of interpretation of something like the Bible—which is very mystical almost all of the time, and very, very ambiguous especially in the Old Testament, but also in Revelation, and other parts of the New Testament—with the relatively straight-forward propositions of many of the Enlightenment philosophers or scientists—ex: there’s not many ways to interpret Newton’s science or Tom Paine’s “Another evil which attends hereditary succession is, that the throne is subject to be possessed by a minor at any age; all which time the regency, acting under the cover of a king, have every opportunity and inducement to betray their trust.  The same national misfortune happens, when a king worn out with age and infirmity, enters the last stage of human weakness.  In both these cases the public becomes a prey to every miscreant, who can tamper successfully with the follies either of age or infancy.”—I would not in the least rule out that we continue to interpret Enlightenment texts in the light of our contemporary context.  BUT, I would also suggest that the two texts of are a very different nature.  The Bible is imaginative in the extreme, one of the most powerfully imaginative works yet produced (I mean this in nothing but a positive sense); the texts of the Enlightenment, while handy and well-expressed, are not imaginative literature.  They lack the power to require, as Bloom puts it, “misreading.”  Comparatively, one could look at the relationship between the legal writings of Edward Coke and the poetry of Walt Whitman.  In the former, everything is generally practical, empirical, and unimaginative—though important, obviously; the latter is pure imagination, and offers up the true sublime to the mind, and requires—because poetry and imaginative literature and religious writings make use of symbolism, narrative, sonority of syllable, and every other formal device that supports the ambiguity (a positive) of the text—the reader to instinctively interpret that object which has so affected his mind and senses.  I would say this leads not to “no principles,” but to many versions of a truth—Aquinas and Adams both had their versions of Christianity; the fact that there are two versions does not mean that “certitude” slips from the sphere of principle, but that reality has been burst open into many versions of principle; as Godard says in _Notre Musique_, “Truth has two faces.”  I would add many more of those faces to the equation.  

I view this as an encouraging, optimistic light to view the world and everything in it; it does not reduce reality, but allows for the emanation of truth from many mouths.  It requires us to not thrust towards the easy answer, but to admit many causalities and strive for the solid truth of complex reality.

----------


## Theocrat

> I use a generality, you accuse me of being unfounded; I go get details to back up the generality, you accuse me of it being irrelevant.  You are pathetic.  I dont think you understand what an ad hominem attack is. 
> 
> If you consider pointing out a near-monolithically horrible voting recordincluding the Iraq War, Patriot act, etc., the former which I brought up specifically as something they were ignoring; if you consider looking at the POLICIES they have voted on an ad hominem attack...what exactly am I suppose to base anything on thats not ad hominem?  THEYRE CONGRESSMENTHEY SHOULD BE VALUED ON THEIR VOTING RECORD.  If this is an ad hominem attack, Ron Paul uses ad hominem attacks all the time.  
> 
> My original point was that these kind of Republicans bring up wedge issuesGay marriage, Christian Month, etc etcto avoid doing anything about the larger, more important issues, like the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, the income tax, the Federal Reserve, etc.  This is Politics 101.  Everybody knows the Republican neo-cons and the Democrat neo-cons make use of wedge issues; and the Evangelical community falls for it every time.  Why do you think Huckabee did so well?  Why do you think Bush did so well?  Whered that get us?  These congressmen are stoogesfoot soldiers, as John McCain uses the wordfor the complete degradation of our Constitution.  
> 
> To say that one vote has nothing to do with another is entirely ridiculous.  You are one of the most pathetic, _stupid_ individuals if you really think these guys go around voting for every corrupt, genocidal policy they can, and then are really sincereand not merely using Christianity to get the votes of people who dont know the issues well enoughabout Christian values of love thy neighbor and Do not murder.


Here's where you made an _ad hominem_ attack rather than deal with the truth of the propositions in the U.S. House's Resolution:




> I find this bill an absolute waste of time while our soldiers (and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis) are being killed through the inaction of the House members (and Senate).  Also, this isnt even a law; *its a non-binding statement.  Apparently supported by a bunch of $#@!s.*... [T]hese people are of the same breed: *they vote for war and then make up these phony, bull$#@! wedge issues to disorient Evangelicals from figuring out they are supporting monsters for petty reasons.*


 (emphasis mine)

Once again, what does anything you've said here have to do with refuting the claims acknowledged in H. Res. 888 that America was established on Christian principles? I'm simply asking you to deal with the Resolution itself, *not* the people who wrote it. Is that so hard, or does your *contempt for Christianity prevent you from providing contrary evidence to support your own claims*?




> My original point was that these kind of Republicans bring up wedge issuesGay marriage, Christian Month, etc etcto avoid doing anything about the larger, more important issues, like the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, the income tax, the Federal Reserve, etc.  This is Politics 101.  Everybody knows the Republican neo-cons and the Democrat neo-cons make use of wedge issues; and the Evangelical community falls for it every time.  Why do you think Huckabee did so well?  Why do you think Bush did so well?  Whered that get us?  These congressmen are stoogesfoot soldiers, as John McCain uses the wordfor the complete degradation of our Constitution.


This is another one of your logical fallacies, sophocles07. It's known as a "red herring fallacy" or "ignoratio elenchi." This has nothing to do with proving the truth or falsity that America was primarily based on Christian principles, which goes back to the original intent of this forum thread. Save your gripes with the GOP and Evangelicals for another thread. Deal with my challenge to you, or relinquish your *opinions* about the Founders' influence of the Enlightenment in this discussion.

----------


## familydog

> Yes, you can.  That is one reason I dislike anyone attempting to “prove” we were founded on some monolithic absolutist principle(s).
> 
> What I mean (if you mean your “common people” posts) is to verify whether or not these people were all/mostly Christians in the sense that they understood the term—did they consider themselves “Christians,” go to rituals, etc.  I didn’t mean “prove”—at least I don’t remember saying to do this—in the way I’ve been asked to “prove” Enlightenment influence.
> 
> What I mean by the Enlightenment role is that it colored the glass through which we viewed all past texts, principles, etc.  I don’t mean it absolutely influenced the founding.  I mean in the same way that Aquinas saw Christianity through the light of Aristotle or the way Euripides viewed the Greek religion through in a time coming after the philosophy of Socrates.
> 
> While I would be very cautious in equating the very wide gap of interpretation of something like the Bible—which is very mystical almost all of the time, and very, very ambiguous especially in the Old Testament, but also in Revelation, and other parts of the New Testament—with the relatively straight-forward propositions of many of the Enlightenment philosophers or scientists—ex: there’s not many ways to interpret Newton’s science or Tom Paine’s “Another evil which attends hereditary succession is, that the throne is subject to be possessed by a minor at any age; all which time the regency, acting under the cover of a king, have every opportunity and inducement to betray their trust.  The same national misfortune happens, when a king worn out with age and infirmity, enters the last stage of human weakness.  In both these cases the public becomes a prey to every miscreant, who can tamper successfully with the follies either of age or infancy.”—I would not in the least rule out that we continue to interpret Enlightenment texts in the light of our contemporary context.  BUT, I would also suggest that the two texts of are a very different nature.  The Bible is imaginative in the extreme, one of the most powerfully imaginative works yet produced (I mean this in nothing but a positive sense); the texts of the Enlightenment, while handy and well-expressed, are not imaginative literature.  They lack the power to require, as Bloom puts it, “misreading.”  Comparatively, one could look at the relationship between the legal writings of Edward Coke and the poetry of Walt Whitman.  In the former, everything is generally practical, empirical, and unimaginative—though important, obviously; the latter is pure imagination, and offers up the true sublime to the mind, and requires—because poetry and imaginative literature and religious writings make use of symbolism, narrative, sonority of syllable, and every other formal device that supports the ambiguity (a positive) of the text—the reader to instinctively interpret that object which has so affected his mind and senses.  I would say this leads not to “no principles,” but to many versions of a truth—Aquinas and Adams both had their versions of Christianity; the fact that there are two versions does not mean that “certitude” slips from the sphere of principle, but that reality has been burst open into many versions of principle; as Godard says in _Notre Musique_, “Truth has two faces.”  I would add many more of those faces to the equation.  
> 
> I view this as an encouraging, optimistic light to view the world and everything in it; it does not reduce reality, but allows for the emanation of truth from many mouths.  It requires us to not thrust towards the easy answer, but to admit many causalities and strive for the solid truth of complex reality.


First of all you have a very intelligent post.

Second....Enlightenment writings can't be misread? Are you familiar with the Progessive period in America? That all about the different interpretations of republicanism and republican principles (espoused by Enlightenment thinkers). Before that period, everybody undertood the meanings of liberty and freedom to be as little government interference as possible. During that period, people started to interpret these Enlightenment concepts to mean the government needs to be proactive to protect my freedoms and liberty. And in order for me to be a good republican citizen, the government needs to get involved in the economy. One of Herbet Croly's most famous sayings is "Hamiltonian means to a Jeffersonian end." It was because this new interpretation of Enlightenment values that we got both New Deal's, and things have gone downhill since. 

This conversation is turning to philosophy, and if you'd like to start a different thread dedicated to that, I'll support you. 

This thread is about the influence of Christian principles on the founding of this country. I've pointed out that the founders were influenced heavily by Christian principles. We can argue all day long about what those principles are and if they are even Christian principles at all. That is not relevant. What *is* relevant is that our founders saw Enlightenment values as Christian as well, and applied them to the founding. Therefore, Christian "principles" had a major impact on the founding, as I among others pointed out.

----------


## sophocles07

> First of all you have a very intelligent post.
> 
> Second....Enlightenment writings lacked the power to be misread? Are you familiar with the Progessive period in America? That all about the different interpretations of republicanism and republican principles (espoused by Enlightenment thinkers). Before that period, everybody undertood the meanings of liberty and freedom to be as little government interference as possible. During that period, people started to interpret these Enlightenment concepts to mean the government needs to be proactive to protect my freedoms and liberty. And in order for me to be a good republican citizen, the government needs to get involved in the economy. One of Herbet Croly's most famous sayings is "Hamiltonian means to a Jeffersonian end." It was because this new interpretation of Enlightenment values that we got both New Deal's, and things have gone downhill since.


To be quite honest, I haven’t read much of the writings on this, as I’ve pretty much disgusted with the Statist-welfare thought.  That is, though, a very good example of how Enlightenment can be interpreted.  Though, as I said, it isn’t on the same level as Christian interpretation—the former seems to me a debate over the method of insuring how established concepts (freedom and liberty) are obtained, and the nature of government’s role in this method; the latter can vary so dramatically that the face of the original text can be seen throughout history in the contexts almost absolutely different social orders, from government to etiquette, to existential views, etc.  I don’t deny the possibility of Enlightenment philosophy—which is many things, really—being interpreted; I think it is inevitable; I do think, on the other hand, that there are less wide boundaries to this.  But you are right on this; the Sun itself needs the eye, as Blake said.




> This conversation is turning to philosophy, and if you'd like to start a different thread dedicated to that, I'll support you. 
> 
> This thread is about the influence of Christian principles on the founding of this country. I've pointed out that the founders were influenced heavily by Christian principles. We can argue all day long about what those principles are and if they are even Christian principles at all. That is not relevant. What is relevant is that our founders saw Enlightenment values as Christian, and applied them to the founding. Therefore, Christian "principles" had a major impact on the founding, as I among others pointed out.


To be honest, I don’t really want another thread; I need to limit how much time I spend on online in this manner.  This topic keeps pulling me back already.

----------


## familydog

> To be quite honest, I haven’t read much of the writings on this, as I’ve pretty much disgusted with the Statist-welfare thought.  That is, though, a very good example of how Enlightenment can be interpreted.  Though, as I said, it isn’t on the same level as Christian interpretation—the former seems to me a debate over the method of insuring how established concepts (freedom and liberty) are obtained, and the nature of government’s role in this method; the latter can vary so dramatically that the face of the original text can be seen throughout history in the contexts almost absolutely different social orders, from government to etiquette, to existential views, etc.  I don’t deny the possibility of Enlightenment philosophy—which is many things, really—being interpreted; I think it is inevitable; I do think, on the other hand, that there are less wide boundaries to this.  But you are right on this; the Sun itself needs the eye, as Blake said.


I understand what you saying about the differences in levels of interpretation. I'm not going to disagree and I think you raise a smart point.  My argument about the Christian principle thing still stands though.

As far as progressivism goes, what I referenced is typically called "effective freedom," or "positive freedom,"or positive liberty."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_freedom is a good starting to got from if you're interested. Of course, being wikipedia, the article does not go nearly far enough in describing it. Also, more Enlightenment thinkers works go "re-interpreted" other than Rosseau such as John Locke and his social contract and Voltaire who was looked at as sticking up for the less fortunate. This type of Progressive Era thinking is why Clinton and Obama can get away with using freedom and liberty in the same sentence as promoting more government.

----------


## mtmedlin

> Um, what? This makes no sense at all and has nothing to do with the thread topic.
> 
> Rant against Chrisianity and Christians in another thread.


Sure it does, you just dont like the message. It is a summary of the arguments that after so many pages have proved nothing. When you start with an unprovable premise then you will come to the illogical fallacies found here.
Either way, it matters little. The outcome will be that those who have had power in the past will continue to attempt to write history in their favor without realizing that the future is being written by those of us who hold contempt for the overly forceful religious zealots who attempt to creat a christian nation through the legislation by the gospel. 
Both sides have attempted to prove their point and it has come to a stalemate. The only proof that the Christian side has is a few quotes by some of the founders. This does not prove the OP original position. They have failed to prove that this was the only or majority basis for the decisions written into our founding documents.
The opposing side has not proven that Christianity was not an influence but has been able to prove that it was not the only basis and therefore rendering the OP point to be false and without merit. Any objective person can see this, but I doubt those that wish to taint history will agree.
Either way, I couldnt care less. The future is ours, those that love true unbiased freedom above all and are willing to sacrifice our pet projects in order to attain a truely neutral country based upon mutual respect. This can only be accompished by stopping those that attempt to infest government with their own agenda. Such things like "In god we trust" on our money wasnt necessary for the first 150 years of our existance and we did just fine. Monuments such as the ten commandments in the courthouse is christian arrogance and has no place being paid for or displayed in publicly owned buildings. I could go on and on.
For the good of the nation, I would hope that Christians realize that your kingdom is in Heaven and that you should care not for things of this world. Leave the earth and especially America to us, the sensible ones who will allow you to have your religion as long as we dont have to have it shoved down our throat or in our face. TY

----------


## familydog

> Sure it does, you just dont like the message. It is a summary of the arguments that after so many pages have proved nothing. When you start with an unprovable premise then you will come to the illogical fallacies found here.
> Either way, it matters little. The outcome will be that those who have had power in the past will continue to attempt to write history in their favor without realizing that the future is being written by those of us who hold contempt for the overly forceful religious zealots who attempt to creat a christian nation through the legislation by the gospel. 
> Both sides have attempted to prove their point and it has come to a stalemate. The only proof that the Christian side has is a few quotes by some of the founders. This does not prove the OP original position. They have failed to prove that this was the only or majority basis for the decisions written into our founding documents.
> The opposing side has not proven that Christianity was not an influence but has been able to prove that it was not the only basis and therefore rendering the OP point to be false and without merit. Any objective person can see this, but I doubt those that wish to taint history will agree.
> Either way, I couldnt care less. The future is ours, those that love true unbiased freedom above all and are willing to sacrifice our pet projects in order to attain a truely neutral country based upon mutual respect. This can only be accompished by stopping those that attempt to infest government with their own agenda. Such things like "In god we trust" on our money wasnt necessary for the first 150 years of our existance and we did just fine. Monuments such as the ten commandments in the courthouse is christian arrogance and has no place being paid for or displayed in publicly owned buildings. I could go on and on.
> For the good of the nation, I would hope that Christians realize that your kingdom is in Heaven and that you should care not for things of this world. Leave the earth and especially America to us, the sensible ones who will allow you to have your religion as long as we dont have to have it shoved down our throat or in our face. TY


You obviously haven't read my posts if you think the only arguments that agree with the premise of the OP are a few quotes from the founders. Like I said, I'm not sure why you or anyone else is bringing up things that have nothing to do with the thread like "In God We Trust" on our money. 

I go back to my question of what exaclty are you talking about? I'm speaking specifically for myself, but I have not argued anything outside of history. I never suggested Christianity should influence the government or anything of the like. I've never argued about Christian symbols and phrases on buildings and why they should be there. Don't use such sweeping statements and lump all Christians together, just because some of them argue for things you and I don't like. If you disagree with my evidence, please refute it specifically or get out of the way. Use another thread for your soapbox.

Besides, if you could care less about this why are you even posting here other than to preach about your views that do not address the preimse of the OP? 

I've argued that Christianity was not the only influence, but was just as big as any other, and the OP has stated the same thing.

I'm not going to deny the existence of arrogance of certain Christians, but to claim all Christians are? Again, stop using sweeping statements that make you look silly. Maybe there is arrogance on your part, saying that the premise of the OP is wrong, but yet won't refute evidence to support it (specifically mine). Am I suggesting I am right and my evidence is irrefutable? No, but at least I'm providing solid evidence by non-religious nutjobs to back up my claims.

The best piece of advice I ever got was: "when you point the finger of blame, remember there are three fingers pointing back at you."

----------


## travisAlbert

> ROFL!!!  Thirty five of the Founding Fathers who worked on the Constitution were members of the orthodox Christian Churches and others were evangelical Christians.  Heheh are you implying they were all atheists?  Where is your evidence of this?  LOL


To my understanding, and I am a history major, the overwhelming majority of the founding fathers were Deists. There were also some Unitarians and closet-case atheists. Thomas Jefferson was very disappointed in the amount of influence that religion had in the republic.  I consider myself to be a born again Christian and a follower of the teachings of Christ. It does not bother me that the founding fathers weren't of the same faith as me. Read the 1796 treaty with Tripoli.

----------


## Theocrat

> Sure it does, you just dont like the message. It is a summary of the arguments that after so many pages have proved nothing. When you start with an unprovable premise then you will come to the illogical fallacies found here.
> Either way, it matters little. The outcome will be that those who have had power in the past will continue to attempt to write history in their favor without realizing that the future is being written by those of us who hold contempt for the overly forceful religious zealots who attempt to creat a christian nation through the legislation by the gospel. 
> Both sides have attempted to prove their point and it has come to a stalemate. The only proof that the Christian side has is a few quotes by some of the founders. This does not prove the OP original position. They have failed to prove that this was the only or majority basis for the decisions written into our founding documents.
> The opposing side has not proven that Christianity was not an influence but has been able to prove that it was not the only basis and therefore rendering the OP point to be false and without merit. Any objective person can see this, but I doubt those that wish to taint history will agree.
> Either way, I couldnt care less. The future is ours, those that love true unbiased freedom above all and are willing to sacrifice our pet projects in order to attain a truely neutral country based upon mutual respect. This can only be accompished by stopping those that attempt to infest government with their own agenda. Such things like "In god we trust" on our money wasnt necessary for the first 150 years of our existance and we did just fine. Monuments such as the ten commandments in the courthouse is christian arrogance and has no place being paid for or displayed in publicly owned buildings. I could go on and on.
> For the good of the nation, I would hope that Christians realize that your kingdom is in Heaven and that you should care not for things of this world. Leave the earth and especially America to us, the sensible ones who will allow you to have your religion as long as we dont have to have it shoved down our throat or in our face. TY


I suggest you read this, mtmedlin, and stop with your unfounded, illogical, and "atheistically"-biased statements against the truth of America's Christian founding, which only show your personal hatred of Christianity. The facts still remain, whether or not you like them or agree with them.

----------


## sophocles07

Theocrat, your hanging onto that one little, non-binding, unpassed resolution written by people who voted for the war, the patriot act, and are still voting for those things is completely pathetic.

----------


## Theocrat

> Theocrat, your hanging onto that one little, non-binding, unpassed resolution written by people who voted for the war, the patriot act, and are still voting for those things is completely pathetic.


You still have not disproven the truth of its propositions, sophocles07. I find that *pathetic* on your part. It's okay, though, because you've already lost this debate. You can now crawl back under the rock you believe you evolved from.

----------


## rockwell

> Etymological background
> The first-known uses of the terms "Judeo-Christian" and "Judeo-Christianity", according to the _Oxford English Dictionary_, are 1899 and 1910 respectively, but both were discussing the emergence of Christianity. 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian_tradition
> 
> Wish I could afford the subscription, might just win an ounce of gold... - lol
> 
> m
> 
> Delegates unite!!!
> ...


Actually you made my point. I was off by a year, perhaps?

Then how can a country be founded on something that was never mentioned until over a century after it's founding?

My point is that language is essential in order to convey ideas. By changing meanings of words to conform to ideologies- think "gay marriage"- you can easily convince people that a dog is a cat or up is down, peace war, slavery freedom.

America was no more based on "Judeo-Christian" values than it was on "Islamo-Aryan ones. Allowing the newest power players in the population to redefine it's history doesn't make it so, it only makes it part of the power meme of the day.

Good luck with that.

----------


## familydog

> You still have not disproven the truth of its propositions, sophocles07. I find that *pathetic* on your part. It's okay, though, because you've already lost this debate. You can now crawl back under the rock you believe you evolved from.


I've decided to read through this resolution, but I'm simply not convinced. The sum of the resolution is:

 Affirming the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nation’s
founding and subsequent history and expressing
support for designation of the first week in May as
‘‘American Religious History Week’’ for the appreciation
of and education on America’s history of religious faith.

Whereas religious faith was not only important in official
American life during the periods of discovery, exploration,
colonization, and growth but has also been acknowledged
and incorporated into all 3 branches of American Federal
government from their very beginning;

No where in this does it say that the principles the country was founded upon are Christian, or Judeo-Christian, or anything. It says that religion played a major role in the founding era, and the government since then has been religious, and that's it. It's that simple. It simply says that our history is rich with religion. That is true, but so what? It does not say that we were founded upon religious principles. This resolution has nothing to do with the premise of the OP.

----------


## Theocrat

> I've decided to read through this resolution, but I'm simply not convinced. The sum of the resolution is:
> 
>  Affirming the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nations
> founding and subsequent history and expressing
> support for designation of the first week in May as
> American Religious History Week for the appreciation
> of and education on Americas history of religious faith.
> 
> Whereas religious faith was not only important in official
> ...


Your assessment is extremely simplistic. The Resolution says more than just what you've posted here. I don't see how you can't see that. Just read what it says.




> No where in this does it say that the principles the country was founded upon are Christian, or Judeo-Christian, or anything. It says that religion played a major role in the founding era, and the government since then has been religious, and that's it. It's that simple. It simply says that our history is rich with religion. That is true, but so what? It does not say that we were founded upon religious principles. This resolution has nothing to do with the premise of the OP.


Uh, hello! The Resolution states this on Page 6:




> Whereas in 1854 the United States House of Representatives
> declared It [religion] must be considered as the foundation
> on which the whole structure rests . . . Christianity;
> in its general principles, is the great conservative element
> on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of
> free institutions;


And this:




> Whereas in 1853 the United States Senate declared that the
> Founding Fathers had no fear or jealousy of religion
> itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people
> . . . they did not intend to spread over all the public authorities
> and the whole public action of the nation the
> dead and revolting spectacle of atheistical apathy;





> Whereas Americas first Presidential Inauguration incorporated
> 7 specific religious activities, including
> (1) the use of the Bible to administer the oath;
> (2) affirming the religious nature of the oath by the
> adding the prayer So help me God! to the oath;
> (3) inaugural prayers offered by the President;
> (4) religious content in the inaugural address;
> (5) civil leaders calling the people to prayer or acknowledgement
> of God;
> ...


I could go on and on, but here's the point. This Resolution simply affirms and testifies what the thread starter, Deborah K, has already proven in this forum thread: America was indeed established on Christian principles. With all due respect, you're simply blind or willingly ignorant if you can't see and understand that's the intent of H. Res. 888. Thus, I believe this Resolution serves as an *additional witness* of what the thread starter has originally set out to prove, even if it's stated from the most unlikely of places, namely, our current U.S. House of Representatives.

----------


## Minestra di pomodoro

On the resolution: How Fake American History Feeds Christian Nationalism

----------


## Theocrat

> On the resolution: How Fake American History Feeds Christian Nationalism


All this blog does is offer the author's own *personal interpretation* and *opinion* of what he thinks of America's Christian founding. This is not honest scholarship, nor is he an authority on such matters, as evidenced by his use of logical fallacies in his argumentation to try and disprove the truth of America's Godly heritage. Nice try, Minestra di pomodoro.

----------


## Minestra di pomodoro

> All this blog does is offer the author's own *personal interpretation* and *opinion* of what he thinks of America's Christian founding.


It doesn't look like that to me. Tell me this. Do you think that evolution is "*opinion*" also?




> This is not honest scholarship, nor is he an authority on such matters, as evidenced by his use of logical fallacies in his argumentation to try and disprove the truth of America's Godly heritage.


Which logical fallacies? He searched for the quote that Newt Gingrich attributed to George Washington and found that it was never properly sourced but often repeated. He also found the primary source for "Washington's Prayer" which was augmented at the National Prayer Breakfast -- The original was not a prayer at all!

----------


## mtmedlin

> I suggest you read this, mtmedlin, and stop with your unfounded, illogical, and "atheistically"-biased statements against the truth of America's Christian founding, which only show your personal hatred of Christianity. The facts still remain, whether or not you like them or agree with them.


Arrogance again. I have read your drivel and it is written on a biased sense again. I stopped reading the stuff you post simple because it is all the same and lacks the credibility that a scholar would find to be effective debate.
Your amazing arrogance again comes out in stating that my debate is "atheistically"-biased statements . Hate to break it to you, but Iam not an atheist nor do I hate all christians. the OP made a premise and in it she made the statement that the majority of the founders took principles that were based in the christian religion as the main source for writing the founding documents. this statement come from her second post.
I proved that point invalid by pointing out that the supposed research was biased from the outset because they found what they started out looking for. Its easy to tailor "research" to whatever you want it to say. The true arrogance is when Christians decide that the Bible was not a made up document that was chosen by the early catholic church and edited out tombs that it didnt agree with. The bible is an innacurate collection of scrolls that were not all written by followers of the christian faith and had deep roots that went back to ancient writers and older religions.
You can give me list after list of your drivel and hope that I will believe it but you never take on the task of proving that it is the Bible and not other documents that were the true basis. hell, the bible isnt even based off of completely origincal texts. Our constitution is a model of English common law which has more to do with Islam then Christianity. Explain that. Dont come at me with your contempt angle, I already have that covered.

----------


## mtmedlin

> I've argued that Christianity was not the only influence, but was just as big as any other, and the OP has stated the same thing.
> 
> I'm not going to deny the existence of arrogance of certain Christians, but to claim all Christians are? Again, stop using sweeping statements that make you look silly. Maybe there is arrogance on your part, saying that the premise of the OP is wrong, but yet won't refute evidence to support it (specifically mine). Am I suggesting I am right and my evidence is irrefutable? No, but at least I'm providing solid evidence by non-religious nutjobs to back up my claims.
> 
> The best piece of advice I ever got was: "when you point the finger of blame, remember there are three fingers pointing back at you."


1. No the OP didnt argue that, read up son, your behind. In her rebutals, she has claimed that the Bible was the major influence. Come in hear to correct me, you need to have your facts of the basic argument down a little better then that.

2. Knock off with the "makes you look silly" and "arrogance onyour part" bull$#@!. When you dont even understand the debate, making statements like this....really.

3. You want me to read your long winded bs, then shorten it up and make a point. I read over your stuff and got board real easy because you were arguing a point that I wasnt making. Dont address me, unless you address the point I am making.

4. Lastly, your statement "I've argued that Christianity was not the only influence, but was just as big as any other, and the OP has stated the same thing. is completly unprovable. How do you measure % of influence. BS again. The only point that I have made and continue to make is that 1. Christianity was not the basis for the founding documents because its own foundings are not original.
2. The fouding fathers based the constitution around one major factor. English Common law, which has much deeper roots in Islamic law then any other religion.
3. Ancient writings like Platos "republic" would have been required reading for all men who attended school. Since I do not know of any founder who did not attend some form of schooling, it is much more accurate to say that the ideas expressed by those books played a major role in the formation of the Constitution. 

the bible was there but English common law and well written texts were the major influence, no a cherry picked book of tombs that were written well after the death of the supposed founder.

Argue that.

----------


## familydog

> Your assessment is extremely simplistic. The Resolution says more than just what you've posted here. I don't see how you can't see that. Just read what it says.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, hello! The Resolution states this on Page 6:
> 
> 
> 
> And this:
> ...


Just because the Senate in the mid-19th century said something, doesn't mean it is true. Where did those senators get their information from to make their judgement? Just because the House, in the mid 19th century declared something does that make it true? Where did their get their information from to make their judgements? I'm confused on why you think just because the Senate or the House says something about history, it is automatically true. So please, provide their sources of information in which they made that judgement. I'll reiterate that those quotes from some of the founders in this resolution only say how important religion is, not that they were inspired by Christianity to form our government.

So again, please provide the Senate and the House's sources of information on which they made this judgement. Or was it just their opinion? When you talk about history, my friend, you provide sources. Pointing to this resolution and saying "well the Senate said it in 1853, it must be true!" is not sufficient. If you cannot provide me with their sources, I'll just assume that their delcarations were just their opinion which means nothing in the realm of academia.

Please enlighten me.

----------


## familydog

> 1. No the OP didnt argue that, read up son, your behind. In her rebutals, she has claimed that the Bible was the major influence. Come in hear to correct me, you need to have your facts of the basic argument down a little better then that.
> 
> 2. Knock off with the "makes you look silly" and "arrogance onyour part" bull$#@!. When you dont even understand the debate, making statements like this....really.
> 
> 3. You want me to read your long winded bs, then shorten it up and make a point. I read over your stuff and got board real easy because you were arguing a point that I wasnt making. Dont address me, unless you address the point I am making.
> 
> 4. Lastly, your statement "I've argued that Christianity was not the only influence, but was just as big as any other, and the OP has stated the same thing. is completly unprovable. How do you measure % of influence. BS again. The only point that I have made and continue to make is that 1. Christianity was not the basis for the founding documents because its own foundings are not original.
> 2. The fouding fathers based the constitution around one major factor. English Common law, which has much deeper roots in Islamic law then any other religion.
> 3. Ancient writings like Platos "republic" would have been required reading for all men who attended school. Since I do not know of any founder who did not attend some form of schooling, it is much more accurate to say that the ideas expressed by those books played a major role in the formation of the Constitution. 
> ...


Well, other people in this thread read what I wrote and responded in intelligent and logical ways, I don't understand why you can't. Why is it long winded? Because I actually use sources to back up my claims? Again, maybe we can have an intelligent conversation when you can refute my sources. I find it humorous you're telling me to read up, but you refuse to read my posts. I also find it humorus you're telling me I don't understand the debate, but again refuse to read anything I typed and you still are trying to argue with me.

It's hard to argue with that since I've agree with half of it, and the other half you'd need to read my posts to understand why I disagree with that other half.

----------


## sophocles07

> You still have not disproven the truth of its propositions, sophocles07. I find that pathetic on your part. It's okay, though, because you've already lost this debate. You can now crawl back under the rock you believe you evolved from.


Oh my god you are brilliantly funny.


BTW: familydog has certainly iced yooo buttcheeks on this one, cattleprod.

----------


## mtmedlin

> Well, other people in this thread read what I wrote and responded in intelligent and logical ways, I don't understand why you can't. Why is it long winded? Because I actually use sources to back up my claims? Again, maybe we can have an intelligent conversation when you can refute my sources. I find it humorous you're telling me to read up, but you refuse to read my posts. I also find it humorus you're telling me I don't understand the debate, but again refuse to read anything I typed and you still are trying to argue with me.
> 
> It's hard to argue with that since I've agree with half of it, and the other half you'd need to read my posts to understand why I disagree with that other half.


I dont refuse to read your posts, but from what you have said, it seemed to me that we are debating two different positions. I am only refuting what the OP has stated, specifically that the founders used the Bible as their main source for writing the founding documents.
I have no problem with people saying that the bible was an influence to some, but she grossly overstated the postition as many christians do.
I have agreed with many of your posts but I dont feel the need to debate whether or not some men were christians or what period influenced what. It is really unnecessary to coming to the point of proving the OP wrong. Theocrat will debate for hours and never come to the logical point that is so easily proven by just the handful of lines that I have typed.
No disrespect to you.

----------


## Theocrat

> Just because the Senate in the mid-19th century said something, doesn't mean it is true. Where did those senators get their information from to make their judgement? Just because the House, in the mid 19th century declared something does that make it true? Where did their get their information from to make their judgements? I'm confused on why you think just because the Senate or the House says something about history, it is automatically true. So please, provide their sources of information in which they made that judgement. I'll reiterate that those quotes from some of the founders in this resolution only say how important religion is, not that they were inspired by Christianity to form our government.
> 
> So again, please provide the Senate and the House's sources of information on which they made this judgement. Or was it just their opinion? When you talk about history, my friend, you provide sources. Pointing to this resolution and saying "well the Senate said it in 1853, it must be true!" is not sufficient. If you cannot provide me with their sources, I'll just assume that their delcarations were just their opinion which means nothing in the realm of academia.
> 
> Please enlighten me.


I understand that just because an individual or group of people make a declaration about something it doesn't make it necessarily or automatically true. That wasn't my point. My point is the truth of America's Christian founding is not something which is (or should be) hard to understand or prove. The problem comes with, during the turn of the 20th Century, all the revisionism of America's history that has occurred by those who have had personal issues with the Christian faith, and therefore, they seek to undermine it at every whim in its influence upon the success of American jurisprudence and its society's morals, values, and ethics.

On this forum thread, it has been shown many times that America was founded primarily on Christian principles. The evidences given to support this claim have been ridiculed, contradicted, or simply ignored by many skeptics and scoffers who visit this thread. I mentioned H. Res. 888 because it is a recent example and testimony that I believe vindicates the truth of America's Christian founding. One of the paragraphs in this Resolution even makes reference to the study mentioned by the thread starter Deborah K which political scientists at the University of Houston proved that the most frequently quoted source used by the Founders in America's birthing was indeed the Bible. Just read the first post of this thread for more information about that.

In passing, I would just like to mention that your questions toward the validity of the truths presented in H. Res. 888 really fall on your shoulders. The link I've posted provides the names of the Representatives who submitted the Resolution, so I would suggest you contact them in their offices to get a more detailed and exhaustive reference to the information and documents they used in the forming of their own Resolution. Having said that, I would like to provide some resources, as you've requested, which I believe prove that America has a major and influential founding on Christian principles. Some of these proofs I've already posted in this thread, but for the sake of time and due to the nature of this involving task, I shall provide only a few examples which will prove my case. The rest of the research I leave at your leisure.

Here is a letter written to Thomas Jefferson from John Adams on June 28th, 1813 about how American independence was achieved upon the principles of Christianity:




> Without wishing to damp the Ardor of curiosity, or influence the freedom of inquiry, I will hazard a prediction, that after the most industrious and impartial Researches, the longest liver of you all, will find no Principles, Institutions, or Systems of Education, more fit, IN GENERAL to be transmitted to your Posterity, than those you have received from you[r] Ancestors.
> 
> Who composed that Army of fine young Fellows that was then before my Eyes? There were among them, Roman Catholicks, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anababtists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists; and "Protestans qui ne croyent rien ["Protestants who believe nothing"]." Very few however of several of these Species. Nevertheless all Educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty.
> 
> Could my Answer be understood, by any candid Reader or Hearer, to recommend, to all the others, the general Principles, Institutions or Systems of Education of the Roman Catholicks? Or those of the Quakers? Or those of the Presbyterians? Or those of the Menonists? Or those of the Methodists? or those of the Moravians? Or those of the Universalists? or those of the Philosophers? No.
> 
> The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were united: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.
> 
> Now 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; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System. I could therefore safely say, consistently with all my then and present Information, that I believed they would never make Discoveries in contradiction to these general Principles. In favour of these general Principles in Phylosophy, Religion and Government, I could fill Sheets of quotations from Frederick of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Reausseau and Voltaire, as well as Neuton and Locke: not to mention thousands of Divines and Philosophers of inferiour Fame.


 (*Source: The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The
Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams, edited by Lester J. Cappon,
1988, the University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC, pp. 338-340.*)

Here's another letter written by John Adams to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts on Ocotber 11, 1798 about how our Constitution is inadequate to govern "atheists":




> GENTLEMEN,
> 
> I have received from Major-General Hull and Brigadier. General Walker your unanimous address from Lexington, animated with a martial spirit, and expressed with a military dignity becoming your character and the memorable plains on which it was adopted. While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world; because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
> 
> An address from the officers commanding two thousand eight hundred men, consisting of such substantial citizens as are able and willing at their own expense completely to arm and clothe themselves in handsome uniforms, does honor to that division of the militia which has done so much honor to its country.
> 
> Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken and so solemnly repeated on that venerable spot, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government.


 (*Source: The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States; With A Life of the Author Notes and Illustrations of his Grandson Charles Francis Adams. Vol. IX, Books For Libraries Press, Freeport, New York, [First Published 1850-1856, Reprinted 1969], 228-29.*)

Here's a Resolution from April 22, 1782 which directed that military chaplains, appointed in abundance by *Congress* during the Revolutionary War, were paid at the rate of a major in the Continental Army:

 

Here's a picture of the "Liberty Window" which portrays that at its initial meeting in September 1774, Congress invited the Reverend Jacob Duché (1738-1798), rector of Christ Church, Philadelphia, to open its sessions with prayer. Duché ministered to Congress in an unofficial capacity until he was elected the body's first chaplain on July 9, 1776. The top part of this extraordinary stained glass window depicts the role of churchmen in compelling King John to sign the Magna Carta in 1215:



Here's a copy of the "Congressional Fast Day Proclamation" where ongress proclaimed days of fasting and of thanksgiving annually throughout the Revolutionary War. This proclamation by Congress set May 17, 1776, as a "day of Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer" throughout the colonies. Congress urges its fellow citizens to "confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his [God's] righteous displeasure, and through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness." Massachusetts ordered a "suitable Number" of these proclamations be printed so "that each of the religious Assemblies in this Colony, may be furnished with a Copy of the same" and added the motto "God Save This People" as a substitute for "God Save the King":



Here's a couple of pages from the Journals of Congress where they endorsed the Aitken's Bible. The war with Britain cut off the supply of Bibles to the United States with the result that on Sept. 11, 1777, Congress instructed its Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from "Scotland, Holland or elsewhere." On January 21, 1781, Philadelphia printer Robert Aitken (1734-1802) petitioned Congress to officially sanction a publication of the Old and New Testament which he was preparing at his own expense. Congress "highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion . . . in this country, and . . . they recommend this edition of the bible to the inhabitants of the United States." This resolution was a result of Aitken's successful accomplishment of his project:

 

Here's an extract from the Journals of Congress where Congress took steps to see that Christian morality prevailed in the Navy because they feared the Navy as a source of moral corruption and demanded that skippers of American ships make their men behave. The first article in Rules and Regulations of the Navy, adopted on November 28, 1775, ordered all commanders "to be very vigilant . . . to discountenance and suppress all dissolute, immoral and disorderly practices." The second article required those same commanders "to take care, that divine services be performed twice a day on board, and a sermon preached on Sundays." Article 3 prescribed punishments for swearers and blasphemers: officers were to be fined and common sailors were to be forced "to wear a wooden collar or some other shameful badge of distinction."



Here's a Resolution where Congress makes public lands available to a group for religious purposes. Responding to a plea from Bishop John Ettwein (1721-1802), Congress voted that 10,000 acres on the Muskingum River in the present state of Ohio "be set apart and the property thereof be vested in the Moravian Brethren . . . or a society of the said Brethren for civilizing the Indians and promoting Christianity." The Delaware Indians were the intended beneficiaries of this Congressional resolution:

 

I could go on and on with examples like this, but I think these examples should suffice. My point is that Christianity was indeed the *primary influence* upon the political decisions and philosophies of our Founding Fathers in early American jurisprudence, *not the Enlightenment, not "Atheism", not Islam, nor any other religious system.* Now you may disagree with that, but that doesn't change the facts. I would like to see any original sources or proofs that would disprove the intent of this forum thread, namely, that America was founded on Christian principles. I haven't seen any yet.

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

> Actually you made my point. I was off by a year, perhaps?
> 
> Then how can a country be founded on something that was never mentioned until over a century after it's founding?
> 
> My point is that language is essential in order to convey ideas. By changing meanings of words to conform to ideologies- think "gay marriage"- you can easily convince people that a dog is a cat or up is down, peace war, slavery freedom.
> 
> America was no more based on "Judeo-Christian" values than it was on "Islamo-Aryan ones. Allowing the newest power players in the population to redefine it's history doesn't make it so, it only makes it part of the power meme of the day.
> 
> Good luck with that.


I agree we need to be accurate in language. For this debate we must remember that we are talking about _principals_ not "values"

As for the suggestion that a newly coined term is unsuitable to describe something pre-existing, I disagree. Language evolves, whether we like it, or not. We deal with it as best we can. Consider the debate among Austrian Economists regarding the accuracy of the, newly coined, terms, "anarcho-capitalism" and "minarchism" in describing the evolution of their pre-existing movement. A newly coined term does not a paradigm shift make, as you seem to suggest.

I contend that both the roots of the term Judeo-Christian, and it's underlying principals, can be found in a few sentences from the bible:

Matt 22:36-39




> Matt 22:40 - "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."


36-39 IMO- describes the principles of Respect and Charity, while 40 ties the New Testement to the Old.

For further evidence of Judeo-Christian principals influencing our heritage I submit:

1- The continueing use of the Bible in the swearing of oaths

2- This obscure little tidbit, (from FDR's administration no less)




> "To show our faith in democracy, we have made the policy of the good neighbor the cornerstone of our foreign relations. No other policy would be consistant with our ideas and ideals. In the fulfillment of this policy we propose to heed the ancient Scriptual admonition not to move our neighbor's landmarks, not to encroach on his notes and bounds"
> http://www-tc.pbs.org/kpbs/theborder...ress.jpg?Log=0


I find the capitalization of the term "Scriptual" (and lower case "democracy") to be an interesting side note...

While the debate has been good, (and at times absurd) I have still yet to see the OP's assertion successfully reputed.

Now, about that gold you offered...

----------


## sophocles07

> Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.


This doesn’t say it is unfit for Atheists; it says that the Constitution can be broken by “Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry.”  “Moral and religious people” can be interpreted widely.  An atheist can be moral; and, as you yourself have repeated many, many times throughout my arguments with you, atheism can be considered “religious” as it is based on the idea, without empirical disproof, that god is false.  

You are stretching Adams’ phrase for your own benefit in other words.




> Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations.


This also does not mean it is a Christian oath; it is obviously an adjective meaning extreme, ritualistic, high value—sacred.




> Here's a Resolution from April 22, 1782 which directed that military chaplains, appointed in abundance by Congress during the Revolutionary War, were paid at the rate of a major in the Continental Army:


Why do you think the employed chaplains, Theocrat?

By the way, I can’t read the print on the second of your images; I cannot enlarge it either.  If you could highlight the specific points, so I could judge.




> Here's a picture of the "Liberty Window" which portrays that at its initial meeting in September 1774, Congress invited the Reverend Jacob Duché (1738-1798), rector of Christ Church, Philadelphia, to open its sessions with prayer. Duché ministered to Congress in an unofficial capacity until he was elected the body's first chaplain on July 9, 1776. The top part of this extraordinary stained glass window depicts the role of churchmen in compelling King John to sign the Magna Carta in 1215


Jesus, man...




> I could go on and on with examples like this, but I think these examples should suffice. My point is that Christianity was indeed the primary influence upon the political decisions and philosophies of our Founding Fathers in early American jurisprudence, not the Enlightenment, not "Atheism", not Islam, nor any other religious system. Now you may disagree with that, but that doesn't change the facts. I would like to see any original sources or proofs that would disprove the intent of this forum thread, namely, that America was founded on Christian principles. I haven't seen any yet.


Apparently Theocrat cannot understand the ideas I’m talking about; Job’s got him by the penis down by serpent’s creek.  Shame.

----------


## Theocrat

> This doesn’t say it is unfit for Atheists; it says that the Constitution can be broken by “Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry.”  “Moral and religious people” can be interpreted widely.  An atheist can be moral; and, as you yourself have repeated many, many times throughout my arguments with you, atheism can be considered “religious” as it is based on the idea, without empirical disproof, that god is false.  
> 
> You are stretching Adams’ phrase for your own benefit in other words.


If I understand John Adams's writings correctly, I would deduce that his meaning of "moral and religious people" would be referring to Christians, primarily, especially in consideration of the fact that he believed America was founded on Christian principles, being a Christian himself, and expressed this belief to Thomas Jefferson in the letter I posted previously on this thread.

I do believe "Atheism" is "religious," in a sense, but more accurately, I would say it's "superstitious." I was being nice to you when I called your faith system "religious."




> This also does not mean it is a Christian oath; it is obviously an adjective meaning extreme, ritualistic, high value—sacred.


Yeah, because it's not like they swore oaths on the Bible or anything... 




> Why do you think the employed chaplains, Theocrat?
> 
> By the way, I can’t read the print on the second of your images; I cannot enlarge it either.  If you could highlight the specific points, so I could judge.


Chaplains were employed by our government because our Founders rightly recognized that these men had holy gifts and callings by God to minister to the spiritual needs of those elected officials in the civil magistrate. 

Yeah, I noticed that the printing on some of the images I posted  is a bit small. My suggestion to you is get a magnifying glass and read it that way, maybe?




> Apparently Theocrat cannot understand the ideas I’m talking about; Job’s got him by the penis down by serpent’s creek.  Shame.


If I weren't so used to your personal attacks against me, I would probably say some things to you right now that I'd regret later. I understand, though. You're still struggling to control those random, electrochemical processes in your brain which cause you to speak so foolishly. Damn, evolution can be so unfair sometimes...

I guess you still aren't convinced that America was established on Christian principles and Christianity was the dominant influence of American jurisprudence and society, are you? Oh, well. You can't say I didn't try. However, where's your proof to the contrary, sophocles07? Oh, I forgot. You're *too busy* to provide any evidence. Right...

----------


## familydog

First of all Theocrat, when *you* present evidence to me backing up your claim, it is not *my* responsibility to research *your* evidence. This is intellectual laziness on your part. It's your evidence, not mine, and if you can't answer my questions regarding your own research, maybe you shouldn't be using that research at all. I'll be more than happy to answer any questions regarding my sources, because I research my sources before I present them. 

Secondly, I understand that this country has a religious history. There is no denying that. The premise of the OP is "was America founded upon Judeo-Christian principles." Your latest evidence, primary documents and this resolution, do not prove this. 

Let's go back to the time of the founding to visit our good friend Jeremy Benthem *for a widely accepted definition* of "principle" from the time of our founding:

"The word principle..is applied to any thing which is conceived to serve as a foundation or beginning to any series of operations" Jeremy Benthem - 1780
http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/...ilite=50188755

With that out of the way, what exactly, based in the resolution you presented, served as the "foundation" of our "series of operations" (the Constitution--thus forming the government)? The only thing that the resolution states is that religion played a big role in our history. Doesn't that mean that religious principles were a basis for the founding then? One can't make that connection without specific evidence by naming specific principles at the time of our founding (which your resolution doesn't do). Why then, can we say that the founding was based on secular Enlightenment principles? Because the founders actually reference these certain principles in their writings such as: Locke's social contract theory and natural law beliefs, Montesquieu's seperation of powers beliefs, Adam Smith's laissez-faire economics beliefs, etc. etc. So if we can find writings by our founders that suggest the formation of this new and radical government should be based on Christian principle A, Christian principle B, etc, the we can make the same conclusion about Christian principles as we can Enlightenment principles. But your latest evidence does not do that.

Going back to your chaplain evidence. There is no denying that. Again that does nothing but point out that there were a lot of religious people at the time of the founding--a big difference between those religious (or non-religious) peoples using specific Christian principles as the "foundation" to a "series of operations." Also, the window does nothing again, but point out a religious past to this country. The "Congressional Fast Day Proclamation" does, yet again, the same thing. The people in Congress were obviously a religious people, but it doesn't prove the premise of this thread. I'd specifically mention the rest of your evidence, but I'd be repeating myself more than I already have. 

The point is, this resolution tells us we have a religious history. That is not the same as being founded upon Christian principles. The founders, in a quite clear way stated that their inspiration for the Constitution and this republican form of government came from Enlightenment thinkers. That is a historical fact because it is in their writings. They name *specific* principles that inspired them and *specifically* attribute them to Enlightenment thinkers (like I pointed above). 

Your arguments are intelligent, but your logic is faulty. You're trying to argue that because we have a religious history, we were founded upon religious principles (which you have yet to define what those religious principles are). By your logic, a lawmaker who has a religious affiliation makes their laws based on their religious beliefs even if they quite clearly state the inspiration for their laws came from a secular source.

----------


## Theocrat

> With that out of the way, what exactly, based in the resolution you presented, served as the "foundation" of our "series of operations" (the Constitution--thus forming the government)? The only thing that the resolution states is that religion played a big role in our history. Doesn't that mean that religious principles were a basis for the founding then? One can't make that connection without specific evidence by naming specific principles at the time of our founding (which your resolution doesn't do). Why then, can we say that the founding was based on secular Enlightenment principles? Because the founders actually reference these certain principles in their writings such as: Locke's social contract theory and natural law beliefs, Montesquieu's seperation of powers beliefs, Adam Smith's laissez-faire economics beliefs, etc. etc. So if we can find writings by our founders that suggest the formation of this new and radical government should be based on Christian principle A, Christian principle B, etc, the we can make the same conclusion about Christian principles as we can Enlightenment principles. But your latest evidence does not do that.


I think you're misunderstanding my argument. I'm stating that Christianity had a *primary* influence on our nation's founding, not the only influence. I recognize that there were some Enlightenment principles involved, but they weren't nearly as used as the Bible. The study referred to in thread starter's original post shows this, and here it is:



Individuals such as Locke, Montesquieu, and Adam Smith were all Christians, to my knowledge, so I would conclude they got their principles using "Christian capital," you might say. These guys were living at a time and culture in history where Christianity was mainly a part of their society, so it seems logical to me that they would be writing and using materials which came from a Biblical worldview of government, law, etc.

The problem I have is when the God-haters in these forums get all fussy and upset when we Christians even mention that the Christian religion was inculcated in American government and culture, and they immediately start quoting the likes of Jefferson or Paine as if these two guys are the "end all, be all" of the discussion against America's religious founding. It's really funny to watch them do this because they're so predictable when God is mentioned in having an influence in government and politics. Then absurd notions that the Enlightenment was the *only* influence on early American jurisprudence spout out, usually without any evidence to prove their claims. This is what I'm debating against, but lest I be misunderstood, let me reiterate that I believe some Enlightenment principles were used by our Founders in America's political system, just not as much as the Bible was. Many skeptics tend to overlook that fact, even though it has been proven by the study aforementioned. Such arrogance and ignorance is appalling, in my opinion, and it only shows their personal contempt for Christianity, as been attested to by Deborah K. 




> Going back to your chaplain evidence. There is no denying that. Again that does nothing but point out that there were a lot of religious people at the time of the founding--a big difference between those religious (or non-religious) peoples using specific Christian principles as the "foundation" to a "series of operations." Also, the window does nothing again, but point out a religious past to this country. The "Congressional Fast Day Proclamation" does, yet again, the same thing. The people in Congress were obviously a religious people, but it doesn't prove the premise of this thread. I'd specifically mention the rest of your evidence, but I'd be repeating myself more than I already have. 
> 
> The point is, this resolution tells us we have a religious history. That is not the same as being founded upon Christian principles. The founders, in a quite clear way stated that their inspiration for the Constitution and this republican form of government came from Enlightenment thinkers. That is a historical fact because it is in their writings. They name *specific* principles that inspired them and *specifically* attribute them to Enlightenment thinkers (like I pointed above). 
> 
> Your arguments are intelligent, but your logic is faulty. You're trying to argue that because we have a religious history, we were founded upon religious principles (which you have yet to define what those religious principles are). By your logic, a lawmaker who has a religious affiliation makes their laws based on their religious beliefs even if they quite clearly state the inspiration for their laws came from a secular source.


I see a major flaw in your reasoning here on the nature of human beings. You seem to assume that somehow a person can have a belief without acting out on that belief in their conduct, thinking, and speech. If these guys are truly religious in their practice of Christianity, then it would seem counter-intuitive to me that they would then act or speak in opposition to their beliefs by adhering only to secular principles (Enlightenment) which would contradict their own faith. The history and culture in early America and its deep Christian religious inculcation in education, Congressional rulings, etc. seem to debunk this notion, as I've shown in the examples I provided a few posts previously. Once again, your assumption here, I feel, is based on some substance of *neutrality* in the Founders actions, writings, and thoughts. If this is what you believe, then I would disagree with you because these men were pretty steadfast in their Christian convictions, especially in relation to its application on government.

So, once again, my views on the Founders based on the research and debates I've done is that they were *primarily* influenced by the Bible, and if not the Bible itself, then individuals' writings and thoughts were influenced by the Scriptures. Yes, the Enlightenment was a factor, too. I admit that, but I welcome any evidences presented (hopefully from original sources) that would show that the Enlightenment was more important to the Founders than their own personal Christian faith. I've still not seen it.

----------


## Deborah K

> I dont refuse to read your posts, but from what you have said, it seemed to me that we are debating two different positions. I am only refuting what the OP has stated, specifically that the founders used the Bible as their main source for writing the founding documents.
> I have no problem with people saying that the bible was an influence to some, but she grossly overstated the postition as many christians do.


Uhhh... wanna show me where I stated that?  It appears that you are "_grossly_" misinterpreting what I wrote!  I am contending that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and I used a study that was done to give evidence to the fact that our founders, some of whom wrote our founding documents, quoted the bible more often than any other source during their tenures.  NO WHERE will you find that I claim  the founders used the bible as a main source for writing the founding documents!  You came to that false conclusion because you either have trouble comprehending what you read, or you are an intellectually dishonest debater.

----------


## mtmedlin

> Tdcc, you have, not surprisingly, completely missed the point.  Your biblical quotes do not refute the fact that our  Founders chose a majority of their ideas for our Founding documents(based on their own writings) from the bible and biblical concepts.
> 
> NeoRayden:
> 
> 
> If you even read what I wrote, then tell me exactly how you can defend that erroneous argument.  Start by refuting what I wrote, if you would, please.
> 
> So what if our nation was founded on Biblical principles? What exactly is it about this that threatens you so?


Majority, is this not what you said. You made the claim that the founders used as a MAJORITY the bible. I dont think I was stretching. It was an innacurate statement then as it is now but you did say it.

----------


## familydog

> I think you're misunderstanding my argument. I'm stating that Christianity had a *primary* influence on our nation's founding, not the only influence. I recognize that there were some Enlightenment principles involved, but they weren't nearly as used as the Bible. The study referred to in thread starter's original post shows this, and here it is:
> 
> 
> 
> Individuals such as Locke, Montesquieu, and Adam Smith were all Christians, to my knowledge, so I would conclude they got their principles using "Christian capital," you might say. These guys were living at a time and culture in history where Christianity was mainly a part of their society, so it seems logical to me that they would be writing and using materials which came from a Biblical worldview of government, law, etc.
> 
> The problem I have is when the God-haters in these forums get all fussy and upset when we Christians even mention that the Christian religion was inculcated in American government and culture, and they immediately start quoting the likes of Jefferson or Paine as if these two guys are the "end all, be all" of the discussion against America's religious founding. It's really funny to watch them do this because they're so predictable when God is mentioned in having an influence in government and politics. Then absurd notions that the Enlightenment was the *only* influence on early American jurisprudence spout out, usually without any evidence to prove their claims. This is what I'm debating against, but lest I be misunderstood, let me reiterate that I believe some Enlightenment principles were used by our Founders in America's political system, just not as much as the Bible was. Many skeptics tend to overlook that fact, even though it has been proven by the study aforementioned. Such arrogance and ignorance is appalling, in my opinion, and it only shows their personal contempt for Christianity, as been attested to by Deborah K. 
> 
> 
> ...


I never said that the Enlightenment was the only source of the founding and you'd know that if you read my previous arguments supporting the original premise of the thread. The evidence you have presented (which you still won't answer my questions about it) again doesn't suggest the founding was on any religious principles at all, it just tells that religion is in our history. 

It seems we have a fundamental disagreement on human nature. I propose that the choices one makes in life can be based in rationality. That is, humans have the intellectual capacity to reason through problems (thus needing to make choices) and the choice is not necesarily based on what one's religious beliefs are. I know specifically the Catholic Church (the majority Christian sect in the world) agrres with this position. Ratzinger himself wrote extensively on it. He knows that humans can make decisions outside of their religious beliefs. The first example coming to mind with regards to this, since we are talking about the founding era, is dower rights. Why was the colonial common law and subsequent post-Revolution government insitent on dower rights? Was it because the lawmakers/judges were religious and were guided by moral Christian principles? No, it was more of a "reason" and "rational" approach to problem solving. These lawmakers didn't want society to have the burden of taking care of women and children after their husband (and only means of support) died, and thus came to be dower rights. That actually sounds kind of selfish on the part of lawmakers. Selfishness is not a Christian principle as far as I know. Either way, their rationality, depsite being Christians, lied simply in the fact that society could not afford to take care of these people. Not because it was right and moral. This rationale is specifically in the writings of these lawmakers and judges. Thus, we have a sitatuon where decision makers use their rational thinking abilities to solve problems that is not influenced by their religion.

You again do not define these Christian principles. What are they and where are they in our founders writings? I'm not talking about statements like "well, we should be religious people," I'm talking about specific statements by our founders that say things like "we must make our government this way or that way because [insert a specific Christian principle] is right and we need to shape our government using that specific principle." Again, *you're confusing religious history with religious influence*. 

Your're arguing that the founding only had "some" Enlightenment influence? I named you several Enlightenment thinkers and you can find many many quotes by the founders in which they attribute those thinkers and their writings specifically as the "foundation" for the "series of operations." I don't care how many times the Bible is mentioned as opposed to the Enlightenment, *the only thing that does matter is where they attribute their influence to*. If you can find me quotes by the founders that say "we need to form our government a certain way because the Bible, words of Christ, Christian priciple A, Christian principle B, etc, is right, then I'll reconsider my positions.

The founders were not true Christians, according to your standards so you are correct (again going by your standards) that the founders weren't true Christians. I quoted a few posts back sources that show these religious peoples of the colonies were very excited by Tom Paine's _Common Sense_ and Enlightenment thinking and discussed them specifically, without referencing religion, in whether or not the people should seperate from England. Also, whether or not Enlightenment thinkers were religious or not, is not relevent. The only thing that is relevent is whether or not their thinking was derived by religion. If you can point to me where Locke, Smith, Montesquieu , Rosseu, etc were divinely inspired to come up with their ideas, then maybe I'll reconsider my position. 

With that said, you must not be that familiar with what the Enlightenment actually was. If so, you'd know that it was a period of thinking specifically relying on empiricism, not religious thinking. With all of this said, my point, and has always been my point (other than the fact your sources are faulty) that Christianity played a major role in the founding, but not *the* major role. Especially in the lives of the average colonist as opposed to the famous founders.

EDIT: While I'm at it, I'll quote you something from a book I'm currrently reading. "[The founders] goal was to conceive a constituion and a federal union based on rational philosophic ideas and intellectual creativity, on what Alexander Hamilton termed 'reflection and choice.' The founders were 'children of the Enlightenment,' notes one constituional scholar. 'Otherwise they would have tried to write a Constituion whose few thousand words contained a host of untried ideas and instiutions. Thomas Jefferson, hailed by Tocqueville as 'the most powerful apostle that democracy has ever had,' believed that progress would issue from experiment, innovation, and continued political renewal." --p. 29-30 _Sister Revolutions_ by Susan Dunn
No mention of religion or religious principles. Just some food for thought, care to refute?

----------


## sophocles07

> If I understand John Adams's writings correctly, I would deduce that his meaning of "moral and religious people" would be referring to Christians, primarily, especially in consideration of the fact that he believed America was founded on Christian principles, being a Christian himself, and expressed this belief to Thomas Jefferson in the letter I posted previously on this thread.
> 
> I do believe "Atheism" is "religious," in a sense, but more accurately, I would say it's "superstitious." I was being nice to you when I called your faith system "religious."


This is all opinion; so there is no need for debate here.




> Chaplains were employed by our government because our Founders rightly recognized that these men had holy gifts and callings by God to minister to the spiritual needs of those elected officials in the civil magistrate. 
> 
> Yeah, I noticed that the printing on some of the images I posted is a bit small. My suggestion to you is get a magnifying glass and read it that way, maybe?


I would think that is part of the reason Chaplains are employed.  Another obvious one would be that the majority of soldiers (I’m assuming we’re talking about army-based chaplains, because I can’t read the type to say different) were Christian; they would probably offer Jewish versions of the Chaplain (I don’t know what that is) had they been the majority.

I don’t have one around the house; I’ll try to borrow one; my eyesight is pretty bad (even with glasses, plus the computer sometimes obscures things to my eyes).




> If I weren't so used to your personal attacks against me, I would probably say some things to you right now that I'd regret later. I understand, though. You're still struggling to control those random, electrochemical processes in your brain which cause you to speak so foolishly. Damn, evolution can be so unfair sometimes...


We’re becoming sitcom-like characters on this forum.




> I guess you still aren't convinced that America was established on Christian principles and Christianity was the dominant influence of American jurisprudence and society, are you? Oh, well. You can't say I didn't try. However, where's your proof to the contrary, sophocles07? Oh, I forgot. You're too busy to provide any evidence. Right...


Well, I never said it wasn’t one of the influences, and even a very dominant one.  All I’ve said is that I think that the philosophy of the period affected the interpretation of the Bible, which I don’t think is that controversial (it’s not).

----------


## Deborah K

> Majority, is this not what you said. You made the claim that the founders used as a MAJORITY the bible. I dont think I was stretching. It was an innacurate statement then as it is now but you did say it.



I owe you an apology.  I respect your position on this, and am willing to debate this further as to my claim.  Bear with me please, I have to dig around in my research and it will take some time, but I love debating.  So as our Governator, Arnold Swarzen_nuetered_ so aptly put it:  I'lllllll be bauk!!!

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

The first colonists of America were Spanish Catholics. 




> As in the Iberian Peninsula, inhabitants of Hispaniola were given new landmasters, while *religious orders handled the local administration*.





> In the papal bull Inter caetera (1493) the Borgia Pope Alexander VI had granted the western newly found lands to the Castilian Crown, *on the condition that it evangelize these new lands.* ".


Next came  Protestant English of the Virginia Company




> I JAMES, by the Grace of God, King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c... Parts and Territories in America, either appertaining unto us, or which are not now actually possessed by any Christian Prince or People... *hereafter tend to the Glory of his Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People*, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God, and may in time bring the Infidels and Savages, living in those Parts, to human Civility, and to a settled and quiet Government;...


Perhaps, this can be said to be "pre-history" in regards to America as we know it. So, lets look at the Pilgrims and their first governing document, The Mayflower Compact, (which was spoken of by John Adams as *the foundation of our Constitution*):




> In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, etc. 
> *Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country*, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together into a Civil Body Politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute and frame such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini 1620.


Is everyone seeing a pattern here? There was one thing in common with all of these, Christianity. The evidence to support the OP in this vein is overwhelming.

How about we look to the Father of our country, George Washington. He was said to carry two books with him always, The Bible and Hale's  CONTEMPLATIONS, MORAL AND DIVINE. Both of these are Judeo-Christian.

Or how about "The genius of the revolution", Benjamin Franklin, the scientist/philospher? While he was certainly no evangelical, (and could hardly be considered Christian), he certainly appreciated the principals of Judeo-Christianity:




> 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, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see*; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble....


Also, there is this:




> On July 4, 1776, Congress appointed a committee that included Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams to design the Great Seal of the United States.[34] Each member of the committee proposed a unique design: *Franklin's proposal featured a design with the motto: "Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God." This design was to portray a scene from the Book of Exodus, complete with Moses, the Israelites, the pillar of fire, and George III depicted as Pharaoh*


So, we see that both the Father and the Genius of the American Revolution used Judeo-Christian Principals in their work. Hhhhmmm...???

We should also look at Freemasonry; 




> A Mason is obligd by his Tenure, to obey the moral Law ;
> and if he rightly understands the Art, he will never be a stupid
> Atheist, nor an irreligious Libertine.


which closely follows it's Judeo-Christian roots.




> ADAM, our first Parent, created after the
> Image of God, the great Architect of the Universe,...


Indeed, freemasonry claims to follow the Laws of Noah,




> 'The first obligation is that you shall sincerely honor God and obey the laws of the Noachites, because they are divine laws, which should be obeyed by all the world. Therefore, you must avoid all heresies and not thereby sin against God.'"...In ancient Times, the Christian Masons were charged to comply with the Christian usages of each country where they traveled or worked; being found in all nations, even of divers religions... 
> 
> ... Various ancient sources record attempts to define this ancient code of morals and ethics. ... Jewish sages traditionally divide the laws that have universal implications into 7 categories. These seven ëcategoriesí are therefore known to Jews as "The seven Laws of Noah" or the "Noachide Covenant". ... This system of theology predates the ministries of Moses, Jesus and Mohammed and therefore is a fitting place for men of all these faiths to meet and function as partners for a better and more peaceful future.


So, what are the 7 Laws of Noah?




> The earliest reference to the "7" laws in a Jewish source lists them as follows; a positive injunction to establish a system of justice, prohibitions against idolatry, blasphemy (profaning the name of God), sexual immorality, bloodshed, robbery and the consumption of blood (or literally a limb torn from a living animal)


And these follow us into the modern age:




> President George Bush signed an historic resolution of both Congressional Houses, recognizing the Noachide Laws as the "bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization". He urged the United States to take a lead in "returning the world to the ethical values contained in the Seven Noahide Laws". This historically significant document is recorded as House Joint Resolution 104, Public Law 102-14


Finally, I would like to point out the inscription on the most American of icons, the Liberty Bell




> "Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the inhabitants thereof" (*Leviticus 25:10*)


Judeo-Christian?... through and through!

----------


## He Who Pawns

Haha, I see that you disabled ratings for this thread... wise move!

----------


## Deborah K

> Haha, I see that you disabled ratings for this thread... wise move!


I guess that's a mod move, but the truth is, I couldn't care less about ratings.  Only an idiot would let ratings influence their opinion or decision to read it.

----------


## Brassmouth

I guess I'll be the $#@! to ask, "who the $#@! cares what the founders believed!?!"

This country is a failure. The American experiment in limited government failed horrendously. The Founders, some of whom were wise men (Jefferson, Paine, etc), should be commended for their efforts in trying to pioneer a version of statism that worked. The truth is, however, that it failed miserably.

Why is there so much hero worship on these forums? If it's not Ron Paul or Peter Schiff, you people are worshiping men who died hundreds of years ago, and whose ideas, although genius in their own time, are outdated now that we have seen the result of their experiment and their philosophy. 


Oh, and there is no god. Invisible men don't exist. Sorry. Time to grow up.

----------


## Kludge

No thread in "General Politics" can be rated.

It was probably an accident from long ago but was never mentioned before now... It's not as though it adds much to the forum. I don't even look at the rating.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I guess I'll be the $#@! to ask, "who the $#@! cares what the founders believed!?!"
> 
> This country is a failure. The American experiment in limited government failed horrendously. The Founders, some of whom were wise men (Jefferson, Paine, etc), should be commended for their efforts in trying to pioneer a version of statism that worked. The truth is, however, that it failed miserably.
> 
> *Why is there so much hero worship on these forums?* If it's not Ron Paul or Peter Schiff, you people are worshiping men who died hundreds of years ago, and whose ideas, although genius in their own time, are outdated now that we have seen the result of their experiment and their philosophy. 
> 
> 
> Oh, and there is no god. Invisible men don't exist. Sorry. Time to grow up.


Because many here are new to the philosophy of liberty and haven't figured out how to "stand on their own 2 legs" as it were.  Keep in mind that many of the hero-worshipers you speak of are still statists in the process of waking up.  Try not to be too harsh on them-they are still growing.

----------


## Ozwest

> I guess I'll be the $#@! to ask, "who the $#@! cares what the founders believed!?!"
> 
> This country is a failure. The American experiment in limited government failed horrendously. The Founders, some of whom were wise men (Jefferson, Paine, etc), should be commended for their efforts in trying to pioneer a version of statism that worked. The truth is, however, that it failed miserably.
> 
> Why is there so much hero worship on these forums? If it's not Ron Paul or Peter Schiff, you people are worshiping men who died hundreds of years ago, and whose ideas, although genius in their own time, are outdated now that we have seen the result of their experiment and their philosophy. 
> 
> 
> Oh, and there is no god. Invisible men don't exist. Sorry. Time to grow up.


Hey, 

$#@! for Brains.

I suggest you pull your head in and look under your ball-sack for some guidance.

You are a meandering pseudo-wanker who has no grasp on history, and insults true Patriots.

----------


## He Who Pawns

It's not the Founders' ideas that are outdated.  It's that we ignore them.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

Not sure what the other 40-some pages discuss, but I'd offer that many of the Founders, including Franklin and Jefferson, were deists--not judeo-christians. A creator is mentioned by the Founders, not an identifiable God.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I guess I'll be the $#@! to ask, "who the $#@! cares what the founders believed!?!"
> 
> This country is a failure. The American experiment in limited government failed horrendously. The Founders, some of whom were wise men (Jefferson, Paine, etc), should be commended for their efforts in trying to pioneer a version of statism that worked. The truth is, however, that it failed miserably.


Nope.

What failed is the people's unwillingness to educate themselves and stay vigilant.  No piece of paper can keep you free, unless you back it up.  Our apathy is what has led to the current state of our nation.  

The principles upon which this great country was founded and yes, I said GREAT, are still valid.  Just as the Constitution is.  The problem is, and always has been, that we did not require our public servants to follow it.  




> Why is there so much hero worship on these forums? If it's not Ron Paul or Peter Schiff, you people are worshiping men who died hundreds of years ago, and whose ideas, although genius in their own time, are outdated now that we have seen the result of their experiment and their philosophy.


This forum was started as grassroots support for Ron Paul's campaign and as such, many of us here support the platform of his campaign.  A part of that platform was to reinstate the Constitution and individual liberty.  If you think that is "outdated", I'm unclear why you are here.  



> Oh, and there is no god. Invisible men don't exist. Sorry. Time to grow up.


You have a right to your own opinion.  However, that does not change the fact that this country was founded on Christian principles.

----------


## Kludge

> This forum was started as grassroots support for Ron Paul's campaign and as such, many of us here support the platform of his campaign.  A part of that platform was to reinstate the Constitution and individual liberty.  If you think that is "outdated", I'm unclear why you are here.


A US government operating as the Constitution permitted would be an increase in individual liberty.

Perhaps he supports individual liberty but not necessarily the Constitution.

----------


## Deborah K

> Not sure what the other 40-some pages discuss, but I'd offer that many of the Founders, including Franklin and Jefferson, were deists--not judeo-christians. A creator is mentioned by the Founders, not an identifiable God.



The OP is more about what principles the country was founded upon, not necessarily whether or not the founders themselves were Christian, although here's some history on that:

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Foundin..._Religion.html

----------


## Ozwest

I don't get it, As a Libertarian, I could give a stuff if people a green, purple, or whatever.

If they don't break laws, and respect my space...

So what? What's the drama?

----------


## Deborah K

> Why is there so much hero worship on these forums? If it's not Ron Paul or Peter Schiff, you people are worshiping men who died hundreds of years ago, and whose ideas, although genius in their own time, are outdated now that we have seen the result of their experiment and their philosophy.


You are implying that there are members of this forum who revere or adulate Ron Paul, or Schiff, or whomever, just because they respect their intelligence and knowledge.  You are clearly confused.

As to the Constitution being outdated.  This implies that if it had been followed, rather than subverted for the last 150 or so years, that the end the result would have been the same.  How could you possibly know that?




> Oh, and there is no god. Invisible men don't exist. Sorry. Time to grow up.


As a famous astronomer once said, " Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."  Let me ask you this:  do you believe there is intelligent life on other planets?

----------


## paulim

> Christ was Jew.  The Christian religion was born out of Judaism.


That might be wrong. According to the book 'The controversy of zion' by douglas reed, Jesus was of galilean descent, that means he wasn't a jew. I quote:



> This public assertion, "Jesus was a Jew", is always used in our century for political purposes. It is often 
> employed  to  quell  objections  to  the  Zionist  influence  in  international  politics  or  to  the  Zionist  invasion  of 
> Palestine, the suggestion being that, as Jesus  was a Jew,  none ought to object to anything purporting  to be 
> done  in  the  name  of  Jews.  The  irrelevance  is  obvious,  but  mobs  are  moved  by  such  phrases,  and  the 
> paradoxical result, once again, is that a statement, most offensive to literal Jews, is most frequently made by 
> non-Jewish politicians and ecclesiastics who seek Jewish favour. 
> 
> The  English  abbreviation,  "Jew",  is  recent  and  does  not  correspond  to  anything  denoted  by  the 
> Aramaic, Greek or Roman terms for "Judahite" or "Judean", which were in use during the lifetime of Jesus. 
> ...


the book is detailed on this topic and the quote is only a small part



> Hence, the "Judeo-Christian principles".  Sorry if that bothers some, but it is of historic relevance to include Judaism into the fabric of our heritage.


How so? Only for the zionists.

----------


## Deborah K

> I don't get it, As a Libertarian, I could give a stuff if people a green, purple, or whatever.
> 
> If they don't break laws, and respect my space...
> 
> So what? What's the drama?



The drama comes from people who, for whatever reason, feel threatened.

----------


## Ozwest

I guess some of you are unable to grasp the concept without prejudice.

You confuse personal preferences with Liberty.

----------


## Ozwest

> The drama comes from people who, for whatever reason, feel threatened.


That's the price.

----------


## Deborah K

> That might be wrong. According to the book 'The controversy of zion' by douglas reed, Jesus was of galilean descent, that means he wasn't a jew. I quote:
> 
> the book is detailed on this topic and the quote is only a small part
> 
> How so? Only for the zionists.



This would contradict the bible.  In the New Testament, Jesus and his parents are often mentioned as practicing the Jewish religion.  

Let me just state that I am not an Israel supporter per say.  I think they should be allowed to defend themselves without US approval.  I think it is time to cut the cord where the state of Israel is concerned.  I happen to agree with Dr. Paul on this issue.

----------


## Deborah K

> How so? Only for the zionists.


Is it my understanding that there is a difference between Zionists and Jews.  Are you implying there isn't?

----------


## Ozwest

It always freaks me out.

Americans are too carried away about religion.

Guess you'll clue in the rest of the Planet when you make your decision.

During the meantime.

I'm cranking up some Pink Floyd...

----------


## Deborah K

> It always freaks me out.
> 
> Americans are too carried away about religion.



The reason is because of social engineering.  We are being taught as a society to disregard our heritage and to look at belief in God as child-like and ignorant.  Obviously, this is offensive to people who believe in a Creator.




> Guess you'll clue in the rest of the Planet when you make your decision.


To whom are you directing the above?  I don't understand the statement.




> During the meantime.
> 
> I'm cranking up some Pink Floyd


Enjoy.  Love Pink Floyd.

----------


## Ozwest

Israel may control the World, But its Headquarters is in America.

----------


## Ozwest

Got side-tracked by the Doors.

Nice detour.

----------


## RedStripe

The Founder's belief in God (to whatever extent it existed) was just as flawed in their belief that the constitution was a good idea.

The enlightenment failed insofar as science and reason did not totally defeat god and statism, the most prolific spooks in the history of mankind and most responsible for authority-worship and enslavement. 

Personally, the only religion that concerns me is statism. People 'talking' to the voice in their own heads don't bother me.

edit: the ads on this page are hilarious. "visit the holy land to discover your christian heritage" hah, all you need to do is read a book on paganism to do that (costs less and you won't have to support an apartheid state's tourism industry)

----------


## Deborah K

> The Founder's belief in God (to whatever extent it existed) was just as flawed in their belief that the constitution was a good idea.


Where would you rather live then?

----------


## Objectivist

Didn't want to repost the OP but this is my response. So you attribute the ideals of the founders solely on Judeo-Christian ideals? You can't attribute those ideals specifically and solely to Jews and Christians. Most humans hold those ideals, Freedom is a universal want and desire.

----------


## LibertyEagle

I don't have the time to go through upteen zillion pages to get all of them, but at least the last off-topic posts have been moved into a new thread of their own, here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=191265

From this point on, please keep this thread on-topic.

Thanks.

----------


## GBurr

I'm an evangelical and I have to agree with your critics. I quote socialists all the time. Does that make a socialist? 

Our founders had a very poor view of organized religion. I'm not saying they are atheists or that they didn't value many of the same things as Christians and Jews. As far as designing a Judeo/Cristian State no way. Jefferson and Madison were very clear about separating church and state as if a wall was between them. I laugh when Christians say that the separation of church and state was to keep government out of religion not religion out of government. If you allow church to mingle with government then government will mingle with church. Jefferson and Madison both made that very clear. Since Jefferson and Madison were the primary authors of the governments principles I'm going to have to say that the government is in no way a Judeo/Christian government. 

I do believe that this nation has many Judeo/Christian values because of the high number of Jews and Christians. This could be interpreted to mean that we are a Judeo/Christian nation, however in no way was the government supposed to be Judeo/Christian.

----------


## BeFranklin

> I'm an evangelical and I have to agree with your critics. I quote socialists all the time. Does that make a socialist? 
> 
> Our founders had a very poor view of organized religion. I'm not saying they are atheists or that they didn't value many of the same things as Christians and Jews. As far as designing a Judeo/Cristian State no way. Jefferson and Madison were very clear about separating church and state as if a wall was between them. *I laugh when Christians say that the separation of church and state was to keep government out of religion not religion out of government*. If you allow church to mingle with government then government will mingle with church. Jefferson and Madison both made that very clear. Since Jefferson and Madison were the primary authors of the governments principles I'm going to have to say that the government is in no way a Judeo/Christian government.


Outside tense noted.

*Proverbs 3:34* _Surely [The LORD] scorneth the scorners (mockers): but he giveth grace unto the lowly._

Jefferson wasn't clear at all about "a wall of separation", because he didn't come up with the term.  It was from the famous sermons of Roger Williams, noted baptist, and yes it was to keep government out of using force to establish state religons.

Jefferson, for one, is responsible for several laws in Virgina quoting straight from the bible, ie sabbath worship and marriage laws, and instituted worship services in the capitol buildings.  There were also, fyi, very few Jews in america at that time, so claiming there was a high number of them is also another inaccuracy in your post.  The nation was Christian.

----------


## tonesforjonesbones

Exactly befranklin...i'm not going to share ...nope.  It WAS a christian nation...but there was freedom of religion. Some folks just don't cotton to those facts.  tones

----------


## Original_Intent

And Ben Franklin, everyone's favorite Deist, called for prayer in the Constitutional convention - a very strange request coming from probably the most renowned Deist of the time (at least according to the history revisionists).

There was never meant to be a national religion. (There is now, it is called secular humanism)

There was never meant to be federal laws regarding an establishment of religion. 

There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. The only "wall" is a directive to CONGRESS to make no law regarding an establishment of religion.




> "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. *Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people*. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
> 
> — John Adams, October 11, 1798





> Not only do the Americans follow their religion from interest, but they often place in this world the interest that makes them follow it. In the Middle Ages the clergy spoke of nothing but a future state; they hardly cared to prove that a sincere Christian may be a happy man here below. But the American preachers are constantly referring to the earth, and it is only with great difficulty that they can divert their attention from it. To touch their congregations, they always show them how favorable religious opinions are to freedom and public tranquillity; and it is often difficult to ascertain from their discourses whether the principal object of religion is to procure eternal felicity in the other world or prosperity in this.
> 
> -Alexis de Tocqueville, _Religion in America_

----------


## BlackTerrel

Does it matter?  I'm a Christian and I really don't care what the founders believed?  You can be any religion you want as long as you don't infringe on my rights to follow mine.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> Please see the whole article here: http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=159


realjewnews.com?  




> Even Harvard University knows they control America: http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-83-page-...ntrols-USA.pdf



jewwatch.com is run by a notorious white supremacist.  Why are you on these websites.  Perhaps you need to get a life and stop blaming Jews for all the worlds ills?

----------


## BlackTerrel

> The founders were all Christians, but the country was founded on FREEDOM above and beyond everything else.


Freedom for who?

----------


## JeNNiF00F00

> Freedom for who?


Touche!

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

Ah Christ almighty. Haven't we beaten each other to death enough times over this issue? Who gives a flying $#@! what the Founders personally believed as far as religious philosophy? This thread should be moved to the Hot Topics forum and out of General Politics. Could one of the mods please do so as its going to only cause more discord.

----------


## Deborah K

> I'm an evangelical and I have to agree with your critics. I quote socialists all the time. Does that make a socialist? 
> 
> Our founders had a very poor view of organized religion. I'm not saying they are atheists or that they didn't value many of the same things as Christians and Jews. As far as designing a Judeo/Cristian State no way. Jefferson and Madison were very clear about separating church and state as if a wall was between them. I laugh when Christians say that the separation of church and state was to keep government out of religion not religion out of government. If you allow church to mingle with government then government will mingle with church. Jefferson and Madison both made that very clear. Since Jefferson and Madison were the primary authors of the governments principles I'm going to have to say that the government is in no way a Judeo/Christian government. 
> 
> I do believe that this nation has many Judeo/Christian values because of the high number of Jews and Christians. This could be interpreted to mean that we are a Judeo/Christian nation, however in no way was the government supposed to be Judeo/Christian.



Yet another example of someone who has misinterpreted my point.  For your review: 

*Was America founded on Judeo-Christian Principles? Of Course it was!*   READ the question!  It does NOT say that the founders wanted a "Judeo-Christian State"  (your words).  It does NOT say the founders wanted a "Judeo/Christian government".  (Again, YOUR words, not mine)  It states that America was founded on Judeo-Christian *PRINCIPLES*.  And then I go on to back up my claim with facts.

Now can we at least start from that premise instead of an erroneous one?

----------


## Deborah K

> Ah Christ almighty. Haven't we beaten each other to death enough times over this issue? Who gives a flying $#@! what the Founders personally believed as far as religious philosophy? This thread should be moved to the Hot Topics forum and out of General Politics. Could one of the mods please do so as its going to only cause more discord.


Again, only people like you want this thread relegated to Hot Topics where non-members can't see it.  This is about dispelling the ridiculous account that our founders were all deists and atheists, a lie being perpetuated by social engineers.  This is a very important discussion that needs to be had. I appreciate very much that the mods and admins understand this, even if you don't.

----------


## revolutionman

people who argue that America was founded on christian principals usually use that as a launchpad for attacking homosexuals and the religious freedoms of non christian people.

otherwise whether or not Christian values inspired Classical Liberal philosophy is irrelevant.

In America, at least in Governmental capacities, the bible is no more important than the dictionary, and Jesus is no more relevant than Bugs Bunny.

The only reason to tie Christianity into the founding is simply to alienate nonchristians.

America is a Republic governed by law. Not a theocratic state beholden to ancient fables and child molesting clerics. If thats what you want then feel free to go to Iran or Saudi Arabia, because if you think a Christian State run by the book and a bunch of tight ass preachers will be any better you got another thing coming.

I'm more than happy to call many a Christian my brother, and my family is very much Catholic, but to use your faith and its historical role in the founding of this country to attack some, and alienate others, is hateful. And hateful people are the one sort that I'd rather not consort with.

----------


## Kraig

Why even say "it was founded on christian principles" what does that even mean?  That makes people think that it is all based on the Bible.  Why not say "it was found by men, many of them being Christian, who believed in separation of Church and state".  That is a much more accurate description, and less confusing or offending to people.

----------


## Deborah K

> people who argue that America was founded on christian principals usually use that as a launchpad for attacking homosexuals and the religious freedoms of non christian people. otherwise whether or not Christian values inspired Classical Liberal philosophy is irrelevant.


Not in my case.  Again, the point of the thread was to dispell the Orwellian objective to revise history on this matter.  





> The only reason to tie Christianity into the founding is simply to alienate nonchristians.


Then why all the history revision?  Do you deny that over the past decade and a half more and more people believe the founders were deists and atheists?  I contend your statement is fallacious, it's really the other way around.

----------


## Deborah K

> Why even say "it was founded on christian principles" what does that even mean?  That makes people think that it is all based on the Bible.  Why not say "it was found by men, many of them being Christian, who believed in separation of Church and state".  That is a much more accurate description, and less confusing or offending to people.


Oh so you want me to be politically correct?    Like that's ever gonna happen.  It is what it is.  Maybe you should be asking yourself why it is that you feel so threatened by it.

----------


## revolutionman

Christians can historicize Jesus Christ, but when people try to paint the founding fathers as men who embraced secular law over spiritual doctrine suddenly its revisionist history.

----------


## Kraig

> Oh so you want me to be politically correct?    Like that's ever gonna happen.  It is what it is.  Maybe you should be asking yourself why it is that you feel so threatened by it.


I don't feel threatened by it but I can understand why some people would.  I don't think a limited republic that is based on three separate branches that are supposed to check and balance each other could be considered "judeo christian principles", so I don't think it is very accurate either.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I'm more than happy to call many a Christian my brother, and my family is very much Catholic, but to use your faith and its historical role in the founding of this country to attack some, and alienate others, is hateful. And hateful people are the one sort that I'd rather not consort with.


Why are you thinking that accurately stating the historical fact that this country was founded on Christian principles, somehow causes what you mentioned?  I truly don't get it.  

If some use their faith (or lack thereof) to attack others, it's wrong.  Seems pretty simple to me.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Christians can historicize Jesus Christ, but when people try to paint the founding fathers as men who embraced secular law over spiritual doctrine suddenly its revisionist history.


Because IT IS.

----------


## TonySutton

It disheartens me that we can invest 477 replies to a thread which does absolutely nothing to advance the cause of Liberty.

----------


## Deborah K

> It disheartens me that we can invest 477 replies to a thread which does absolutely nothing to advance the cause of Liberty.


This implies that you are okay with the social engineering and history revision that is taking place in this country.  This thread is an attempt at preserving the truth about where the founders got many of their ideas.  You probably didn't even read the OP and yet you respond the way you did.  Imo, jumping to conclusions about someone's objective does less to advance the cause of liberty.

----------


## Kraig

> It disheartens me that we can invest 477 replies to a thread which does absolutely nothing to advance the cause of Liberty.


lol if we invest 477 replies in a better thread will I become more free?

----------


## TonySutton

> This implies that you are okay with the social engineering and history revision that is taking place in this country.  This thread is an attempt at preserving the truth about where the founders got many of their ideas.  You probably didn't even read the OP and yet you respond the way you did.  *Imo, jumping to conclusions about someone's objective does less to advance the cause of liberty.*


Thanks for attacking me  my post DOES NOT imply that I am ok with anything.  Take it at face value.  

Your assumption that I didn't read the OP is incorrect.  I purposely stayed out of this thread until now because I consider it is a WASTE of resources.  I noticed how high the reply count was so I felt compelled to post.

Lastly I would suggest you take the bolded portion of your words and apply them to yourself.

----------


## TonySutton

> lol if we invest 477 replies in a better thread will I become more free?


I believe 477 well thought out replies to a thread advancing Liberty could have a very positive effect on all of our lives.

----------


## Deborah K

> Thanks for attacking me  my post DOES NOT imply that I am ok with anything.  Take it at face value.  
> 
> Your assumption that I didn't read the OP is incorrect.  I purposely stayed out of this thread until now because I consider it is a WASTE of resources.  I noticed how high the reply count was so I felt compelled to post.
> 
> Lastly I would suggest you take the bolded portion of your words and apply them to yourself.


 For you to come on the thread and declare that this exercise does nothing to advance the cause of freedom indicated to me that you did not read the OP.  It was not meant as an attack, but rather a retort.

----------


## revolutionman

> Because IT IS.


if they prefered Christian Doctrine to secular law, then why the US Constitution and Bill of Rights and not The Ten Commandments?

----------


## Deborah K

> I believe 477 well thought out replies to a thread advancing Liberty could have a very positive effect on all of our lives.


Truth advances liberty.  History revision does not.

----------


## Deborah K

> if they prefered Christian Doctrine to secular law, then why the US Constitution and Bill of Rights and not The Ten Commandments?


Please show me one single post where I state that the founders preferred Christian Doctrine.  Please read the OP to understand what the intent of this exercise is.

----------


## revolutionman

> It disheartens me that we can invest 477 replies to a thread which does absolutely nothing to advance the cause of Liberty.


      On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
      I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
      And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism." - Barry Goldwater, Speech in the US Senate (16 September 1981)

----------


## revolutionman

> Please show me one single post where I state that the founders preferred Christian Doctrine.  Please read the OP to understand what the intent of this exercise is.


In the post you quoted, i quoted a post that was not from you, that is the person to whom my comment is directed.

----------


## Deborah K

> On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
>       I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
>       And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism." - Barry Goldwater, Speech in the US Senate (16 September 1981)



So are you implying that the founders were all atheists and deists?  Because that is what I am arguing against, if you would care to stick to the main topic.

----------


## Deborah K

> In the post you quoted, i quoted a post that was not from you, that is the person to whom my comment is directed.



Liberty Eagle never made that claim either.

----------


## revolutionman

> Christians can historicize Jesus Christ, but when people try to paint the founding fathers as men who embraced secular law over spiritual doctrine suddenly its revisionist history.


that is what i posted, and liberty eagles response was  "because IT IS"

----------


## LibertyEagle

> that is what i posted, and liberty eagles response was  "because IT IS"


I was responding to it being revisionist history.

----------


## Teresa4ronpaul

There is nothing worse then ignorant people who speak.  One major flaw in our first amendment.  I love how people list out the old testament before Jesus was sent to the earth.  The wage for sin is death.. That is a fact deal with it..  All you uneducated people have you ever heard of the original 13 charters?  How were they written before they were later changed?  

Religious Oaths and Tests

In addition, many states required tests to keep non-Christians or in some cases Catholics out of public office:

The New Jersey Constitution of 1776 restricted public office to all but Protestants by its religious test/oath.
The Delaware Constitution of 1776 demanded an acceptance of the Trinity by its religious test/oath.
The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 had a similar test/oath.
The Maryland Constitution of 1776 had such a test/oath.
The North Carolina Constitution of 1776 had a test/oath that restricted all but Protestants from public office.
The Georgia Constitution of 1777 used an oath/test to screen out all but Protestants.
The Vermont state charter/constitution of 1777 echoed the Pennsylvania Constitution regarding a test/oath.
The South Carolina Constitution of 1778 had such a test/oath allowing only Protestants to hold office.
The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 and New Hampshire Constitution of 1784 restricted such office holders to Protestants.
Only Virginia and New York did not have such religious tests/oaths during this time period.
The first constitution to prohibit religious tests was the United States Constitution written in 1787.

1. Virginia

Official Religion: Anglican/Church of England
Original Charter Date: Apr. 10,1606
Full text of The First Charter of Virginia  (PDF) 15.5K
Ended Support: 1830
"Every Person should go to church, Sundays and Holidays, or lye Neck and Heels that Night, and be a Slave to the Colony the following Week; for the second Offence, he should be a Slave for a Month; and for the third, a Year and a Day."

Governor Argall's Decree
1617
"That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."

Virginia Declaration of Rights
1776

2. New York

Official Religion: Anglican/Church of England
Original Charter Date: June 7, 1614
Full text of the Charter of the Dutch West India Company  (PDF) 22.8K
Ended Support: 1846
"The Dutch Colony of the seventeenth century was officially intolerantly Protestant but was, as has been noted, in practice tolerant and fair to people of other faiths who dwelt within New Netherland.
When the English took the province from the Dutch in 1664, they granted full religious toleration to the other forms of Protestantism, and preserved the property rights of the Dutch Reformed Church, while recognizing its discipline.
In 1697, although the Anglican Church was never formally established in the Province of New York, Trinity Church was founded in the City of New York by royal charter, and received many civil privileges and the munificent grants of land which are the source of its present great wealth."

New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia 

"THAT Noe person or persons which professe ffaith in God by Jesus Christ Shall at any time be any wayes molested punished disquieted or called in Question for any Difference in opinion or Matter of Religious Concernment"

New York Charter of Liberties and Privileges
1683

"Article XXXVIII. And whereas we are required, by the benevolent principles of the rational liberty, not only to expel civil tyranny, but also to guard against that spiritual oppression and intolerance wherewith the bigotry and ambition of weak and wicked priests and princes have scourged mankind, this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this state, ordain, determine, and desire, that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall be forever hereafter be allowed, within this state, to all mankind: PROVIDED That the liberty of conscience, hereby granted, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this state.
Article XXXIX. And whereas the ministers of the gospel are, by their profession, dedicated to the service of God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their function, therefore, no minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatsoever, shall, at any time hereafter, under and preference or description whatever, be eligible to, or capable of holding, any civil or military office or place within this state."

New York Constitution
1777

3. Massachusetts

Official Religion: Congregational Church
Original Charter Date: Mar. 4, 1629
Full text of The Charter of Massachusetts Bay  (PDF) 29.1K
Ended Support: 1833
"Like many who arrived on these shores in the 17th century, the Puritans of Massachusetts Bay came to America seeking religious freedom The freedom they sought, however, was for themselves and not for others. The Puritans felt called by God to establish 'new Israel,' a holy commonwealth based on a covenant between God and themselves as the people of God. Though there were separate areas of authority for church and state in Puritan Massachusetts, all laws of the community were to be grounded in God's law and all citizens were expected to uphold the divine covenant
Very early in the Massachusetts experiment, dissenters arose to challenge the Puritan vision of a holy society. The first dissenter, Roger Williams (c.1603-1683), was himself a Puritan minister but with a very different vision of God's plan for human society. Williams argued that God had not given divine sanction to the Puritan colony. In his view, the civil authorities of Massachusetts had no authority to involve themselves in matters of faith. The true church, according to Williams, was a voluntary association of God's elect. Any state involvement in the worship or God, therefore, was contrary to the divine will and inevitably led to the defilement of the church
Banished from Massachusetts in 1635, Roger Williams founded Rhode Island, the first colony with no established church and the first society in America to grant liberty of conscience to everyone."

First Amendment Center 

"Article II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience, or for his religious profession or sentiments. provided he doth not disturb the public peace or obstruct others in their religious worship.
Article III. And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.
Chapter VI. Article I. Any person chosen governor, lieutenant-governor, councillor, senator, or representative, and accepting the trust, shall, before he proceed to execute the duties of his place or office, make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:

'I _______, do declare that I believe the Christian religion...'"

Massachusetts Constitution
1780

4. Maryland

Official Religion: Anglican/Church of England
Original Charter Date: June 20, 1632
Full text of The Charter of Maryland  (PDF) 22.6K
Ended Support: 1867
"Article XXXIII. That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons, professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or for his religious practice; unless, under colour of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others, in their natural, civil, or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain any particular place of worship, or any particular ministry; yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax for the support of the Christian religion; leaving to each individual the power of appointing the payment over of the money, collected from him, to the support of any particular place of worship or minister, or for the benefit of the poor of his own denomination, or the poor in general of any particular county: but the churches, chapels, globes, and all other property now belonging to the church of England, ought to remain to the church of England forever...
Article XXXV. That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State, and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion."

Maryland State Constitution
1776

5. Delaware

Official Religion: None
Original Charter Date: 1637
Chartered by the South Company of Sweden
Ended Support: 1792
"BECAUSE no People can be truly happy, though under the greatest Enjoyment of Civil Liberties, if abridged of the Freedom of their Consciences, as to their Religious Profession and Worship: And Almighty God being the only Lord of Conscience, Father of Lights and Spirits; and the Author as well as Object of all divine Knowledge, Faith and Worship, who only doth enlighten the Minds, and persuade and convince the Understandings of People, I do hereby grant and declare, That no Person or Persons, inhabiting in this Province or Territories, who shall confess and acknowledge Our almighty God, the Creator, Upholder and Ruler of the world; and professes him or themselves obliged to live quietly under the Civil Government, shall be in any Case molested or prejudiced, in his or their Person or Estate, because of his or their consciencious Persuasion or Practice, nor be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious Worship, Place or Ministry, contrary to his or their Mind, or to do or suffer any other Act or Thing, contrary to their religious Persuasion.
AND that all Persons who also profess to believe in Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the World, shall be capable (notwithstanding their other Persuasions and Practices in Point of Conscience and Religion) to serve this Government in any Capacity, both legislatively and executively..."

Charter of Delaware
1701

"That all Men have a natural and unalienable Right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates Of their own conscience and understandings; that no Man ought or of right can he compelled to attend any religious Worship or maintain any Ministry contrary to or against his own free Will and Consent, and that no Authority can or Ought to be vested in, or assumed by any Power whatever that shall in any Case interfere with, or in any Manner control the Right of Conscience in the Free exercise of Religious Worship.
That all Persons professing the Christian Religion ought forever to enjoy equal Rights and Privileges in this State..."

Delaware Declaration of Rights and Fundamental Rules
1776

"Article 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either House, or appointed to any office or place of trust... shall take the following oath:

'I _______, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, One God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old Testament and New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration.'
Article 29. There shall be no establishment of any religious sect in this State in preference to another; and no clergyman or preacher of the gospel, of any denomination, shall be capable of holding any civil office in this state, or of being a member of either of the branches of the legislature, while they continue in the exercise of the pastoral function."

Delaware State Constitution 
1776


6. Connecticut

Official Religion: Congregational Church
Original Charter Date: Jan. 14, 1639
Full text of The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut  (PDF) 10.6K
Ended Support: 1818
"[O]ur said people, Inhabitants there, may bee soe religiously, peaceably and civilly Governed as their good life and orderly Conversacon may wynn and invite the Natives of the Country to the knowledge and obedience of the onely true God and Saviour of mankind, and the Christian faith, which in our Royall intencons and the Adventurers free profession is the onely and principall end of this Plantacon."

Connecticut Colony Charter
1662

7. New Hampshire

Official Religion: Congregational Church
Original Charter Date: Aug. 4, 1639
Full text of the Agreement of the Settlers at Exeter in New Hampshire  (PDF) 5.08K 
Ended Support: 1877
"Article III. When men enter into a State of society they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others...
Article IV. Among the natural rights, some are in their very nature unalienable, because no equivalent can be given or received for them. Of this kind are the RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE...
Article V. Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship GOD according to the dictates of his own conscience and reason; and no person shall be hurt, molested, or restrained in is person, liberty, or estate for worshipping God in the manner most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience, or for his religious profession, sentiments, or persuasion; provided he doth not disturb the public peace or disturb others in their religious worship.
Senate. Provided, nevertheless, That no person shall be capable of being elected a senator who is not of the Protestant religion...
House of Representatives. Every member of the house of representatives... shall be of the Protestant religion...
President. [H]e shall be of the Protestant religion."

New Hampshire Constitution
1784

"And be it further enacted, that each religious sect or denomination of Christians in this State may associate and form societies, may admit members, may establish rules and bylaws for their regulation and government, and shall have all the corporate powers which may be necessary to assess and raise money by taxes upon the polls and ratable estate of the members of such associations, and to collect and appropriate the same for the purpose of building and repairing houses of public worship, and for the support of the ministry; and the assessors and collectors of such associations shall have the same powers in assessing and collecting, and shall be liable to the same penalties as similar town officers have and are liable to--Provided that no person shall be compelled to join or support, or be classed with, or associated to any congregation, church or religious society without his express consent first had and obtain--Provided also, if any person shall choose to separate himself from such society, or association to which he may belong, and shall leave a written notice thereof with the clerk of such society or association, he shall thereupon be no longer liable for any future expenses which may be incurred by said society or association--Provided also, that no association or society shall exercise the powers herein granted until it shall have assumed a name and stile by which such society may be known and distinguished in law, and shall have recorded the same in a book of records to be kept by the clerk of said Society, and shall have published the same in some newspaper in the County where such society may be formed if any be printed therein, and if not then in some paper published in some adjoining County."

The Toleration Act, Section 3D
1819

"House of Representatives. Article 14. Amended 1877 deleting requirement that representatives be Protestants.
Senate. Article 29. Amended l877 deleting requirements that senators be Protestant."

New Hampshire Constitution
1990


8. Rhode Island

Official Religion: None
Original Charter Date: Mar. 14, 1643
Full text of the Patent for Providence Plantations  (PDF) 7.56K
Ended Support: 1842
"That [the inhabitants], pursueing, with peaceable and loyall minces, their sober, serious and religious intentions, of goalie edifieing themselves, and one another, in the holy Christian faith and worship, as they werepersuaded; together with the gaining over and conversion of the poor ignorant Indian natives, in thoseparts of America, to the sincere profession and obedience of the same faith and worship...
true pietye rightly grounded upon gospell principles, will give the best and greatest security to sovereignetye, and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligations to true loyaltye: Now know bee, that wee beinge willinge to encourage the hopefull undertakeinge of oure sayd lovall and loveinge subjects, and to secure them in the free exercise and enjovment of all theire civill and religious rights, appertaining to them, as our loveing subjects; and to preserve unto them that libertye, in the true Christian ffaith and worshipp of God...
That our royall will and pleasure is, that noe person within the sayd colonye, at any tyme hereafter, shall bee any wise molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question, for any differences in opinione in matters of religion, and doe not actually disturb the civill peace of our sayd colony; but that all and everye person and persons may, from tyme to tyme, and at all tymes hereafter, freelye and fullye have and enjoye his and theire owne judgments and consciences, in matters of religious concernments...
and to direct, rule, order and dispose of, all other matters and things, and particularly that which relates to the makinge of purchases of the native Indians, as to them shall seeme meete; wherebv oure sayd people and inhabitants, in the sayd Plantationes, may be soe religiously, peaceably and civilly governed, as that, by theire good life and orderlie conversations, they may win and invite the native Indians of the countrie to the knowledge and obedience of the onlie true God, and Saviour of mankinde..."

Charter of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations
July 15, 1663

"Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; and all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness; and whereas a principal object of our venerable ancestors, in their migration to this country and their settlement of this state, was, as they expressed it, to hold forth a lively experiment that a flourishing civil state may stand and be best maintained with full liberty in religious concernments; we, therefore, declare that no person shall be compelled to frequent or to support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatever, except in fulfillment of such person's voluntary contract; nor enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in body or goods; nor disqualified from holding any office; nor otherwise suffer on account of such person's religious belief; and that every person shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of such person's conscience, and to profess and by argument to maintain such person's opinion in matters of religion; and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect the civil capacity of any person."

Rhode Island Constitution, Article I, Section 3
1842

9. Georgia

Official Religion: None
Original Charter Date: 1732
Full text of the Charter of Georgia  (PDF) 24.2K
Ended Support: 1798
"Article VI. [R]epresentatives... shall be of the Protestant religion...
Article LVI. All persons whatever shall have the free exercise of their religion; provided it be not repugnant to the peace and safety of the State; and shall not, unless by consent, support any teacher or teachers except those of their own profession."
Georgia Constitution
1777

Article I. Section 3. The 'representatives... shall be of the Protestant religion...' requirement was removed.
"Article IV. Section 5. All persons shall have the free exercise of religion, without being obligated to contribute to the support of any religious but their own."

Georgia Constitution
1789

10. North Carolina

Official Religion: Anglican/Church of England
Original Charter Date: Mar. 24, 1663
Full text of the Charter of Carolina  (PDF) 23.6K
Ended Support: 1875
"Article XIX. That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.
Article XXXI. That no clergyman, or preacher of the gospel, of any denomination, shall be capable of being a member of either the Senate, House of Commons, or Council of State, while he continues in the exercise of pastoral function.
Article XXXII. That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.
Article XXXIV. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State, in preference to any other; neither shall any person, on any presence whatsoever, be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith or judgment, nor be obliged to pay, for the purchase of any glebe, or the building of any house of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes right, of has voluntarily and personally engaged to perform; but all persons shall be at liberty to exercise their own mode of worship: -- Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to exempt preachers of treasonable or seditious discourses, from legal trial and punishment."

North Carolina Constitution
1776

11. South Carolina

Official Religion: Anglican/Church of England
Original Charter Date: Mar. 24, 1663
Full text of the Charter of Carolina  (PDF) 23.6K
Ended Support: 1868
"Article XXXVIII. That all persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated. The Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed, and is hereby constituted and declared to be, the established religion of this State. That all denominations of Christian Protestants in this State, demeaning themselves peaceably and faithfully, shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges. To accomplish this desirable purpose without injury to the religious property of those societies of Christians which are by law already incorporated for the purpose of religious worship, and to put it fully into the power of every other society of Christian Protestants, either already formed or hereafter to be formed, to obtain the like incorporation, it is hereby constituted, appointed, and declared that the respective societies of the Church of England that are already formed in this State for the purpose of religious worship shall still continue Incorporate and hold the religious property now in their possession. And that whenever fifteen or more male persons, not under twenty-one years of age, professing the Christian Protestant religion, and agreeing to unite themselves in a society for the purposes of religious worship, they shall, (on complying with the terms hereinafter mentioned,) be, and be constituted, a church, and be esteemed and regarded in law as of the established religion of the state, and on a petition to the legislature shall be entitled to be incorporated and to enjoy equal privileges. That every society of Christians so formed shall give themselves a name or denomination by which they shall be called and known in law, and all that associate with them for the purposes of worship shall be esteemed as belonging to the society so called. But that previous to the establishment and incorporation of the respective societies of every denomination as aforesaid, and in order to entitle them thereto, each society so petitioning shall have agreed to and subscribed in a book the following five articles, without which no agreement or union of men upon pretense of religion shall entitle them to be incorporated and esteemed as a church of the established religion of this State:
Ist. That there is one eternal God, and a future state of rewards and punishments.
2d. That God is publicly to be worshipped.
3d. That the Christian religion is the true religion.
4th. That the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are of divine inspiration, and are the rule of faith and practice.
5th That it is lawful and the duty of every man being thereunto called by those that govern, to bear witness to the truth."

South Carolina Constitution
1778

"Article VIII, Section 1. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever hereafter be allowed within this State to all mankind, PROVIDED, That the liberty of conscience thereby declared shall not be construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of this State."

South Carolina Constitution
1790

14th Amendment to US Constitution was ratified by South Carolina in July 1868. The US Supreme Court ruled that this amendment ended state support of religion in all US states in ruling of Gitlow v. New York, 1925


12. Pennsylvania

Official Religion: None
Original Charter Date: Feb. 28, 1681
Full text of the Charter for the Province of Pennsylvania  (PDF) 20.5K
Ended Support: 1790
"Section. 2. That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their Own consciences and understanding: And that no man ought or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any ministry, contrary to, or against, his own free will and consent: nor can any man, who acknowledges the being of a God, be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account or his religious sentiments or peculiar mode of religious worship: And that no authority can or ought to be vested in, or assumed by any power whatever, that shall in any case interfere with, or In any manner controul, the right of conscience in the free exercise of religious worship.
Section 10... shall each [representative] before they proceed to business take... the following oath or affirmation:

'I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.'
And no further or other religious test shall ever hereafter be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this state."

Pennsylvania Constitution
1776
13. New Jersey

Official Religion: None
Original Charter Date: Mar. 12, 1702
Full text of the Surrender from the Proprietors of East and West New Jersey, of Their Pretended Right of Government to Her Majesty  (PDF) 14.7K
Ended Support: 1844
"XVIII. That no person shall ever, within this Colony, be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; nor, under any pretense whatever, be compelled to attend any place of worship, contrary to his own faith and judgment; nor shall any person, within this Colony, ever be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or any other rates, for the purpose of building or repairing any other church or churches, place or places of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes to be right, or has deliberately or voluntarily engaged himself to perform.
XIX. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in preference to another; and that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect, who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their fellow subjects."

New Jersey Constitution
1776

The Declaration of Independence states, "[Men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It also states that these rights are "self evident" and that they constitute the "Laws of Nature." These principles are taken directly from the Bible.

The Law of Nature can be viewed in Romans 2:14-16. That our Creator is the Author of life is seen in Genesis 2:7. That God, not government, grants liberty is seen in Galatians 5:1. The "pursuit of happiness" is found in Ecclesiastes 3:13.

Beyond that, virtually every one of the ten articles contained in the Bill of Rights has Biblical foundation. The First Amendment recognizes the natural right of freedom of speech, religion and assembly. Christians are clearly given divine instruction regarding each of these responsibilities. Our founding documents properly established a government designed to "secure these rights." Therefore, under the First Amendment, Christians are free to preach the Gospel and to assemble for worship.

Likewise, the Second Amendment has Biblical foundation. Our Lord said in Luke 11:21, "When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace." In Luke 22:35, 36 He said, "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

Other articles contained in the Bill of Rights also have Biblical basis. For example, the Fourth Amendment comes from Deuteronomy 24:10, 11. The Eighth Amendment originates in Deuteronomy 15: 2, 3. Again, these principles are "self evident" truths which come from "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."

Even America's constitutional form of government consisting of three co-equal branches, legislative, executive and judicial is taken directly from Isaiah 33:22.

Therefore, when citizens, especially Christian citizens, allow their elected representatives to ignore or violate these founding documents, they are in essence allowing them to destroy the very basis and foundation of our country.

Christian citizens should demand that their elected leaders not merely talk like Christians, but that they actually govern like Christians. That means holding their political leaders accountable to the laws and principles contained in the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

You dont have to like it just don't lie about it.. Truth is treason in an empire of lies.  Don't be part of the empire.  Keep the truth the truth.  We are a Christian nation and it is our christian faith that allows religious freedom for all.

----------

