# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  Signers of Declaration were ministers?!?!

## JPFromTally

Did anyone else catch this when Huckaboo said this?  Is this revisionist history or what?

----------


## ConstitutionGal

When Huckabee said this, my husband and I just looked at one another and both rolled our eyes!!  Revisionist history at its finest!  Sadly, most folks won't know any different.  Thankfully, in the grand scheme of the election cycle, not a very big deal.

----------


## kylejack

Most were lawyers.  He is an idiot.

----------


## vegetarianrpfan

Jefferson didn't even believe that Jesus was divine, but no one ever mentions that fact.

----------


## torchbearer

A lot of the founders were considered deist, which is a reasonable approach to god i think.

----------


## Swmorgan77

> Most were lawyers.  He is an idiot.


Yes but not "B.A.R." members.  Back then lawyers were self-taught as apprentices, not agents of admiralty law with titles of nobility like today.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

Im glad I wasnt the only one that was like WTF>!>

----------


## Swmorgan77

> When Huckabee said this, my husband and I just looked at one another and both rolled our eyes!!  Revisionist history at its finest!  Sadly, most folks won't know any different.  Thankfully, in the grand scheme of the election cycle, not a very big deal.


Adams was a trained clergyman,  I don't know who else he might have been referring too.  Many of the colleges that people attended at the time were ministry colleges, like Harvard.  

Its possible that many of them had clergy training by virtue of having attended colleges whether that was their profession or not.

----------


## micahnelson

Witherspoon afaik was the only signatory clergyman.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> A lot of the founders were considered deist, which is a reasonable approach to god i think.


Uh, I don't know about that.  Some were, but it's not my understanding that "a lot" were.  I do realize that is what revisionist history is teaching though.

----------


## Mr. White

> Yes but not "B.A.R." members.  Back then lawyers were self-taught as apprentices, not agents of admiralty law with titles of nobility like today.


self-taught as apprentices...

I'm self-taught as a law student... and the whole esquire thing that has been bandied about recently is amusing.  It's a term derived from the feudal title squire.  In the American lexicon it's taken by some lawyers to indicate their practice.  It's not a title of nobility.  As for state Bar associations, they exist to maintain professional ethics standards.  I enjoy a good lawyer joke as much as the next guy, but sheesh.  The legal system of Jeffersonian-America was a helluva lot more subjective, formalized and inconsistant than it is today.  That being said, I'm beginning to think that Marshall ruined it for the lot of us...

----------


## Swmorgan77

> self-taught as apprentices...
> 
> I'm self-taught as a law student... and the whole esquire thing that has been bandied about recently is amusing.  It's a term derived from the feudal title squire.  In the American lexicon it's taken by some lawyers to indicate their practice.  It's not a title of nobility.  As for state Bar associations, they exist to maintain professional ethics standards.  I enjoy a good lawyer joke as much as the next guy, but sheesh.  The legal system of Jeffersonian-America was a helluva lot more subjective, formalized and inconsistant than it is today.  That being said, I'm beginning to think that Marshall ruined it for the lot of us...


So why is it that the state requires licenses for judges and attorneys and if you ask the state, they say its the Bar that licenses them, and if you ask the Bar they say they don't?  

Where do I go if I want to be licensed to practice law?  Isn't that a violation under Marbury vs. Madison and Brushaber vs. Maryland of my right to contract for my time and my labor as a guaranteed constitutional right?  Those cases say that no state can take a Constitutionally secured right and convert it into a privilege by requiring a license and a fee for it, and any laws that would require such are null and void and can be ignored with impunity.

----------


## torchbearer

> Uh, I don't know about that.  Some were, but it's not my understanding that "a lot" were.  I do realize that is what revisionist history is teaching though.


off the top of my head i recall reading, Washington, Franklin and Jefferson were among the deist. They often talked of Divine Providence...not Jesus.

----------


## LibertyEagle

This is interesting:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/founding.html#gw

----------


## American

This is my favorite quote, I use it all the time when this sort of topic comes up.




> *"The Christian religion and Masonry have one and the same common origin: both are derived from the worship of the Sun. The difference between their origin is, that the Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun" 
> ~ Thomas Paine*


Let the hellfire and brimstone fly!!!!!

----------


## LibertyEagle

That's one man.

----------


## LibertyEagle

What?  Do you want to have a quote war or something?

Just go take a look here and you'll find a number of them.
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/founding.html#gw

Here are just a few...




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





> Francis Scott Keys
>  "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."





> Daniel Webster
>  "Finally, let us not forget the religious character of our origin. Our fathers were brought hither by their high veneration for the Christian religion. They journeyed by its light, and labored in its hope. They sought to incorporate its principles with the elements of their society, and to diffuse its influence through all their institutions, civil, political, or literary.

----------


## PaleoConservative

I'd be willing to wager ten bucks with you that Francis Scott never said that. I have seen the same quote used by Madison. Sadly for me, I found out the hard way that there  is no evidence he said such a thing.


I'm on your side, but please be careful when you take quotes from Chuck, David Barton etc, they have made mistakes before. 

Professor Daniel Dreisbach wrote a good back about Jefferson and Madison called "mere Shadow or real threat"  It destroys all the pro-separation crowds jefferson and madison crowd makes.

----------


## torchbearer

Didn't mean to start a war here.... I was just putting out factual info....
By the way- you can be both Deist and Christian.... in fact, all christians are deist, but not all deist are christian.

----------


## Corydoras

> all christians are deist


Not so.

All Christians are THEISTS.
No Christian is a deist.

de·ism       (d?'?z'?m, d?'-)
n.   The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

----------


## torchbearer

> Not so.
> 
> All Christians are THEISTS.
> No Christian is a deist.
> 
> de·ism       (d?'?z'?m, d?'-)
> n.   The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.


So, no christian believes this?
And i do stand corrected, theist is more precise, though the deist believe not so much that our creator abandoned us, but that if he truly gave us free will, he has  implemented a policy of non-interventionism when it comes to our lives. It's kind of a libertarian religion. If god created us to be free, then any intervention in our lives there forth would affect someone's free choice and thus we would only have limited free will...
So to justify what is said in the Declaration of Independence, you have to believe men are born with rights.... and the free will to use them.
Our founders were thinkers, they wanted to get to God through logic, and I have to say... they found a peaceful medium in deism. Just looking at it objectively. I'm not affiliated with any church... (though I have 14 years of theological study under my belt)

----------


## Original_Intent

> Not so.
> 
> All Christians are THEISTS.
> No Christian is a deist.
> 
> de·ism       (d?'?z'?m, d?'-)
> n.   The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.


Yes Benjamin Franklin is often trotted out as a Deist, however, I find it odd that he recommended prayer during the Constitutional convention if that was his belief at the time. I Deist believes there is a God, but that he exerts no influence.
So it would be silly to suggest prayer, and actually at the same time he said that "Divine Providence" had delivered them during the war, again, not a Deist position.

I do believe there were Deists among the Founders, but I do think that our public education system Ministry of Truth has revised that history a bit.

----------


## torchbearer

> Yes Benjamin Franklin is often trotted out as a Deist, however, I find it odd that he recommended prayer during the Constitutional convention if that was his belief at the time. I Deist believes there is a God, but that he exerts no influence.
> So it would be silly to suggest prayer, and actually at the same time he said that "Divine Providence" had delivered them during the war, again, not a Deist position.
> 
> I do believe there were Deists among the Founders, but I do think that our public education system Ministry of Truth has revised that history a bit.


Is it possible that Franklin is like myself... we realize we don't really know everything... and though he was mainly deist in philosophy.... when it comes down to it... sometimes you hope you are wrong and that a big invisible hand will come down and save the day.
Either its God's will or Your will. It can't be both. If God's will be done, then their is no need to pray, because regardless of the prayer, its God's will. 
Now I get a lot of this thought from religious text I've read over the years... started to develop a better understanding of what it means to be created a free man... and what that meant when it came to my relationship to my creator. To give free will(freedom) is the greatest gift we received from our creator... I don't see my creator imposing his/her will on me.

----------


## V-rod

Yeah, the majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were staunch Freemasons.

----------


## aravoth

> Yeah, the majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were staunch Freemasons.


yep

----------


## Corydoras

The question of the relationship between
1) human beings having free will
and
2) God knowing everything in advance
has been explored for a LONG time.
You may want to read about
Boethius (lived 480-524), and Augustine of Hippo (354-430)

----------


## Original_Intent

> Is it possible that Franklin is like myself... we realize we don't really know everything... and though he was mainly deist in philosophy.... when it comes down to it... sometimes you hope you are wrong and that a big invisible hand will come down and save the day.
> Either its God's will or Your will. It can't be both. If God's will be done, then their is no need to pray, because regardless of the prayer, its God's will. 
> Now I get a lot of this thought from religious text I've read over the years... started to develop a better understanding of what it means to be created a free man... and what that meant when it came to my relationship to my creator. To give free will(freedom) is the greatest gift we received from our creator... I don't see my creator imposing his/her will on me.


I think we are on the same page. And I am 100% with you that one of the greatest gifts my Creator gave me was free will.

But maybe a legitimate use of that free will is to ask for His help. I do not think asking for Divine assistance equates a loss of will.

CS Lewsi said it best, I think. We will arrive at two mutually exclusive choices: either we will say to God "Thy will be done" or God will say to us "Thy will be done." Submitting to God's will is not a loss of our own will, our own freedom, it is using that freedom to place our trust in Him. Not to get preachy, that's just how I feel.

I do not view the commandments as restrictions, as i certainly have the choice at any time to disobey them. However, I do not have the choice of whether to accept the consequences of either obeying or disobeying. I view commandments as an owners manual of "Do these things in order to be happy".

----------


## Corydoras

The theologians of the eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) called it "working together." God's free to do what he wants, a human being is free to do what he wants, and prayer is man asking God to help out, just the same way as we might ask a stronger person to help us with moving a really heavy item.

----------

