I was wondering, beachmaster, if you could give me some evidence from the original sources of the Founding Fathers that would prove your claim that they were deists. I find it difficult to believe that they were deists, especially when you consider that deism teaches that God leaves the universe to operate on its own without the interference of the Creator in any way. Yet, reading their documents, such as the Declaration of Independence, you find them saying things like this:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Nobody is claiming they were all deists. Some were. Some were Christian, and among those were some like John Adams who was a Unitarian who denied hell among other things.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
Washington revealed almost nothing to indicate his spiritual frame of mind, hardly a mark of a devout Christian.
-----------
Adams, a Unitarian, flatly denied the doctrine of eternal damnation. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, he wrote:
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
------------
Even most Christians do not consider Jefferson a Christian. In many of his letters, he denounced the superstitions of Christianity. He did not believe in spiritual souls, angels or godly miracles. Although Jefferson did admire the morality of Jesus, Jefferson did not think him divine, nor did he believe in the Trinity or the miracles of Jesus. In a letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787, he wrote, "Question with boldness even the existence of a god."
-------------
Called the father of the Constitution, Madison had no conventional sense of Christianity. In 1785, Madison wrote in his Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments:
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
---------
Although Franklin received religious training, his nature forced him to rebel against the irrational tenets of his parents Christianity. His Autobiography revels his skepticism, "My parents had given me betimes religions impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself.
". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."
It's not about winning arguments, beachmaster. It's about spreading ideas, learning from each other, and proclaiming truth so that people can live better lives under God. I think you'll find that even us "hellfire fundies" have a hard time winning arguments with each other. It's equally difficult to try and win arguments with "humanistic fundamentalists," like "atheists," too. That's because they don't believe in absolute truth.
Christians can't even agree on absolute truth. Is it a sin to lie? To drink? To gamble? On these and many other issues, Christians disagree. Some say it's a sin to lie, unless you are protecting the life of another. Some say it's a sin to kill, unless you are killing for your country. Some say it's godly to always obey the governing authorities as per Romans 13, others say no, it would be wrong to obey Hitler or Mao.
How is a theocracy repulsive to all that
A theocracy means that a certain brand of religion will dominate all others, and will enforce IT'S translation of biblical law on others, even non believers. Did you know that there are groups under the labels of Theonomy, Dominionist, and/or Reformed theology which want to make the Old Testament the law of the land? I'm sure you do know this. I wouldn't be surprised a bit if you were among their ranks.
http://www.reformed.org/ethics/index.html?mainframe=/ethics/GI.html
Here is the rub. Theonomy poses for many today the specter of civil oppression. "If we go along with this," they seem to be saying, "then we'll end up persecuting -- yes, even killing -- people." And it is true that the death penalty was required for some things, under these laws, that are not so punished today. But the reader should take time to reflect on two things.
The first is that the Law of Moses came from Jehovah. We must therefore beware of taking a negative view of these holy precepts. I may not understand why God required the punishment he did, but I have no right to set myself up as a judge of these laws. No, a thousand times no. There is nothing in these laws unworthy of the true God. If I have difficulty with them, the problem is in me -- not in these laws.
Under the law (torah), Moses had a man stoned for picking up sticks on the sabbath. By the way, do all christians agree on what day the sabbath is? Or even if the sabbath is still in effect? Well under a theocracy, you will have an arbitrary decision made by your rulers... watch out if you disagree and are caught in violation thereof!
Congressman Paul stands for? I think you're mistaken, beachmaster. You see, all of the ideas and philosophies of Dr. Paul's political philosophy assume that there is a God from which these ideas originate. They're definitely
not "atheistic" ideas, as you and many other antitheists on these forums want to believe.
Did you ever notice that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution don't name a god nor a messiah/christ? Neither mandate worship of a god either. In fact the Constitution is clear that this is outside of the bounds of government. The "god" that is mentioned in the Declaration is a God of Nature. A Pantheist as myself can believe in such a God. So can a Deist. You got a problem with that?
Who do you think you are to speak for the "Ron Paul Revolution" by excluding any political thought and philosophy that doesn't agree with your own? This revolution is about us, as Americans, acknowledging that we have the liberty to believe, argue, and disagree freely amongst ourselves whatever our creed, custom, or color may be.
Holy shit... did you just say I have the liberty to believe? Anything I wish to believe (or more aptly, just anything I happen to believe)? Maybe you aren't so bad after all.
I can tell you, beachmaster, that America was definitely not established as a "democracy" (where the majority of the people decide what's right and wrong in matters of law and government), but rather, we were established as a "constitutional republic" (where representatives of moral and religious integrity are chosen to represent the people and design laws in accordance with an eternally established Law),
I am well aware and have been for many decades that our nation was founded as a Republic, and I'm also aware that we lost the Republic around the time of Lincoln and have devolved into a facade which more resembles democracy, which the founders decried. And I'm aware that Ben Franklin essentially prophesied this would occur.
which comes from a theocratic understanding of civil governance. Now, you may not agree with that, but my point is my views are closer to Rep. Paul's than yours (from what I've read from you in these forums) because Dr. Paul assumes the rule of law as a basis for limiting government and preserving God-given rights (which don't exist in the doctrine of deism, by the way).
Bullshit. Ron Paul would NOT want to change our Constitution to reflect Christian Theonomy/Theocracy. I have followed Ron Paul for over 20 years and I know that he stands for religious freedom. Yes, he's a Christian but he doesn't wear it on his sleeve. Yes, he believes that rights come from God. But he also agrees that among those rights are Life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of Happiness (we have the right to pursue religion, spirituality, philosophy, or the absense of those as WE see fit to make us free and happy). I would not be happy under a theocracy Mr. Theocrat.
In an "atheist" universe, there is no fixed standard or rule of law because nature is constantly changing, and therefore, laws will change. A theocracy recognizes this change, too, but at least there's a fixed standard (rule of law) by which changes in law are limited.
Ok, so what day of the week is the sabbath on?
You don't have that in an "atheist" universe, where things are only subject to random processes and inorganic matter. Therefore, I believe my views are closer to Congressman Paul than yours, beachmaster, but I'm not going to go so far as to say that your views have no place in this "Ron Paul Revolution" of ours.
Are you saying you won't stone me?
): 
