Was America founded on Judeo-Christian Principles? Of Course it was!

[Deborah K]

Out of respect for your intention to remove your post, I have edited this one, Tdcc.

 

[mtmedlin]

No one is "glazing" over anything. Show me where the founders quoted Gita and Plato as often as they quoted the bible and I will rescind my argument.

My argument is that the Bible ripped off the principles of The Gita and the Principles of a republic are definitly founded in the writings of plato. "The Republic" by Plato. To claim that it is actually the Bible is absurd. If I use the words of Reagan and his philosophy but my followers claim them as mine it is WRONG. Christians can claim that SOME of the founders believed in their religion but their religion was not the first to have these standards or ideas. Your argument is based on a false claim of ownership and that I have a problem with. I like Christians and I have no problem with their religion or practice thereof. I do have a problem with them claiming that in some way this bible that was selectivly made by the Catholic Church in any way was the initial document to use what became the foundations of our country. It is arrogance on any Christians part to attempt to claim so and I call people out on that.
The United States government was not founded on Christian Principles. Christian Principles were founded on other religions standards and practices and it is those standards and practices along with the writings of many political theorists including Plato that made the basis for our country.

 

[kyleAF]

Wrapped in a flag... carrying a cross.

Watch out everyone. Watch out. It's coming.

This divisiveness and clinging to irrationality will be its way in.

Deride if you like, but it's the truth.

 

[familydog]

My argument is that the Bible ripped off the principles of The Gita and the Principles of a republic are definitly founded in the writings of plato. "The Republic" by Plato. To claim that it is actually the Bible is absurd. If I use the words of Reagan and his philosophy but my followers claim them as mine it is WRONG. Christians can claim that SOME of the founders believed in their religion but their religion was not the first to have these standards or ideas. Your argument is based on a false claim of ownership and that I have a problem with. I like Christians and I have no problem with their religion or practice thereof. I do have a problem with them claiming that in some way this bible that was selectivly made by the Catholic Church in any way was the initial document to use what became the foundations of our country. It is arrogance on any Christians part to attempt to claim so and I call people out on that.
The United States government was not founded on Christian Principles. Christian Principles were founded on other religions standards and practices and it is those standards and practices along with the writings of many political theorists including Plato that made the basis for our country.

If you don't think the United States was founded on Christian principles, why don't you disprove my claims a few posts ago?

Did the writers of the Bible "rip off" the Gita and Plato? There is no evidence for that. To claim that the writers of the scripture "ripped off" anything would be to claim they knew that the principles belonged to something else, and stole them. Do those principles belong to anyone? No. Anyone can use them. I'm confused on what you're trying to argue. You accuse others of a false claim of ownership, yet you are suggesting that these principles we are all talking about belong to the Gita and Plato, because the Bible "ripped" them off.

Are you suggesting that one religion or philosophy can't have the same principles of another? By that logic, a republican form of government, which we were founded upon and still are, technically, was "ripped off" from the Gita too. That means that indeed, there was religious inspiration for the founding of the country, since the Gita is a religious, or at least spiritual document and our founding values came from that document.

I laid out a set of arguments on why the founding of the country did rely on Christian principles. Some have suggested that these principles are Christian, some have suggested they belong to secular Enlightenment thinkers, and some others (you) have suggested they came from the Gita. In my mind, all of those are true. Why can't it be true? My argument from a few posts ago was that our founders (defined as more than just a few aristocrats) believed that these set of principles were indeed Christian, and did model society after them. Again, the same argument can be said for Enlightenment values, but I wasn't arguing that in my post.

By the way, when the Bible was created, there was no "Catholic Church."

 

[mtmedlin]

If you don't think the United States was founded on Christian principles, why don't you disprove my claims a few posts ago?

Did the writers of the Bible "rip off" the Gita and Plato? There is no evidence for that. To claim that the writers of the scripture "ripped off" anything would be to claim they knew that the principles belonged to something else, and stole them. Do those principles belong to anyone? No. Anyone can use them. I'm confused on what you're trying to argue. You accuse others of a false claim of ownership, yet you are suggesting that these principles we are all talking about belong to the Gita and Plato, because the Bible "ripped" them off.

Are you suggesting that one religion or philosophy can't have the same principles of another? By that logic, a republican form of government, which we were founded upon and still are, technically, was "ripped off" from the Gita too. That means that indeed, there was religious inspiration for the founding of the country, since the Gita is a religious, or at least spiritual document and our founding values came from that document.

I laid out a set of arguments on why the founding of the country did rely on Christian principles. Some have suggested that these principles are Christian, some have suggested they belong to secular Enlightenment thinkers, and some others (you) have suggested they came from the Gita. In my mind, all of those are true. Why can't it be true? My argument from a few posts ago was that our founders (defined as more than just a few aristocrats) believed that these set of principles were indeed Christian, and did model society after them. Again, the same argument can be said for Enlightenment values, but I wasn't arguing that in my post.

By the way, when the Bible was created, there was no "Catholic Church."

Ripped off is an incorrect term. I apologize. The proper argument would be that the people who wrote the Bible, were highly influenced by previouse religions and thinkers. The point being that people on this board are saying that it is the Biblical principles or Christian principles that this nation was founded on. My premise is easy. If the Bible which was put together by the Catholic Church (not written by but assembled by,do some research on this one and look up Pope Damasus the 1st) was not the first to espouse the political and theological views then it cannot claim that it was the influence to the founders. Many of the founders Including Thomas Jefferson were very learned men who would have been required to read the writings of many of the ancient greek philosophers, especially Plato. Since several of the founders also expressed Deist or Atheist points of view but did ascribe to similar philosophical points of view I am more of the opinion that it was the ancient philosophers and not Christian text that influenced them. Let us also not forget that it was ancient philosophers that were the main influence along with Islamic law that influenced English Common law. Anybody who has taken basic law courses will tell you that the majority of early Constitutional law was based on English common law.

So no ripped of was incorrect. All the rest, Is accurate, especially the part about the fabrication of the Bible. I mean really, they excluded several really good tombs. Try reading up on the Book of Mary Magdelin or the Book of Judas or how about the dead sea scrolls. All were written around the same time yet were "omitted" from the Popes choice for the Holy Book. Seems odd that we only read part of the disciples text but thats just me.

 

[mtmedlin]

That means that indeed, there was religious inspiration for the founding of the country, since the Gita is a religious, or at least spiritual document and our founding values came from that document.

Yes, you would be correct but the Gita is a Budhist holy book and would support my claim that Christianity was not the foundation of our country.

 

[familydog]

Yes, you would be correct but the Gita is a Budhist holy book and would support my claim that Christianity was not the foundation of our country.

So you're saying that the founders were inspired by religion, just not Christianity? You also brought in Islam, another religion. So we were founded upon Islamic and Gita principles? Both are deemed religions.

I'm still not sure exaclty what you're trying to say. Because Plato and the Gita were the first, on record, to espouse our founding principles, therefore those principles belong to them, and no other philosophy and religion can claim them as their own as well? When Ron Paul says that we should go back to what our founders believed and subscribed too, he really means we should go back to Plato and the Gita? Maybe you ought to write him and correct him on that one.

Going by Bernard Bailyn's book, I'll argue that the Jefferson, Adams, Madison, etc were more inspired by the Enlightenment as opposed to Plato. He cites numerous evidence, especially political pamphlets distrubuted in colonial America, to back up his claims.

I'm arguing that our "founders" are more than just a select few. Our "founders" are all of those that fought for the Revolution. Whether it was Washington up at the top, or a lowly camp follower. They are all founders. If it weren't for the great unwashed, there wouldn't be a revolution. That great unwashed were WASP. Using the examples I cited, the masses believed in what would become our founding principles. They believed our founding principles were not only Enlightenment ideas, like Bailyin states, but Christian ideas as well.

I'm not suggesting that Madison got the basis for the Constitution from the Bible. That is absurd. But once again, I'm going back to my previous post. The "founding" is more than one document. It is a series of laws that are put into place at the start of the republic (inspired by Christianity, since it was the majority religion), it is the primarily Christian nation that existed (notice I said Christian "nation" and not Christian "state"). Our founding is what the people believed in. Using my examples, I showed that they believed in Christianity and its principles.

To sum up, the founders of the country believed in the principles that can be ascribed to Christianity and republicanism. The founders (outside of the top few like Jefferson and Madison) believed these principles to belong to both, but used Christianity as the basis for writings and the substantive laws.

I apolgoze for repeating myself in every post, but I feel the points I am making are important and need to be addressed, which they are not being addressed.

 

[mtmedlin]

So you're saying that the founders were inspired by religion, just not Christianity? You also brought in Islam, another religion. So we were founded upon Islamic and Gita principles? Both are deemed religions.

I'm still not sure exaclty what you're trying to say. Because Plato and the Gita were the first, on record, to espouse our founding principles, therefore those principles belong to them, and no other philosophy and religion can claim them as their own as well? When Ron Paul says that we should go back to what our founders believed and subscribed too, he really means we should go back to Plato and the Gita? Maybe you ought to write him and correct him on that one.

Going by Bernard Bailyn's book, I'll argue that the Jefferson, Adams, Madison, etc were more inspired by the Enlightenment as opposed to Plato. He cites numerous evidence, especially political pamphlets distrubuted in colonial America, to back up his claims.

I'm arguing that our "founders" are more than just a select few. Our "founders" are all of those that fought for the Revolution. Whether it was Washington up at the top, or a lowly camp follower. They are all founders. If it weren't for the great unwashed, there wouldn't be a revolution. That great unwashed were WASP. Using the examples I cited, the masses believed in what would become our founding principles. They believed our founding principles were not only Enlightenment ideas, like Bailyin states, but Christian ideas as well.

I'm not suggesting that Madison got the basis for the Constitution from the Bible. That is absurd. But once again, I'm going back to my previous post. The "founding" is more than one document. It is a series of laws that are put into place at the start of the republic (inspired by Christianity, since it was the majority religion), it is the primarily Christian nation that existed (notice I said Christian "nation" and not Christian "state"). Our founding is what the people believed in. Using my examples, I showed that they believed in Christianity and its principles.

To sum up, the founders of the country believed in the principles that can be ascribed to Christianity and republicanism. The founders (outside of the top few like Jefferson and Madison) believed these principles to belong to both, but used Christianity as the basis for writings and the substantive laws.

I apolgoze for repeating myself in every post, but I feel the points I am making are important and need to be addressed, which they are not being addressed.

You are making an argument far different to the thread that I am responding to.
the thread at hand states "Was America founded on Judeo-Christian Principles? Of Course it was!
I am objecting to whether or not the principles can be stated as Judeo Christian. Ron is correct about the Founders principles as it applies to us and what we should be doing. He is refering to a set of ideas. The OP in her argument attempts to state that the ideas that most influenced our countries founding were Judeo Christian. That is not accurate. The principles came from many different sources and whether or not those sources came from a religion doesnt matter because they were not from the religion that the OP originally stated. You are arguing a point that I am not attempting to make. Please re-look at my argument only in the context of what the OP stated. Your argument has some merit but doesnt apply to the OP or the argument at hand.

 

[sophocles07]

Judeo-Christian "values" are completely void of any useful original philosophical thought.

As you probably/might know, I have argued as much as you on this board against Christianity/Judaism; BUT, I must take a more level headed approach here (meden agan, as the Greeks say). Jefferson repeatedly speaks of the Jesus of the Bible as presenting the most worthy moral code of anyone he had read. That being said, this has nothing to do WHATSOEVER with "supernatural" truths; he also said he had read widely and taken with him what the so-called Pagans had to offer.

He also said you should "pick and choose" what you take from Jesus' teachings. I don't actually agree that Jesus offers the "best" moral system--one can scan all over the place for things just as useful and practiceable, PLUS thinking this simple stuff out for yourself.

That's what I give to the Christian religion: you produced one good literary character that we can take lessons from. (He's also an interesting literary character--especially in Mark and John--just in terms of pure aesthetic and psychological merit.) He is not the end-all of moral teaching; a desire for such an end is purely naive and simplistic.

Literalist Christians, or even Christians who take "Faith" as a reason for anything, defame the character itself by extraordinary misinterpretation of a literary text.

 

[familydog]

You are making an argument far different to the thread that I am responding to.
the thread at hand states "Was America founded on Judeo-Christian Principles? Of Course it was!
I am objecting to whether or not the principles can be stated as Judeo Christian. Ron is correct about the Founders principles as it applies to us and what we should be doing. He is refering to a set of ideas. The OP in her argument attempts to state that the ideas that most influenced our countries founding were Judeo Christian. That is not accurate. The principles came from many different sources and whether or not those sources came from a religion doesnt matter because they were not from the religion that the OP originally stated. You are arguing a point that I am not attempting to make. Please re-look at my argument only in the context of what the OP stated. Your argument has some merit but doesnt apply to the OP or the argument at hand.

I was simply saying that our founding consists of more than the Consitution and the words of Thomas Jefferson. Our founding was comprised of Christian values. Our founders saw them as Christian. That was my argument, but you said my argument was wrong and we were not founded upon Christian principles. So, since you didn't refute anything I said, I was trying to figure out what you are talking about. I'm not sure how you think, by the areguments I made, it doesn't apply to "Was American founded by Judeo-Christian principles?"

I don't care what the OP said, I am responding to the thread title that we were founded upon Christian principles. I clearly answered that and agreed with it.

 

[Theocrat]

Dr. Paul's Thoughts

After reading many of the posts on this forum thread, I find it simply astonishing how some people can still believe that America was not founded on the religious and moral principles of Christianity, even in the face of obvious, irrefutable evidence. Since these scoffers and skeptics will not hear the truth from fellow Ron Paul supporters, I thought it would be proper to share a few of Congressman Paul's thoughts about this subject (since these forums bear his name) from his own writings dealing with the issue of America's religious founding in some way. You can click on each of the following links to read what he has to say. I hope this clears up some of the confusion and abates the foolish notions and pseudo-evidence from those who believe contrary to America having any religious founding.

1. "Christmas in Secular America"
2. "Religious Liberty Thwarted by the Supreme Court"
3. "Religious Freedom Found in Following Constitution"

 

[Patriot123]

I love how many of the right Evangelical Christians in this thread insist on any value system that involves "don't kill" or the like is automatically Christian beliefs. As a previous poster said way back (likely on page ten) these principles which our country was founded upon were commonly held, and have been around before religion even existed. For example, you don't murder a family member. "It tends to create conflict." They were not motivated by the Christian religion. They were motivated by commonly held principles.

 

[ARealConservative]

After reading many of the posts on this forum thread, I find it simply astonishing how some people can still believe that America was not founded on the religious and moral principles of Christianity

Some of us find such a notion hollow and meaningless.

Man has free will, this country was founded on the acts of free men.

When you break down the motives behind pursuing this argument, you find that it is based on bigotry. It's the attitude that our predecessors were more moral because they were mostly christian and the problems with society today are from a lack of faith.

The majority of those agreeing to the original constitution were likely Christian. The majority that allowed slavery to go on for centuries were likely Christian. Today, the majority that allow income redistribution (theft) and preemptive war (murder) are mostly Christian.

So what though? They might be majority Christian, but they are all individuals with free will acting independently of one another.

 

[Theocrat]

What Is Not the Case

I love how many of the right Evangelical Christians in this thread insist on any value system that involves "don't kill" or the like is automatically Christian beliefs. As a previous poster said way back (likely on page ten) these principles which our country was founded upon were commonly held, and have been around before religion even existed. For example, you don't murder a family member. "It tends to create conflict." They were not motivated by the Christian religion. They were motivated by commonly held principles.

Well I can tell you one thing. Those moral values definitely do not come from the religion of secular humanism, which is what many "atheists" and agnostics on this thread would have us believe was the religious conviction of our Founders.

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

Yes, you would be correct but the Gita is a Budhist holy book and would support my claim that Christianity was not the foundation of our country.

Actually, the gita is a Hindu sacred text...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita

 

[sophocles07]

Those moral values definitely do not come from the religion of secular humanism

Is this a blanket statement? So you think no secular thought influenced American ideals at all? Have you Christ-orgasmed the 1700s out of your brain completely?

 

[mtmedlin]

Actually, the gita is a Hindu sacred text...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita

I actually knew that and when I read what I had written I laughed but thanks for pointing it out. Late night posts are not my best.

I have read the Gita several times and have found many uses for it. I get a little more from it each time I read. I have also read the bible cover to cover 7 times and most of the Quran.

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

I actually knew that and when I read what I had written I laughed but thanks for pointing it out. Late night posts are not my best.

I have read the Gita several times and have found many uses for it. I get a little more from it each time I read. I have also read the bible cover to cover 7 times and most of the Quran.

I went through a phase where I read as many "ancient" texts as possible. Unless one can find a copy of the reptilian codice of atlantis, we must start with the epic of gilgamish, move into the vedas and so forth...

However, all of these issues fail to disprove the OP premise of the christian bible's profound influence on modern western society. I find the denial of this to be downright silly.

 

[familydog]

I love how many of the right Evangelical Christians in this thread insist on any value system that involves "don't kill" or the like is automatically Christian beliefs. As a previous poster said way back (likely on page ten) these principles which our country was founded upon were commonly held, and have been around before religion even existed. For example, you don't murder a family member. "It tends to create conflict." They were not motivated by the Christian religion. They were motivated by commonly held principles.

Please. Please stop the stereotyping. I am defending the notion that we were founded upon Christian principles, but yet I am not "the right Evangelical Christians" you speak of. Study up on Ron Paul and maybe you will learn not to categorize people and actually treat them as individuals, especially since you don't know me. If you weren't talking about me, all the more reason to keep that collectivist crap out of here.

If commonly held principles are seen as Christian principles, as I pointed out the founders of the country did, then of course those commonly held founding principles are "Christian." Don't we talk about sticking to the original meaning of the constitution and not try to rewrite it? Maybe we should stick to what the common people of the time viewed as Christian principles, and go with that. Or would that conflict with your ideology?

My anaylsis is based on clear and concise research. I also am willing to admit that there were other influences besides Christianity on the founders as well. I pointed that out several times.

 

[Kade]

As you probably/might know, I have argued as much as you on this board against Christianity/Judaism; BUT, I must take a more level headed approach here (meden agan, as the Greeks say). Jefferson repeatedly speaks of the Jesus of the Bible as presenting the most worthy moral code of anyone he had read. That being said, this has nothing to do WHATSOEVER with "supernatural" truths; he also said he had read widely and taken with him what the so-called Pagans had to offer.

He also said you should "pick and choose" what you take from Jesus' teachings. I don't actually agree that Jesus offers the "best" moral system--one can scan all over the place for things just as useful and practiceable, PLUS thinking this simple stuff out for yourself.

That's what I give to the Christian religion: you produced one good literary character that we can take lessons from. (He's also an interesting literary character--especially in Mark and John--just in terms of pure aesthetic and psychological merit.) He is not the end-all of moral teaching; a desire for such an end is purely naive and simplistic.

Literalist Christians, or even Christians who take "Faith" as a reason for anything, defame the character itself by extraordinary misinterpretation of a literary text.

True. I would still argue against it as original.