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

[Tdcci]

You know you can argue both sides of this forever and neither side will be convinced.

You're right, because one side uses logic and one uses dogma.

 

[Kade]

Speaking as a historian (as defined by one who has a history degree), it's impossible for a historian to check all his or her biases at the door. And some historians like Howard Zinn, actually argue for history to be more than just stating the facts, but a history that promotes social change.

Agreed.

Zinn is right down the street actually. I'm fairly well read on Zinn and I reject his emotional appeal to Marxism as an answer to the abuses perpetuated by this country. I don't believe that history should be revised to further a certain perspective. I also don't support the 9-11 truth conspiracy, on the grounds that the Bush Administration is too inept.

I'll say it here, I think anyone who thinks the founders of this country intended a Christian Nation are fooling themselves...

...and, even if they were correct, and a Christian Nation were intended, it would be our job as modern day patriots to fight the Church Statehood, in our own time.

So, if a Christian Nation were intended at all, it would be necessary to rebel and topple any spiritual aristocracy.

 

[IcyPeaceMaker]

I believe the point made, was that the framers specifically eliminated any chance for theocracy, and limited government to a non-interventionist policy, though that hasn't worked out so well.

The second point was that the framers were indeed Christian types, and they made reference to this government being maintained by a moral people. That hasn't worked out well either.

 

[familydog]

Agreed.

Zinn is right down the street actually. I'm fairly well read on Zinn and I reject his emotional appeal to Marxism as an answer to the abuses perpetuated by this country. I don't believe that history should be revised to further a certain perspective. I also don't support the 9-11 truth conspiracy, on the grounds that the Bush Administration is too inept.

I'll say it here, I think anyone who thinks the founders of this country intended a Christian Nation are fooling themselves...

...and, even if they were correct, and a Christian Nation were intended, it would be our job as modern day patriots to fight the Church Statehood, in our own time.

So, if a Christian Nation were intended at all, it would be necessary to rebel and topple any spiritual aristocracy.

I generally don't agree with Zinn's very left wing views, but I respect him highly for his contributions to the profession.

It's wrong to suggest (if anyone has) that the Founders wanted a Christian state. There words do not support it, and it goes against what they stood for. A Christian nation is different though. A nation, moreover, nation-building can only be done by culture. If the culture is predominately Christian, then they will in affect have a Christian nation.
Our founders created a republican form of government. In that form, the legislature is where the will of the people is brought out. Of course, legislative decisions should, in this system, rely mostly at the local and state level. So if local and state citizens wanted to ban gambling for instance (as was the case in PA up until recently) on the grounds that gambling is immoral etc, then they can. The support for this decision relies on the immorality argument which stems from the culture, which shapes the nation.

The point is, whether the Founder wanted a Christian nation or not, they got one and they could do nothing about it (and they shouldn't have if they truely believed in republicanism). Do I think they wanted a Christian nation? I can't say for sure, but one can make an argument that founding principles of equality, liberty, individualism can be found in Christianity. Toqueville saw it in his book Democracy in America (well he was stricly speaking of Catholicism), and I believe him to be right.

My notion of a nation is taken from Ernst Renan's lecture "What is a Nation?"

 

[Kade]

I generally don't agree with Zinn's very left wing views, but I respect him highly for his contributions to the profession.

It's wrong to suggest (if anyone has) that the Founders wanted a Christian state. There words do not support it, and it goes against what they stood for. A Christian nation is different though. A nation, moreover, nation-building can only be done by culture. If the culture is predominately Christian, then they will in affect have a Christian nation.
Our founders created a republican form of government. In that form, the legislature is where the will of the people is brought out. Of course, legislative decisions should, in this system, rely mostly at the local and state level. So if local and state citizens wanted to ban gambling for instance (as was the case in PA up until recently) on the grounds that gambling is immoral etc, then they can. The support for this decision relies on the immorality argument which stems from the culture, which shapes the nation.

The point is, whether the Founder wanted a Christian nation or not, they got one and they could do nothing about it (and they shouldn't have if they truely believed in republicanism). Do I think they wanted a Christian nation? I can't say for sure, but one can make an argument that founding principles of equality, liberty, individualism can be found in Christianity. Toqueville saw it in his book Democracy in America (well he was stricly speaking of Catholicism), and I believe him to be right.

My notion of a nation is taken from Ernst Renan's lecture "What is a Nation?"

My fear and outright rejection of the "Christian Nation" concept comes from Gary North and Rousas John Rushdoony's view of a America, as a Spiritual Aristocracy.

You will find this advocated by some on these boards, notably, Theocrat.

 

[rodent]

The following thread prompted this one:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=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.

Sweet. I will get slaves and if my wife ever cheats on me, you bet I will stone her ass to death. Mmmmmmm...delish... Judeo-Christian values.

 

[Mesogen]

Another nit-picker who would just as soon deny Christianity ever existed. Gita and Plato can't take credit for Christ's message of love and forgiveness.

Some say Jesus visited India and got a lot of his ideas from Hinduism and Buddhism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgiveness#Hinduism

O Lord, forgive three sins that are due to my human limitations:
Thou art everywhere, but I worship you here;
Thou art without form, but I worship you in these forms;
Thou needest no praise, yet I offer you these prayers and salutations,
Lord, forgive three sins that are due to my human limitations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mett?

The object of mett meditation is to cultivate loving kindness (love without attachment, non-exclusive love) towards all sentient beings. The practice usually begins with the meditator cultivating loving kindness towards themselves (though this is not specifically recommended by the Buddha himself in the relevant suttas/sutras), then their loved ones, friends, teachers, strangers and finally their enemies.

Love your enemies? Hmm, where have I heard that one?

Remember Buddhism pre-dates Christianity by about 300-400 years.

 

[familydog]

My fear and outright rejection of the "Christian Nation" concept comes from Gary North and Rousas John Rushdoony's view of a America, as a Spiritual Aristocracy.

You will find this advocated by some on these boards, notably, Theocrat.

I'm a devout Catholic. I don't want a theocracy or a state sanctioned religion. That said, I understand some do, and luckily that won't happen anytime soon. But my point was there is a difference between a "Christian nation" and a "Christian state." The founders didn't want a Christian state, and as far as I know they were silent on the concept of a Christian nation. The nation (that is, the people) were mostly WASP at the founding (and by many accounts still are--at least some form of Christian), thus America was founded as a Christian nation-state.

Knowing what I do of the Catholic faith and again, going by Toqueville, I will state once more that Christianity has the same principles of republicanism (equality, individualism, rule of law, vigilance, etc). That said, I would argue that yes, indeed, the US was founded on Christian principles. Did the Founders conciously think that while creating the country? I don't know, I can't get inside their heads. Their writings suggest a more secular approach, but there is room for both sides.

Don't fear Calvinists and Gary North. They have no power.

 

[Patriot123]

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/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

"The signers were those individuals who happened to be Delegates to Congress at the time... The signers possessed many basic similarities. Most were American-born and of Anglo-Saxon origin. The eight foreign-born... were all natives of the British Isles. Except for Charles Carroll, a Roman Catholic, and a few Deists, every one subscribed to Protestantism. For the most part basically political nonextremists, many at first had hesitated at separation let alone rebellion."

Your source just invalidated itself. Its charts directly contradict its own text. Let's define "few," shall we?

–adjective
1. not many but more than one: Few artists live luxuriously.
–noun
2. (used with a plural verb) a small number or amount: Send me a few.
3. the few, a special, limited number; the minority: That music appeals to the few.
–pronoun
4. (used with a plural verb) a small number of persons or things: A dozen people volunteered, but few have shown up.
—Idioms
5. few and far between, at widely separated intervals; infrequent: In Nevada the towns are few and far between.
6. quite a few, a fairly large number; many: There were quite a few interesting things to do.
[Origin: bef. 900; ME fewe, OE féawe; c. Goth fawai; akin to L paucus few, paulus little, pauper poor, Gk paûros little, few]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

If you refer to this quote in your source, and refer to the chart supplied, there are no Deists on the chart. This leads me to believe the following:
1) The work done for this website is careless.
2) The work done is not credible whatsoever, in addition to careless.
3) The author(s) had a strong opinion before doing this research towards your own side.

Either way, your source is not credible. Any respected website will admit that there were at least a few Deists amongst our founders, but what they will not admit is that Christianity had a significant role in the founding of our nation. "But Patriot123, I never said it was a significant role, I meant that it was a minor role." If it played a minor role, then it didn't play a significant role, in which case amounts to nothing in the founding of this nation.

Furthermore, I acknowledge the fact that many of our founders were Christians. However, the influential and major founders were Deists, or held the Deist beliefs closely.

As far as your claim that the founders were atheists, deists, etc. blah, blah, blah.

I'm sorry, I thought you wanted to have an intelligent debate. Not one between a babbling four year old (being you) and myself, eleven years older than that of your stated age in the previous sentence.

Furthermore:

"Strongly guarded. . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States."

In addition, if you actually were to read the Constitution, which I trust you have at least a couple dozen times over, like any true American would, you would also know that it does not mention the term, "God" once. Not once.


Now what I'm surprised about is the fact that you haven't brought up my point about the Treaty of Tripoli. Allow me to quote it once more:

""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."

Feel free to give a rebuttal this time around for this one, and not just a "blah, blah, blah" statement

 

[Patriot123]

There is a good reason for the ommission of any jewish words, there were no jews on our shores until well after the documents were written, jews didn't show up until the early 1800s, prolly around 1830 or so, nearly 50 years after the constitutional convention was over. But now we have a judeo-christian country? You attack christianity, just as Benjamin Freedman said you would, and demand that you are the one with any light to shine?!?! Israel awaits you sir.

My G-d, you are unbelievably Anit-Semetic. Just leave the topic... Please. You completely just twisted what I said, and you know what? I'm not even going to tell you what I meant, just because I'm so amazed how you got that out of what I said. And don't try to stereotype me as a foreigner just because I'm Jewish, either, buddy. Please. Because I'll tell you, I'm a hell of a lot more American than you are right now for your comment. You're simply a conspiracy theorist who has no proof to back any of your statements. And as for your comment in whole, Vatican City awaits you, sir.

 

[Patriot123]

Who said it was?



Who said Christians are Jews? How did you deduce that from I said? As far as Christ being a rabbi? Mathew 26:49 and there's one other reference in the book of Mark, I think. (I'll have to look it up). And here is a link that covers research into this: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/rabbi.html

But then, you've already said that you don't like my sources. LOL!





You don't like the look of the website so that automatically renders it not credible?? Did you even look at their sourcing? Obviously not.



Uhh ..... what are you talking about? This cannot be attributed to me.


You clearly have waaaay too much emotion attached to this issue and it is affecting the way you interpret my argument. I'm not interested in debating someone who attempts to discredit sources before even reading them and who attributes quotes to me that I did not make.

My apologies, gave a rebuttal to the wrong post. Please feel free to give one to what I said, though. Actually, please do so. I'll expect two rebuttals from you in your next post.

1)

Uh….hello to you? Christianity was born out of the Jewish religion. Christ was a practicing Jew, a Rabbi, his followers were Jews. The Old Testament comes directly from the Torah.

You specifically implied that Christians were Jews, or were Jews at one point, which they are not and were not. His followers were not Jews because they believed in a false profit and the false Messiah, that is assuming he even existed. Christ was not a practicing Jew, as he declared himself the Messiah unjustly, and believed in a Cult religion which was a shoot off of Judaism at the time that the Romans occupied Israel.

2)

But then, you've already said that you don't like my sources. LOL!

Try quoting me on that. No, really. Go ahead and try to find where I said that. Because I didn't. I said I didn't like the one source you provided. Are you even reading what I post?

3) Jesus might very well have been an acting Rabbi, but he wasn't a Jew. Maybe during birth, maybe even as a child. But he was not a Jew as he grew up, again, assuming he even lived.

4)

You clearly have waaaay too much emotion attached to this issue and it is affecting the way you interpret my argument. I'm not interested in debating someone who attempts to discredit sources before even reading them and who attributes quotes to me that I did not make.

What are you talking about? I'm trying to have an intelligent debate with you, and whilst your accusing me of being "too emotional" on the issue, you're using text type, mocking my statements which you cannot prove wrong with such things as "blah, blah, blah" and are typing letters repeatedly in words to exaggerate them. For example, "waaaay." Please. Get type correctly, act maturely or I do not wish to continue this debate.

Also, please be sure to post a rebuttal to the Treaty of Tripoli which I posted in my previous rebuttal two posts up.

 

[Kade]

There is a good reason for the ommission of any jewish words, there were no jews on our shores until well after the documents were written, jews didn't show up until the early 1800s, prolly around 1830 or so, nearly 50 years after the constitutional convention was over. But now we have a judeo-christian country? You attack christianity, just as Benjamin Freedman said you would, and demand that you are the one with any light to shine?!?! Israel awaits you sir.

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

Every year, a notable Jewish leader, sometimes even a secular Jew, like Former Ambassador Loeb, does a letter reading from George Washington to the people of Newport, Rhode Island. It was the letter he sent the Touro, the oldest surviving Synagogue in America, to ensure them that they had a place here in the new country.


This reading, to which I attend, still gives me chills. I can't express the level of out of control ignorance you have demonstrated in this sentence...but perhaps the words of Washington himself will change your mind...



Letter of George Washington to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island:

"...the Government of the United States...gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance...May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy."


The Touro Synagogue was built in 1759. You are just simply wrong.

 

[kimo]

Ed Brown (political prisoner) speaks:
JESUITS ARE IN CONTROL 2/28/08
(full clip)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=CeoLcAC9je0&feature=related

 

[Kade]

Ed Brown (political prisoner) speaks:
JESUITS ARE IN CONTROL 2/28/08
(full clip)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=CeoLcAC9je0&feature=related

You mean the dentist Ed Brown? That man is a whackjob. He is divinely inspired by some sort of Hippie Jesus.

I don't like what the Feds did to him... and nothing justifies it, not even rampant insanity.

 

[Deborah K]

My apologies, gave a rebuttal to the wrong post. Please feel free to give one to what I said, though. Actually, please do so. I'll expect two rebuttals from you in your next post.

1)

You specifically implied that Christians were Jews, or were Jews at one point, which they are not and were not. His followers were not Jews because they believed in a false profit and the false Messiah, that is assuming he even existed. Christ was not a practicing Jew, as he declared himself the Messiah unjustly, and believed in a Cult religion which was a shoot off of Judaism at the time that the Romans occupied Israel.

2)

Try quoting me on that. No, really. Go ahead and try to find where I said that. Because I didn't. I said I didn't like the one source you provided. Are you even reading what I post?

3) Jesus might very well have been an acting Rabbi, but he wasn't a Jew. Maybe during birth, maybe even as a child. But he was not a Jew as he grew up, again, assuming he even lived.

4)
What are you talking about? I'm trying to have an intelligent debate with you, and whilst your accusing me of being "too emotional" on the issue, you're using text type, mocking my statements which you cannot prove wrong with such things as "blah, blah, blah" and are typing letters repeatedly in words to exaggerate them. For example, "waaaay." Please. Get type correctly, act maturely or I do not wish to continue this debate.

Also, please be sure to post a rebuttal to the Treaty of Tripoli which I posted in my previous rebuttal two posts up.

As to the Treaty of Tripoli: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of 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."

Number One: My assertion is that America was founded on Judeo-Christian Principles, the words, "religion" and "principles" are very different.

Number Two: This treaty was necessary to get us out of a holy war. The point of article eleven was to illustrate that we have no hostility toward ANY religion.

Show me where I "specifically implied that Christians were Jews". I don't know where you get your information from, but to call his followers cultists and followers of a false prophet, etc. is going to offend Christians. Where is your evidence that Christ was not a Jew and that his followers were not Jews? It strikes me as odd that for someone who is soooo defensive of his/her own faith as you seem to be, that you would then turn around and insult Christianity with your unfounded accusations and smears, i.e. "bloody Christian fanatics". (see below)

3) Oh, please. Your source is a website that looks like it was made in a matter of minutes which has no credibility whatsoever. EVEN IF a majority of our founders were Christians, that doesn't mean our country was founded on Christian principles. It never was, and NEVER will be. There's no way in hell some bloody right winged Christian fanatics are going to try to re-write history in this country

The above shows not only your bigotry toward Christians, but one example of your dislike of my sources and here is the other:

6) Again, not even going to visit the second link. Why? Key word; disputed. What you were looking for and didn't find was a definite, "false statement."

As far as my style of writing goes, feel free not to like it, or to respond. That is your prerogative.

 

[kimo]

You mean the dentist Ed Brown? That man is a whackjob. He is divinely inspired by some sort of Hippie Jesus.

I don't like what the Feds did to him... and nothing justifies it, not even rampant insanity.

Agree. Too much conspiracy in him. It´s just opinion.

 

[Deborah K]

It is made up.

Barton and Lutz are pseudo-historians. I'm not trying to be mean, they have been proven to whip up quotes out of thin air and they are part of a strong revisionist movement... there work is fiction, and their facts are false or dressed up opinions.

Here are a few sources to verify that I am indeed correct:

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=22481

http://connection.ebscohost.com/content/article/1027400469.html

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Disse...ite+Bible+Curriculum.(Church+&...-a0170729742

I read through most of the first and third links and all I got was that atheist revisionists don’t like Barton’s assertions that we were founded on Christian principles. Nothing I read gives any example of where Barton “pulls quotes out of thin air.” All they do is complain about him, but there are no refutations specifically regarding my claims in this post that pertain to Barton and Lutz as sources regarding the research that Lutz did at the University of Houston. I see nothing in your links that refutes the research. All I see is that they think Barton has taken Lutz’s work and distorted it. Again, no evidence to back it up, just useless articles with no facts to back up the argument ex: claiming Barton’s history facts are “riddled with errors” and then not providing one single example. And you have provided nothing about Lutz, unless the 2nd link had info on him. I don't have access to that book but Arlen Specter doesn't impress me much to begin with.

Their attacks on Barton remind me of someone else who is being unjustly attacked…….

 

[Kade]

I read through most of the first and third links and all I got was that atheist revisionists don’t like Barton’s assertions that we were founded on Christian principles. Nothing I read gives any example of where Barton “pulls quotes out of thin air.” All they do is complain about him, but there are no refutations specifically regarding my claims in this post that pertain to Barton and Lutz as sources regarding the research that Lutz did at the University of Houston. I see nothing in your links that refutes the research. All I see is that they think Barton has taken Lutz’s work and distorted it. Again, no evidence to back it up, just useless articles with no facts to back up the argument ex: claiming Barton’s history facts are “riddled with errors” and then not providing one single example. And you have provided nothing about Lutz, unless the 2nd link had info on him. I don't have access to that book but Arlen Specter doesn't impress me much to begin with.

Their attacks on Barton remind me of someone else who is being unjustly attacked…….

Yea me. Barton is batshit.

Probably the best refutation of Barton's argument simply is to quote his own exegesis of the First Amendment: "Today," Barton says, "we would best understand the actual context of the First Amendment by saying, 'Congress shall make no law establishing one Christian denomination as the national denomination.' " In keeping with Barton's restated First Amendment, Congress could presumably make a law establishing all Christian denominations as the national religion, and each state could pass a law establishing a particular Christian church as its official religion.

All of this pseudoscholarship would hardly be worth discussing, let alone disproving, were it not for the fact that it is taken so very seriously by so many people. -Arlen Specter

This quote is from Barton's book America's Godly Heritage

On January 1,1802, Jefferson wrote to that group of Danbury Baptists, and in this letter, he assured them—he said the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, he said, but that wall is a one-directional wall. It keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government.

Now, why would David Barton so openly and blatantly lie like this, if not for an agenda? Historians are not suppose to have an agenda.


Also, since you are leaning that way, might want to join up on some information about real persecution in America, you can start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee


I would also add the final and ultimate blow to this conversation... I am much more heavily educated than Barton. Holding more degrees, holding more time in real schools...

The man received a Bachelors of ARTS in RELIGIOUS EDUCATION from Oral Roberts of all places... why this gives him any authority to make up history is beyond me...

 

[familydog]

Yea me. Barton is batshit.



This quote is from Barton's book America's Godly Heritage


Now, why would David Barton so openly and blatantly lie like this, if not for an agenda? Historians are not suppose to have an agenda.


Also, since you are leaning that way, might want to join up on some information about real persecution in America, you can start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee


I would also add the final and ultimate blow to this conversation... I am much more heavily educated than Barton. Holding more degrees, holding more time in real schools...

The man received a Bachelors of ARTS in RELIGIOUS EDUCATION from Oral Roberts of all places... why this gives him any authority to make up history is beyond me...

Since you claim to be well educated, surely you know better than to take the arguments of a couple of people, refute them, and then claim that their "false" arguments are proof that United States was not founded on Judeo-Christian values when there are other interpretations and arguments about it in the world.

Why don't you refute my argument of a few posts back? I put forth the argument that we were at least indirectly founded upon Christian values.

 

[Kade]

Since you claim to be well educated, surely you know better than to take the arguments of a couple of people, refute them, and then claim that their "false" arguments are proof that United States was not founded on Judeo-Christian values when there are other interpretations and arguments about it in the world.

Why don't you refute my argument of a few posts back? I put forth the argument that we were at least indirectly founded upon Christian values.

Sure, I didn't see them. There is no need to refute them however, if you turn out to be correct. I'll go read.

I was merely pointing out a known entity, David Barton. Because he so callously creates history, and other historians don't even acknowledge him, his quotes, arguments, debate points... all nonsense.