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

[Deborah K]

The facts of the matter as I see them are as follows:

1) The founders of this country were often extremely critical of the institution of religion and the close-minded dogma that goes hand-in-hand.

2) The founders placed an extremely high level of importance of the seperation of church and state. Despite many of their individual beliefs that ran contrary to Chrisitianity, they were dedicated to ensuring that the government was in no way involved with religion.

3) The principles of Christianity that are considered acceptable by today's standards are not unique to Christianity. The pleasant and useful pieces of advice like "Don't kill folks, and don't screw your neighbor's wife" are not exclusive to Christianity, or even the Abrahamic religions.

4) The tidbits of Christianity that advocate cannabalism, vampirism, killing innocent children, raping innocent women, etc, etc are conveniently ignored when talking about "Christian principles." Was this country founded on the principle that it is acceptable to eat babies, as the Bible suggests?


So here's what crosses my mind: I believe that the founders, while personally nonreligious or anti-religious, were passionate advocates of the seperation of church and state and religious freedom. They cared so much about the independence of each from the other that they instituted multiple safegaurds against either influencing and infiltrating the other. I believe that it is the natural progression of this that the founders would have been extremely careful to remove religious artifacts from the laws and framework of our government, except when it was useful to aid the understanding or was part of the vernacular appropriate to the piece.

Our country was founded not on Christian principles, but on the values of society as a whole. Respect for life, liberty, and property are cultural universals that manifest themselves in some way, shape, or form in every society.

We are a human nation, not a Christian nation.

Even though I disagree with you on this, it seems to me that you have done your best to research this and have given it careful thought. I respect you for that.

 

[ToryNotion]

I detect the odious scent of historical revisionism in the arguments of those hostile to Christianities influence in the founding of this nation. I hope that neither side of the 'discussion' is so blinded by their bias that they would wish to present an inaccurate and deceitful account of the founding. Paraphrasing Albert Jay Nock, what is important is not who is right, but rather what is the truth.

 

[Deborah K]

1) I never knew that the word, "Providence" was strictly meant for the Christian religion...

Who said it was?

2) Christ was not a Rabbi. I've heard all the arguments from the Christian right, and this is pathetic. Even if he existed, he was Christian. Not Jewish in any way after his childhood. And excuse my language, but no crap? I don't need things that I learned in my Hebrew School and Jewish Studies to be lectured to me. Even then, it does not mean that Christians are Jews. There were no Jews in the US in the 1700's. Get your facts straight, please. Christians are not Jews, and if you wish to argue this, I gladly will, like I have with hundreds of other fanatics in the past. And I haven't lost a single argument to date.

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!

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. And I love how you completely ignored the statement about that treaty

and

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."

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.

4) ...And that's why many of our founders agreed and praised him? Do you have any proof to back your statements?

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.

 

[Deborah K]

Deborah K, I too am impressed by your research. Most likely even somebody with a Ph.D. in Biblical studies hasn't researched this topic as thoroughly.

As for the shadowly ones, I feel sorry for them and hope somehow they will have their eyes opened and understand the seriousness of what they are doing.

Thank you. I am an avid researcher and prolific writer, but not even close to being in the same league as a Ph.D. but thanks.

And thank you to Theocrat and to others. It's nice to know I am not alone in my thinking on this, and although I'm not religious, I do tend to direct my thoughts toward spiritual and metaphysical matters - although that is another subject altogether.

It's been a pretty great discussion though. I've enjoyed learning from everyone.

 

[Mesogen]

Those arguing the no position seem to forget that there were other folks peopling the colonies besides the skeptical, disreputable swine we call the Founding Fathers. Your incisive arguments and your pages of internet quotes have convinced me that they were all the lot of them capital A atheists. Now even if this nonsense were true, you forget the millions of poor simple Christian believers that populated the early nation. Or are you going to try to convince us that they were also atheists. or deists or free masons or perhaps adherents of some other religion than Christianity in one of its many flavors? It seems to me that I remember a fable about many of them crossing the ocean in search of freedom to practice religion not freedom from religion (ie. from religion itself).

These people did not write the Constitution.

 

[mtmedlin]

I detect the odious scent of historical revisionism in the arguments of those hostile to Christianities influence in the founding of this nation. I hope that neither side of the 'discussion' is so blinded by their bias that they would wish to present an inaccurate and deceitful account of the founding. Paraphrasing Albert Jay Nock, what is important is not who is right, but rather what is the truth.

I detect a scent of Christians taking positions that existed long before Christianity and claiming them as Christian. the Gita and Plato were here LONG before Christ but if it makes you feel better to claim the ideas as Christians, then plagarize all you want.

 

[allyinoh]

I detect a scent of Christians taking positions that existed long before Christianity and claiming them as Christian. the Gita and Plato were here LONG before Christ but if it makes you feel better to claim the ideas as Christians, then plagarize all you want.

I'm tired of people attacking Christians. You don't like Christianity, good for you but you don't have to attack people who aren't attacking you.

I am a Christian, I don't like organized religion, and I don't say much, but it gets really irritating to see constant attacks against Christians for no good reason.

 

[rockwell]

I'll Give You An Ounce Of Gold If You Can Find The Term "judeo-christian" Appearing Anywhere Before The Year 1900.

I'd Say 1949, But I'll Play It Safe.

It's A Made Up Term To Try And Confuse Christians Into Thinking They Have A Common Destiny With Modern Day Israel.

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

I'll Give You An Ounce Of Gold If You Can Find The Term "judeo-christian" Appearing Anywhere Before The Year 1900.

I'd Say 1949, But I'll Play It Safe.

It's A Made Up Term To Try And Confuse Christians Into Thinking They Have A Common Destiny With Modern Day Israel.

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!!!

Dare to WIN!!!

 

[BuddyRey]

I can't wait until Kade finds this thread!!!

My personal opinion: Though I am a Quaker, and a devout believer in Christ, I believe that what the founders wanted was a society friendly to all religions but beholden to none.

 

[Deborah K]

I'll Give You An Ounce Of Gold If You Can Find The Term "judeo-christian" Appearing Anywhere Before The Year 1900.

I'd Say 1949, But I'll Play It Safe.

It's A Made Up Term To Try And Confuse Christians Into Thinking They Have A Common Destiny With Modern Day Israel.

You are nit-picking. I use the term strictly because Christianity was born out of Judaism. Christ was a Jew, a Rabbi, his followers were Jews, and the Old Testament is straight from the Torah. I have no idea what you are talking about as far as having a common destiny with anybody.

 

[Deborah K]

I detect a scent of Christians taking positions that existed long before Christianity and claiming them as Christian. the Gita and Plato were here LONG before Christ but if it makes you feel better to claim the ideas as Christians, then plagarize all you want.

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.

 

[Dr.3D]

From Strong's Greek Dictionary

4461 r`abbi, rhabbi {hrab-bee'}
Meaning: 1) my great one, my honourable sir 2) Rabbi, a title used by the Jews to address their teachers (and also honour them when not addressing them)

Seems the word Rabbi is just a title that means teacher.

Not that is makes any difference, Jesus was called Rabbi. After all, He was a teacher.

 

[Deborah K]

From Strong's Greek Dictionary



Seems the word Rabbi is just a title that means teacher.

Not that is makes any difference, Jesus was called Rabbi. After all, He was a teacher.

Here is a good article on it: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/rabbi.html

 

[ChooseLiberty]

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

BIG WASTE OF TIME.

IMO most of the leaders from the Northern states were Deists even if they were nominally Episcopalian. My personal favorite Founding Father, Jefferson edited his own version of the Bible to remove the questionable bits.

 

[Dr.3D]

Here is a good article on it: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/rabbi.html

So we are in agreement.

 

[IcyPeaceMaker]

This thread has been Deborah's truth versus subterfuge. Debbie wins!

 

[Kade]

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.

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

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

 

[Kade]

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'.

MicahNelson later in this thread makes a good point about the two sides we come from... I'm tempered in my response because of it...

I find this sheer irony.

I believe you have called yourself an amateur Historian, but I question if you have been fair in your analysis...

Could you possibly being doing the work he spoke of? Could you be the one who is possibly revising our history as a nation?

 

[familydog]

MicahNelson later in this thread makes a good point about the two sides we come from... I'm tempered in my response because of it...

I find this sheer irony.

I believe you have called yourself an amateur Historian, but I question if you have been fair in your analysis...

Could you possibly being doing the work he spoke of? Could you be the one who is possibly revising our history as a nation?

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.