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

[Kade]

I've read the letters you've mentioned, and I still find nothing in them which would give conclusive evidence that Thomas Jefferson was a secular humanist. His main issue with the Christian Church of his time was basically his disagreements with the nature of the spiritual realm and miracles. Agreeably, Jefferson was a materialist. These beliefs of his put him outside the teachings of mainstream Christendom of America, but nonetheless, Jefferson was no fool. He still believed in a God that was active in the creation of the world, unlike the god of the deists. Just read his Declaration of Independence, and you'll see this. Jefferson also drafted his own version of the Bible, and he even considered himself a Christian, not a secular humanist.

In a letter written to Dr. Benjamin Rush on April 21, 1803, Thomas Jefferson described his views on Jesus and Christianity, as well as his own beliefs. He appended to this description a Syllabus that compared the teachings of Jesus to those of the earlier Greek and Roman philosophers, and to the religion of the Jews of Jesus' time. The letter reads as follows:

(emphasis mine)

Though I would greatly disagree with Jefferson on many of his opinions about Christianity, my point is simply to show you that he was no secular humanist, as you seem wont to make him. But even acknowledging that Jefferson was probably the least religious of the Founding Fathers, he is still, in no wise, the final authority in matters of the Christian influence upon American jurisprudence. The majority of the Founders were heavily influenced by Christianity, being believers themselves, and Deborah K has done an excellent job in proving this in this forum thread. But suffice it to say, Jefferson never claimed to be a secular humanist, nor a deist.

Cool, are you saying you can be a Christian and not believe in the divinity of Christ?

 

[Theocrat]

Don't Miss My Point

Cool, are you saying you can be a Christian and not believe in the divinity of Christ?

No, you cannot be a Christian while denying both the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ. Thomas Jefferson was deceived and confused in thinking he was a Christian by his denial of Christ's divinity, all the while stealing religious and moral precepts from Christ's teachings by means of the Bible. My point is that Jefferson himself never claimed to be a secular humanist in any of his writings, which is what many on this forum thread would have us all believe.

 

[Kade]

No, you cannot be a Christian while denying both the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ. Thomas Jefferson was deceived and confused in thinking he was a Christian by his denial of Christ's divinity, all the while stealing religious and moral precepts from Christ's teachings by means of the Bible. My point is that Jefferson himself never claimed to be a secular humanist in any of his writings, which is what many on this forum thread would have us all believe.

I never said he was a humanist. Although some of humanism ideals come from Jefferson's writing.

It would be like calling Ayn Rand a libertarian I suspect.

Jefferson was an infidel, like Einstein, like Hume, like Madison, like Franklin, like Mother Teresa, like Bertrand Russell, like Warren Buffett, like Andrew Carnegie, like Ayn Rand, and like every other non-Christian, the thousands in the history of the world who have shaped our most cherished beliefs.

I'll have good company in your hell.

 

[familydog]

I never said he was a humanist. Although some of humanism ideals come from Jefferson's writing.

It would be like calling Ayn Rand a libertarian I suspect.

Jefferson was an infidel, like Einstein, like Hume, like Madison, like Franklin, like Mother Teresa, like Bertrand Russell, like Warren Buffett, like Andrew Carnegie, like Ayn Rand, and like every other non-Christian, the thousands in the history of the world who have shaped our most cherished beliefs.

I'll have good company in your hell.

So what?

For every infidel you name, I can name a Christian that did the same thing.

By the way, you mean that non-Catholic Mother Teresa everybody knows?

 

[Kade]

So what?

For every infidel you name, I can name a Christian that did the same thing.

By the way, you mean that non-Catholic Mother Teresa everybody knows?

In the last 200 years, name five significant achievements by Christians.

 

[sophocles07]

I've read the letters you've mentioned, and I still find nothing in them which would give conclusive evidence that Thomas Jefferson was a secular humanist. His main issue with the Christian Church of his time was basically his disagreements with the nature of the spiritual realm and miracles. Agreeably, Jefferson was a materialist. These beliefs of his put him outside the teachings of mainstream Christendom of America, but nonetheless, Jefferson was no fool. He still believed in a God that was active in the creation of the world, unlike the god of the deists. Just read his Declaration of Independence, and you'll see this. Jefferson also drafted his own version of the Bible, and he even considered himself a Christian, not a secular humanist.

Well, he couldn’t have considered that; the category did not exist as such at the time.

It’s very “sketchy” to call Jefferson a Christian. He did not believe in any of the supernatural aspects of the religion, and did not agree with the idea of an immaterial God. That’s pretty un-Christian. If Jefferson’s a Christian, he’s a Christian like Blake’s a Christian—a very far, far cry from XTIANITY; in fact, your version would probably place him in Hell right about now.

In a letter written to Dr. Benjamin Rush on April 21, 1803, Thomas Jefferson described his views on Jesus and Christianity, as well as his own beliefs. He appended to this description a Syllabus that compared the teachings of Jesus to those of the earlier Greek and Roman philosophers, and to the religion of the Jews of Jesus' time. The letter reads as follows:

I just recommended you read this letter.

Though I would greatly disagree with Jefferson on many of his opinions about Christianity, my point is simply to show you that he was no secular humanist, as you seem wont to make him. But even acknowledging that Jefferson was probably the least religious of the Founding Fathers, he is still, in no wise, the final authority in matters of the Christian influence upon American jurisprudence. The majority of the Founders were heavily influenced by Christianity, being believers themselves, and Deborah K has done an excellent job in proving this in this forum thread. But suffice it to say, Jefferson never claimed to be a secular humanist, nor a deist.

Jefferson was not a Christian in any recognizable terms, as I’ve said. He parsed it down to essential ethics, and did not believe in any of the tenets put forth by orthodoxy, or even near-orthodoxy. By the standards of the Nicene Creed, he would have been considered a heretic. His views on the godhead were not anywhere near the immaterial, Platonist version offered up by Christianity—including yourself.

You also need to define your terms. Humanism is many things. Secular goes to the word “order” or “world” from the Latin. What it means today is very, very narrow and would not have applied to nearly anyone if we attempt to backwardly apply concepts to historical personages. Jefferson was a humanist in the sense that he was interested in the humanities—which goes back to Cicero’s call for a study of the HUMANE/HUMAN things, and not metaphysics or the immaterial. This is why he avoids the question of the divinity, as in the quote I provided in the other post, and focuses on things in the world, worldly things, things that humans deal with. This is what Humanism meant during the time of the Renaissance on up through Jefferson’s time. “Secular” as we use it today did not have the same meaning, so he wouldn’t have used it. He did, though, advocate all of the things that “secular humanists” (who are not necessarily atheistic, but who call for a freedom of religion and science) call for.

You say he was not the only representative of the Founders; obviously. He is the Father I am most familiar with; John Adams, too. Adams presented nearly the same kind of radical “Christianity” and skepticism, calling for religious freedom and scientific and historical study. See Adams to Jefferson letters, Adams all over the place discusses Christianity. He also professes extreme admiration for the Hindu religion, as does he for Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus—both pagan belief systems. I am not saying you will not somewhere find Adams professing admiration for Christianity—obviously he did—but he did not solely believe in the Bible, nor did he base his contributions to the religious freedoms of the land on “Judeo-Christian principles.”

One can also look to Madison, who called for religious freedom to all men. See his “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, 1785,” wherein he makes the point, “Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?” He also pretty well destroys the notion of theocratic government, or any laws set up to make Christianity have “a dependence on the powers of this world.” See also his letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822.

Again, Madison even may call himself a “Christian”. This does not mean that he helped in his contributions to the nation on the grounds of Judeo-Christian principles alone. It is obvious that the influx of Enlightenment, Pagan (Greek and Roman), European philosophy in general all influenced the establishment of American republicanism more than any Christian principle---principles which had for nearly 2 centuries (add on top of that the theocracy of the Jewish religion) had the world under religious domination by, as Madison puts it, “pride and indolence in the Clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” (Memorial and Remonstrance, 1785)

No, you cannot be a Christian while denying both the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ. Thomas Jefferson was deceived and confused in thinking he was a Christian by his denial of Christ's divinity, all the while stealing religious and moral precepts from Christ's teachings by means of the Bible. My point is that Jefferson himself never claimed to be a secular humanist in any of his writings, which is what many on this forum thread would have us all believe.

Ah! you admit it yourself: He wasn’t really a Christian. You don’t have to call a frog a frog for it to be a frog; Jefferson was a FREETHINKER.

“Secular Humanism” narrowly should be thrown out as an appellation here. FREETHOUGHT vs Orthodoxy/Theocracy are what we’re talking about. One can be humanist, pagan, Christian, and Hindu to a certain degree; all of these can influence your thought, and any number of philosophical ideas influenced Jefferson (and the Founders in general).

Claims of “Founded on Judeo-Christian Principles” alone are absurd.

In the last 200 years, name five significant achievements by Christians.

Every name that comes to my head is one that is not really “Christian,” but: TS Eliot, WH Auden, Tarkovsky, Bresson, and...somebody...they’re all poets and artists...I can’t think of a Christian that has done anything with science, etc.
(I'm sure Theocrat will birth some from his super-duper virgin Asshole though.)

 

[familydog]

In the last 200 years, name five significant achievements by Christians.

I'm not going to fall into that trap until you define "significant achievement."

I'll do you one better and name several Christians who have, as you say, have helped to shape our most cherished beliefs. Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Bacon, Aquinas, Copernicus, Hooker, Luther, Acton, Augustine of Hippo, Tocqueville, Blackstone, Erasmus, Burke, Descartes, Tolstoy, etc.

 

[Theocrat]

My Assessment of Adams, Madison, and "Freethought"

Jefferson was not a Christian in any recognizable terms, as I’ve said. He parsed it down to essential ethics, and did not believe in any of the tenets put forth by orthodoxy, or even near-orthodoxy. By the standards of the Nicene Creed, he would have been considered a heretic. His views on the godhead were not anywhere near the immaterial, Platonist version offered up by Christianity—including yourself.

With the exception of your suggestion about a Platonic influence of immaterialism upon the Christian understanding of the Godhead in the Nicene Creed, I would have to say that I agree with you about Jefferson not being a Christian.

You also need to define your terms. Humanism is many things. Secular goes to the word “order” or “world” from the Latin. What it means today is very, very narrow and would not have applied to nearly anyone if we attempt to backwardly apply concepts to historical personages. Jefferson was a humanist in the sense that he was interested in the humanities—which goes back to Cicero’s call for a study of the HUMANE/HUMAN things, and not metaphysics or the immaterial. This is why he avoids the question of the divinity, as in the quote I provided in the other post, and focuses on things in the world, worldly things, things that humans deal with. This is what Humanism meant during the time of the Renaissance on up through Jefferson’s time. “Secular” as we use it today did not have the same meaning, so he wouldn’t have used it. He did, though, advocate all of the things that “secular humanists” (who are not necessarily atheistic, but who call for a freedom of religion and science) call for.

I must say, this is an excellent point you've made here, sophocles07. I do believe that Jefferson was a humanist, as you've rightly proven, but my conclusion was that he never claimed to be a humanist. According to his own theology, Jefferson believed that he was maintaining a sound Christian position, all the while denying Christ's spiritual/divine nature and praising Jesus's moral teachings. Perhaps my argument that he never claimed to be a secular humanist was made a posteriori in relation to 20th Century notions of secular humanism. I grant you that, and I stand corrected.

You say he was not the only representative of the Founders; obviously. He is the Father I am most familiar with; John Adams, too. Adams presented nearly the same kind of radical “Christianity” and skepticism, calling for religious freedom and scientific and historical study. See Adams to Jefferson letters, Adams all over the place discusses Christianity. He also professes extreme admiration for the Hindu religion, as does he for Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus—both pagan belief systems. I am not saying you will not somewhere find Adams professing admiration for Christianity—obviously he did—but he did not solely believe in the Bible, nor did he base his contributions to the religious freedoms of the land on “Judeo-Christian principles.”

In one of his letters to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813, John Adams made the following proclamation that American independence was achieved upon the principles of Christianity:

Without wishing to damp the Ardor of curiosity, or influence the freedom of inquiry, I will hazard a prediction, that after the most industrious and impartial Researches, the longest liver of you all, will find no Principles, Institutions, or Systems of Education, more fit, IN GENERAL to be transmitted to your Posterity, than those you have received from you[r] Ancestors.

Who composed that Army of fine young Fellows that was then before my Eyes? There were among them, Roman Catholicks, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anababtists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists; and "Protestans qui ne croyent rien ["Protestants who believe nothing"]." Very few however of several of these Species. Nevertheless all Educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty.

Could my Answer be understood, by any candid Reader or Hearer, to recommend, to all the others, the general Principles, Institutions or Systems of Education of the Roman Catholicks? Or those of the Quakers? Or those of the Presbyterians? Or those of the Menonists? Or those of the Methodists? or those of the Moravians? Or those of the Universalists? or those of the Philosophers? No.

The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were united: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.

Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System. I could therefore safely say, consistently with all my then and present Information, that I believed they would never make Discoveries in contradiction to these general Principles. In favour of these general Principles in Phylosophy, Religion and Government, I could fill Sheets of quotations from Frederick of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Reausseau and Voltaire, as well as Neuton and Locke: not to mention thousands of Divines and Philosophers of inferiour Fame.

(Source: The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams, edited by Lester J. Cappon,
1988, the University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC, pp. 338-340.)

Also, could you show me where Adams expresses his admiration for the Hindu and Greek pagan religions? I'm just curious about that one.

One can also look to Madison, who called for religious freedom to all men. See his “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, 1785,” wherein he makes the point, “Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?” He also pretty well destroys the notion of theocratic government, or any laws set up to make Christianity have “a dependence on the powers of this world.” See also his letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822.

Again, Madison even may call himself a “Christian”. This does not mean that he helped in his contributions to the nation on the grounds of Judeo-Christian principles alone. It is obvious that the influx of Enlightenment, Pagan (Greek and Roman), European philosophy in general all influenced the establishment of American republicanism more than any Christian principle---principles which had for nearly 2 centuries (add on top of that the theocracy of the Jewish religion) had the world under religious domination by, as Madison puts it, “pride and indolence in the Clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” (Memorial and Remonstrance, 1785)

I think you're misreading what James Madison is arguing in his Remonstrance to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Madison is making the point that civil government should never dictate to the masses what the Christian religion is. His assessment is that civil bodies and ecclesiastical bodies have different functions in any society, and he draws upon the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church in its church-state relations in Europe. Case in point, he says this in Tenet #7:

Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. 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. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?

To me, Madison here is making the point that the Church and State should be separate in the free exercise (worship practices) of the Christian religion, which I agree with. Keep in mind, though, Madison never said that men should not believe or had a right not to believe in God because in the first tenet of his Remonstrance, he says this:

Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association, must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the General Authority; much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no mans right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

(emphasis mine)

If you read through Madison's Remonstrance, it's pretty clear that he did not want the State to determine how the citizens should worship God in the Christian religion, and his context was dealing with the various Christian sects/denominations of his time within the Church.

“Secular Humanism” narrowly should be thrown out as an appellation here. FREETHOUGHT vs Orthodoxy/Theocracy are what we’re talking about. One can be humanist, pagan, Christian, and Hindu to a certain degree; all of these can influence your thought, and any number of philosophical ideas influenced Jefferson (and the Founders in general).

Ah, yes. The old "I'm a Freethinker and Christians Are Not" tactic. The fallacy of your argument is based on the "myth of neutrality." You've already assumed that your beliefs are neutral, while everyone else's are religious, but nothing could be further from the truth. Nobody is neutral in their beliefs because we all have presuppositions or things we take for granted when we believe and argue about anything. Jefferson was not a "freethinker" because his beliefs, as I've mentioned before, were based heavily upon the moral teachings of Jesus. The humanist is not a "freethinker" because he gets his beliefs from something somewhere in the universe, whether it's by looking at the natural world or by reading the writings of a non-theist. Thoughts do not come about in a vacuum, and they are based upon one's worldview of assumptions about the nature of reality, knowledge, morality, etc. (You've heard me spout this all before, I know.).

My point is you're no more a "freethinker" as an agnostic than I am as a Christian theist, and the same goes for all of our Founding Fathers. They gleaned their ideas primarily from the Bible or from those who themselves quoted the Bible in their works. And yes, there were other non-Christian influences, too, in some of the Founders' political theories, but that still didn't make them any more of a "freethinker" than the others who used Christian influences in their political theories.

 

[sophocles07]

With the exception of your suggestion about a Platonic influence of immaterialism upon the Christian understanding of the Godhead in the Nicene Creed, I would have to say that I agree with you about Jefferson not being a Christian.

I didn’t mean to say that it was necessarily an influence on the Creed, but it has definitely influenced Christianity through the years. (There may be influence in the Nicene Creed; if not influence, they are at least similar in certain points.)

Without wishing to damp the Ardor of curiosity, or influence the freedom of inquiry, I will hazard a prediction, that after the most industrious and impartial Researches, the longest liver of you all, will find no Principles, Institutions, or Systems of Education, more fit, IN GENERAL to be transmitted to your Posterity, than those you have received from you[r] Ancestors.

Who composed that Army of fine young Fellows that was then before my Eyes? There were among them, Roman Catholicks, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anababtists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists; and "Protestans qui ne croyent rien ["Protestants who believe nothing"]." Very few however of several of these Species. Nevertheless all Educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty.

Could my Answer be understood, by any candid Reader or Hearer, to recommend, to all the others, the general Principles, Institutions or Systems of Education of the Roman Catholicks? Or those of the Quakers? Or those of the Presbyterians? Or those of the Menonists? Or those of the Methodists? or those of the Moravians? Or those of the Universalists? or those of the Philosophers? No.

The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were united: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.

Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System. I could therefore safely say, consistently with all my then and present Information, that I believed they would never make Discoveries in contradiction to these general Principles. In favour of these general Principles in Phylosophy, Religion and Government, I could fill Sheets of quotations from Frederick of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Reausseau and Voltaire, as well as Neuton and Locke: not to mention thousands of Divines and Philosophers of inferiour Fame.

I do realize these points. On the other hand, though Adams was not as non-Christian as Jefferson, he still was rather radical compared to the orthodoxy of his time. Also, this is a letter in a long discussion Jefferson and Adams have on religion, and Christianity in particular, and doesn’t give the whole picture of Adams on Christianity. Just scanning back through, on page 362 (of same book you quoted), Adams speaks of gathering knowledge from many different sources:

I blame you not for reading Euclid and Newton, Thucidides and Theocritus: for I believe you will find as much entertainment and Instruction in them as I have found, in my Theological and Ecclesiastical Instructors: Or even as I have found in a profound Investigation of the Life Writings and Doctrines of Erastus, whose Disciples were Milton, Harrington, Selden, St. John, the Chief Justice, Father of Bolingbroke, and others the choicest Spirits of their Age: or in La Harpes History of the Philosophy of the 18th Century, or in Van der Kemps vast Map of the Causes of the Revolutionary Spirit, in the same and preceeding Centuries. These Things are to me, at present, the Marbles and Nine Pins of old Age: I will not say the Beads and Prayer Books.

He, on page 365, goes into his interest in Theognis in more detail—a poet of extreme interest by the way—and on pages 375-377 goes into Platonic philosophy. On page 405 Adams asks many questions on the historical truth of the New Testament—“witnesses” there or not? Adams discusses “Hindoo religion” on p 427; on 465 he speaks of preferring the “Shastra of Indostan” to the philosophy of “Grimm and Diderot, Frederick and D’Alembert.” There are other references—he was well-read. Etc. It’s obvious that Adams was very widely familiar with the expanse of human philosophies, even if he said he was a Christian (which I have no reason to doubt he was, only to say he wasn’t hardline orthodox and founded much of his thought on other sources).

Also, could you show me where Adams expresses his admiration for the Hindu and Greek pagan religions? I'm just curious about that one.

On Greek pagan religion—look at his letters there on the Cleanthes hymn, it should be in the index; look at Theocritus, from whom his ideas of aristocracy related to. (I’m not sure if any references are made to Theocritus’ religion, but he didn’t really deal (Theocritus) with the subject very much...you’ll know why if you look at the historical situation of the time.)

I think you're misreading what James Madison is arguing in his Remonstrance to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Madison is making the point that civil government should never dictate to the masses what the Christian religion is. His assessment is that civil bodies and ecclesiastical bodies have different functions in any society, and he draws upon the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church in its church-state relations in Europe. Case in point, he says this in Tenet #7:

Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. 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. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?

To me, Madison here is making the point that the Church and State should be separate in the free exercise (worship practices) of the Christian religion, which I agree with. Keep in mind, though, Madison never said that men should not believe or had a right not to believe in God because in the first tenet of his Remonstrance, he says this:

Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association, must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the General Authority; much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no mans right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

(emphasis mine)

If you read through Madison's Remonstrance, it's pretty clear that he did not want the State to determine how the citizens should worship God in the Christian religion, and his context was dealing with the various Christian sects/denominations of his time within the Church.

It is true what you say, that Madison thought religion was better off without government interference: note his sentence in his letter to Edward Livingston, 10 July 1822: “...Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt.” On the other hand, it is clear that he is not employing this idea in a narrow sense: he is saying that you are responsible to yourself alone, and thus to your Creator alone—and “Creator” can mean anything, which is why it is employed; an Atheist has a creator in the sense that he was created through natural causation. A man is responsible only to his own mind and his own God—not to the government—in the realm of belief.

On saying it was “not ok” to not believe: the idea itself disrupts any punishment for non-belief. Government has nothing to do with it, so there is no way to punish a person for not believing (and I don’t think Madison would have punished you for not believing anyway).

Ah, yes. The old "I'm a Freethinker and Christians Are Not" tactic. The fallacy of your argument is based on the "myth of neutrality."

Let me say this: this is not necessarily what I meant. I mean, as I SAID IN THE QUOTE you have taken from my post, that one can be a Christian but also be a freethinker—as with Adams. I did not say Christians are not freethinkers; I said Theocratic/Orthodoxists are not freethinkers.

You've already assumed that your beliefs are neutral, while everyone else's are religious, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Not true. I am not neutral.

Nobody is neutral in their beliefs because we all have presuppositions or things we take for granted when we believe and argue about anything. Jefferson was not a "freethinker" because his beliefs, as I've mentioned before, were based heavily upon the moral teachings of Jesus.

That has nothing to do with it. My behavior has a lot to do with Jesus as I was raised a Christian; my views are usually in consonance with his teachings (as they are with Confucius and many moral philosophers); this does not mean I’m “not a freethinker”—it means I can combine Jesus’ teachings with others’ ideas and not be stumped down to one spot.

The humanist is not a "freethinker" because he gets his beliefs from something somewhere in the universe, whether it's by looking at the natural world or by reading the writings of a non-theist. Thoughts do not come about in a vacuum, and they are based upon one's worldview of assumptions about the nature of reality, knowledge, morality, etc. (You've heard me spout this all before, I know.).

Free Thought is the ability to think about—to be influenced, take in influence, re-interpret it, use perception and experience, deduce things from it, experiment, read widely and take from it what you will, use it how you will, in combination with what you want or what draws your fancy; it is not “spontaneous composition of original ideas”...it’s naive to believe that has ever happened. Free thought is a little bit of a badly named term; it is free only insofar as it allows the mind leeway to read and do whatever it desires, etc. The mind goes where it is drawn. There are no precepts except those you yourself validate through logic, rationality, experience, or other means. You don’t read that Jesus was born of a virgin; then think “that can’t be possible”; then believe it merely because it is in a book; that’s not free thought; free thought says, ...”well, maybe that part isn’t true.” And continues down the path of learning and study.

My point is you're no more a "freethinker" as an agnostic than I am as a Christian theist, and the same goes for all of our Founding Fathers. They gleaned their ideas primarily from the Bible or from those who themselves quoted the Bible in their works. And yes, there were other non-Christian influences, too, in some of the Founders' political theories, but that still didn't make them any more of a "freethinker" than the others who used Christian influences in their political theories.

Well, you’d have to go person by person. I’d say they were all “freethinkers” as far as I know. Revolutionaries always are.

 

[adara7537]

I am sooooo sick of this argument, if the damn founding fathers wanted this to be a Christian nation they would have designed it as such.

I think they did damn well to make sure it was not specific in this regard-doesn't that say enough?

Who fucking cares if they were Christian or anything else, the point is that church and state are to be separate, we were given rights by our creator (mind you not god and not jesus), and that is the end of the story. Why do you people insist on debating this? And go read Age of Reason would you? Or Memorial and Remonstrance. I think it speaks volumes on what some of them were afraid religious influence could do.

And shall we have Baptist, Catholic, or Protestant influence? Maybe Episcopalian? Or how about Southern Baptist-that would be good...right?

So please give it up, we are not a Christian nation and never will be and there is a very good reason for this.

I am sure some of the founders were Christian and I damn well guarantee you that some of them weren't, but the whole POINT is that they did not want religion and government to be mixed. Why is this so hard to understand and why do you people keep debating this?

 

[Tdcci]

Why do you people insist on debating this?

People are very fond of the history and the founding of America, because it is one of the first countries founded on the ideas of personal liberty, seperation of church and state, and limited government. Christians want to first pervert this by associating it with Christianity, or Christian morality, then overthrow the government creating a theocratic state, as exists in Iran or Saudi Arabia.

 

[familydog]

I am sooooo sick of this argument, if the damn founding fathers wanted this to be a Christian nation they would have designed it as such.

I think they did damn well to make sure it was not specific in this regard-doesn't that say enough?

Who fucking cares if they were Christian or anything else, the point is that church and state are to be separate, we were given rights by our creator (mind you not god and not jesus), and that is the end of the story. Why do you people insist on debating this? And go read Age of Reason would you? Or Memorial and Remonstrance. I think it speaks volumes on what some of them were afraid religious influence could do.

And shall we have Baptist, Catholic, or Protestant influence? Maybe Episcopalian? Or how about Southern Baptist-that would be good...right?

So please give it up, we are not a Christian nation and never will be and there is a very good reason for this.

I am sure some of the founders were Christian and I damn well guarantee you that some of them weren't, but the whole POINT is that they did not want religion and government to be mixed. Why is this so hard to understand and why do you people keep debating this?

I just like to argue, that's why I debate it

You need to understand the difference between a "nation" and a "state." It seems not many people do. The framers of the Constitution, no matter how hard they try, can't create a "nation." They can only create a state.

A state is "a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign b: the political organization of such a body of people"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/state

A nation is a group of people with similar experiences, identity, history, religion, language, etc that live in one area. However, this by itself is just an ethnic group, what makes this ethnic group a "nation," is that they desire to be self governing, to have soverignty (brought on by a state). See Kurds and Palestinians. They are a "nation," but not a state. See Ernest Renan's "What is a Nation?" for a better explanation.
http://www.tamilnation.org/selfdetermination/nation/renan.htm

Therefore, because the colonists shared a common territory, language, religious affiliation (Christianity), history, identity, etc, etc, and they desired to create a "state" to govern this "nation," the colonies are considered a "nation." Now, does the "state" that is created around the "nation" have to be (in the instance of the colonies) Christian? No.

With all that said, when the United States was formed, we were a Christian "nation-state." That does not mean Christianity was fused with the government. It simply means there is a soverign governing body creating by the nation, in order to govern itself. In many respects, we arguably still do have one, but that is not the subject of this debate.

Also, it is absurd to think that Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Adams, etc wanted a Christian "state" and were influenced by the Bible to write and draft the Constitution. There is nothing in history to suggest this.

However, "the founders" go beyond a few elites and a document (the Constitution). "The founders" were everybody that participated in the American Revolution, whether it was your average yeoman farmer, camp follower during the war, merchent, political leader, etc. With that said, we need to take in to account everybody. Was everybody deist or non-religious like many of our most famous founders? No, those few founders were in the minority.

The "other founders" that no one speaks of were very religious, very Christian, based founding state and local laws of their religion, and even some of our founding historical documents (Virginia Declaration of Rights, Articles of Confederation) were heavily influenced by Christianity.

The only thing I'm trying to "prove" is that Christianity played a major role in the founding of our country, just not in the conventional sense (the framing of the Consitution is an example).

 

[Deborah K]

People are very fond of the history and the founding of America, because it is one of the first countries founded on the ideas of personal liberty, seperation of church and state, and limited government. Christians want to first pervert this by associating it with Christianity, or Christian morality, then overthrow the government creating a theocratic state, as exists in Iran or Saudi Arabia.

You are a bigot. Nothing you write has any relevance.

 

[Tdcci]

You are a bigot. Nothing you write has any relevance.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

 

[Deborah K]

I am sooooo sick of this argument, if the damn founding fathers wanted this to be a Christian nation they would have designed it as such.

I think they did damn well to make sure it was not specific in this regard-doesn't that say enough?

Who fucking cares if they were Christian or anything else, the point is that church and state are to be separate, we were given rights by our creator (mind you not god and not jesus), and that is the end of the story. Why do you people insist on debating this? And go read Age of Reason would you? Or Memorial and Remonstrance. I think it speaks volumes on what some of them were afraid religious influence could do.

And shall we have Baptist, Catholic, or Protestant influence? Maybe Episcopalian? Or how about Southern Baptist-that would be good...right?

So please give it up, we are not a Christian nation and never will be and there is a very good reason for this.

I am sure some of the founders were Christian and I damn well guarantee you that some of them weren't, but the whole POINT is that they did not want religion and government to be mixed. Why is this so hard to understand and why do you people keep debating this?

If you even read my OP you would understand that my objective is to try and quell the ridiculous notion that Judeo-Christian principles are excluded from the founding of this country. It is atheistic revisionism and based on distorted truths and outright lies. If you intend to refute the research I have provided that gives evidence to my stance on this, then do so. So far none of you geniuses have refuted it. You just put forth erroneous arguments like the above which have nothing to do with my point.

 

[Robert Jenkins]

America was largely founded on Christian principles, not communist judeo ones.

If you are a loyal American, and a loyal Christian, do not ever use the term "judeo-Christian". Christians believe that Jesus is Lord. judeos believe that Mary was a whore, that our Lord was a bastard, and that He is now burning in hell, as stated by their talmud.

 

[Deborah K]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Deborah K]

America was largely founded on Christian principles, not communist judeo ones.

If you are a loyal American, and a loyal Christian, do not ever use the term "judeo-Christian". Christians believe that Jesus is Lord. judeos believe that Mary was a whore, that our Lord was a bastard, and that He is now burning in hell, as stated by their talmud.

Christ was a Jew, his followers were all Jews, the Old Testament comes from the Torah. To deny that Christianity was born out of Judaism is ignorant.

 

[Deborah K]

I just like to argue, that's why I debate it

You need to understand the difference between a "nation" and a "state." It seems not many people do. The framers of the Constitution, no matter how hard they try, can't create a "nation." They can only create a state.

A state is "a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign b: the political organization of such a body of people"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/state

A nation is a group of people with similar experiences, identity, history, religion, language, etc that live in one area. However, this by itself is just an ethnic group, what makes this ethnic group a "nation," is that they desire to be self governing, to have soverignty (brought on by a state). See Kurds and Palestinians. They are a "nation," but not a state. See Ernest Renan's "What is a Nation?" for a better explanation.
http://www.tamilnation.org/selfdetermination/nation/renan.htm

Therefore, because the colonists shared a common territory, language, religious affiliation (Christianity), history, identity, etc, etc, and they desired to create a "state" to govern this "nation," the colonies are considered a "nation." Now, does the "state" that is created around the "nation" have to be (in the instance of the colonies) Christian? No.

With all that said, when the United States was formed, we were a Christian "nation-state." That does not mean Christianity was fused with the government. It simply means there is a soverign governing body creating by the nation, in order to govern itself. In many respects, we arguably still do have one, but that is not the subject of this debate.

Also, it is absurd to think that Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Adams, etc wanted a Christian "state" and were influenced by the Bible to write and draft the Constitution. There is nothing in history to suggest this.

However, "the founders" go beyond a few elites and a document (the Constitution). "The founders" were everybody that participated in the American Revolution, whether it was your average yeoman farmer, camp follower during the war, merchent, political leader, etc. With that said, we need to take in to account everybody. Was everybody deist or non-religious like many of our most famous founders? No, those few founders were in the minority.

The "other founders" that no one speaks of were very religious, very Christian, based founding state and local laws of their religion, and even some of our founding historical documents (Virginia Declaration of Rights, Articles of Confederation) were heavily influenced by Christianity.

The only thing I'm trying to "prove" is that Christianity played a major role in the founding of our country, just not in the conventional sense (the framing of the Consitution is an example).

You are a great debater.

 

[sophocles07]

If you even read my OP you would understand that my objective is to try and quell the ridiculous notion that Judeo-Christian principles are excluded from the founding of this country. It is atheistic revisionism and based on distorted truths and outright lies. If you intend to refute the research I have provided that gives evidence to my stance on this, then do so. So far none of you geniuses have refuted it. You just put forth erroneous arguments like the above which have nothing to do with my point.

I came into this thread late, and haven’t read through all of the posts. I don’t see anything wrong with allowing Judeo-Christian principles a place among the philosophical/ethical/whatever systems that influenced the founders. It’s obvious it did. What I’m saying is: the real point is that Judeo-Christian principles do not govern the nation; freedom of religion is one of the main ideas; this would never have come about had it not been for the influence of pagan and enlightenment philosophers. You must also note that I am a bit unsure sometimes who is advocating what—as Theocrat does indeed advocate theocracy.

America was largely founded on Christian principles, not communist judeo ones.

If you are a loyal American, and a loyal Christian, do not ever use the term "judeo-Christian". Christians believe that Jesus is Lord. judeos believe that Mary was a whore, that our Lord was a bastard, and that He is now burning in hell, as stated by their talmud.

Wow you’re stupid.