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

[Deborah K]

The key question is, so what?

I see. Now that there is no one to refute the study, the rebuttle has gone from: "NO, America was NOT founded on Judeo-Christian principles"

to :

"So what?"

LOL!!

As to the rest of your post..... off topic and irrelevant to the debate at hand.

 

[Deborah K]

I think one should note that in the back of my mind (and probably Kade’s) is that we’re arguing against one member here (Theocrat) who actually does advocate theocracy.



What exactly are you wanting here? I think Kade’s admitted that Christianity had “an impact” on the founding of the country. He’s saying that Enlightenment philosophy the most important factor—a fact I can’t see any reason to disagree with. The enlightenment gave rise to new interpretations of the Christian religion, and produced the potential of a death to orthodoxy. Are you advocating no separation between church and state, or what?



OR

it’s not that simple.

“Judeo-Christian” principles means any number of things based on who is doing the interpreting, as I’ve stated before in this thread. It’s not an absolute. What Jefferson took from Christianity was not the same as what Aquinas—who supported monarchy, and thought it was divine-right—took from it. The same goes for Adams, Madison, or whomever. To reduce this extremely complex issue to “CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES, FUCK DUHH!” or “NO CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES, ...” is just a pitiful execution of historical interpretation.



This means very little. Context is the matter. The same could be said of Nietzsche, the writer of The Anti-Christ. He probably quotes the Bible more than anything else; it doesn’t mean his writings were based in “Judeo-Christian principles.” Jefferson quotes it all the time; he didn’t have the same Christianity in mind that Pope Leo the Great did.

My, how the winds of this debate have changed. Now, all of the sudden, the issue is "extremely complex". There's no more outright denial of Christian influence on the founding of this country. I think we're making progress.

As to your last comment, I suggest you read the study before you make blanket statements about from where the quotes were taken.

And, btw, your vulgar use of language to make your point just makes you appear juvenile and weakens your argument.

 

[sophocles07]

My, how the winds of this debate have changed. Now, all of the sudden, the issue is "extremely complex". There's no more outright denial of Christian influence on the founding of this country. I think we're making progress.

If you look over my posts in this thread, you'll find I never denied this. And always maintained the complexity of the situation.

As to your last comment, I suggest you read the study before you make blanket statements about from where the quotes were taken.

Fair enough.

And, btw, your vulgar use of language to make your point just makes you appear juvenile and weakens your argument.

I don't consider it vulgar. I consider it vernacular. BUT, I was also mocking someone being simplistic and immature about complexity, so it could be argued that the above use is indeed employed in the way you read it. "Bad words" as a concept is something I do not accept; Dante uses "bad words"; Catullus, Joyce, Pound, etc., all use "bad words"; the concept is one completely devoid of backing, and is simply used by people without thinking to call someone else "immature" or "vulgar" (which means "common" in Latin by the way, i.e., vernacular). See Petronius.

 

[Deborah K]

If you look over my posts in this thread, you'll find I never denied this. And always maintained the complexity of the situation.



Fair enough.



I don't consider it vulgar. I consider it vernacular. BUT, I was also mocking someone being simplistic and immature about complexity, so it could be argued that the above use is indeed employed in the way you read it. "Bad words" as a concept is something I do not accept; Dante uses "bad words"; Catullus, Joyce, Pound, etc., all use "bad words"; the concept is one completely devoid of backing, and is simply used by people without thinking to call someone else "immature" or "vulgar" (which means "common" in Latin by the way, i.e., vernacular). See Petronius.

Because I don't agree with you that the issue is "extremely complex" that makes me immature? I used the word "vulgar" in its proper context so I'm not following your line of logic on this. At any rate, quibbling about this is a waste of time. This is not as complex as you are trying to make it out to be.

 

[sophocles07]

Because I don't agree with you that the issue is "extremely complex" that makes me immature? I used the word "vulgar" in its proper context so I'm not following your line of logic on this. At any rate, quibbling about this is a waste of time. This is not as complex as you are trying to make it out to be.

It has nothing to do with "agreeing with me". This is applicable to almost any--I would say probably "all"--historical circumstance, especially one dealing with very intelligent men founding a revolutionary society.

My point is that an urge to say "that's it" is ridiculous. I don't even understand the urge to do so. It demotes our Founding Fathers to pitiful simpletons. It demotes thought processes--including the reading of texts, the interpretation thereof, the relation of thought and philosophy of the contemporary moment to the reading and interpretation of texts, and all of this as it manifested itself into concrete action and written word--to something not even human in its simplicity.

Again: what are you wanting me to admit here? I've already said Judeo-Christian texts and ideas influenced the founding of the nation. I'm not an atheist (I am agnostic). I'm merely asking for a little less one-sidedness to the subject, and less narrow evaluation of any such subject.

As to "my line of logic on this"..."bad words"...yeah, as far as I can tell there is no other line of logic because the repulsion at "bad words" is illogical. It's such a petty, irrational issue; I get tired of people saying "you're immature" when they hear a "curse" word. It's ridiculous.

 

[sophocles07]

See for Aeschylus' use of obscenity, too: The American Journal of Philology Vol 101, No 1, 1980, pp/ 44-6.

They're all over the place.

 

[Deborah K]

As to "my line of logic on this"..."bad words"...yeah, as far as I can tell there is no other line of logic because the repulsion at "bad words" is illogical. It's such a petty, irrational issue; I get tired of people saying "you're immature" when they hear a "curse" word. It's ridiculous

I use foul language regularly. But there is a time and place for it, imo. In this case, it diminishes the debate. Enough already about this, please.

Again: what are you wanting me to admit here? I've already said Judeo-Christian texts and ideas influenced the founding of the nation. I'm not an atheist (I am agnostic). I'm merely asking for a little less one-sidedness to the subject, and less narrow evaluation of any such subject.

I don't want anything from you. It was you who initiated dialogue with me. I merely responded. If you don't have a problem with my assertion then we have no debate.

Look, I have already stated that I agree the founders were influenced by the enlightenment era, etc. My objective in starting this thread was to quell the ridiculous notion that Christianity had nothing to do with the founding of this country as is put forth by the atheist community. Their claim is that the founders were all deists and atheists and that Christian principles had no influence. They deny that the first Americans were Christian (Jamestown), and that the subsequent colonies were populated by practising Christians, and that the majority of founding fathers were Christians and that our founding documents were influenced by Christian principles. They vehemently deny all of this using lies and distorted truths, resulting in legions of uninformed people (sheeple) thinking that we were founded as a secular nation. We were NOT. It's the revisionist history that I have a problem with.

I think it was Lenin who said 'If you repeat a lie often enough, people will begin to believe it.'

 

[sophocles07]

I don't want anything from you. It was you who initiated dialogue with me. I merely responded. If you don't have a problem with my assertion then we have no debate.

Alright.

Look, I have already stated that I agree the founders were influenced by the enlightenment era, etc. My objective in starting this thread was to quell the ridiculous notion that Christianity had nothing to do with the founding of this country as is put forth by the atheist community. Their claim is that the founders were all deists and atheists and that Christian principles had no influence. They deny that the first Americans were Christian (Jamestown), and that the subsequent colonies were populated by practising Christians, and that the majority of founding fathers were Christians and that our founding documents were influenced by Christian principles. They vehemently deny all of this using lies and distorted truths, resulting in legions of uninformed people (sheeple) thinking that we were founded as a secular nation. We were NOT. It's the revisionist history that I have a problem with.

I think it was Lenin who said 'If you repeat a lie often enough, people will begin to believe it.'

Alright. I suppose we have no real argument here.

My question, though, would be: what’s your position on the relationship of church to state? Allowing that Christianity influenced the founding of the country, does that have any bearing on the separation of these two institutions? I think it’s clear from reading the Founders that the idea was that you were free to believe whatever you want, god or no god or many gods, and that should have no influence on how you are treated, how laws are passed, etc.

 

[Deborah K]

Alright.



Alright. I suppose we have no real argument here.

My question, though, would be: what’s your position on the relationship of church to state? Allowing that Christianity influenced the founding of the country, does that have any bearing on the separation of these two institutions? I think it’s clear from reading the Founders that the idea was that you were free to believe whatever you want, god or no god or many gods, and that should have no influence on how you are treated, how laws are passed, etc.

Agreed. I believe exactly what the first amendment states on this issue. That the government has no business establishing a religion for the people, and that the government has no right to prohibit the free exercise of religion. So when a valedictorian wants to include in his speech that he is grateful to God for his blessings, or when a football team wants to kneel and pray before a game, it puts my panties in a big tight knot when the school prohibits it. Or when the Boy Scouts are suddenly prohibited from using a public park, or the local school to have their meetings, or when an atheist sues a city over a cross on a mountain, I see red. It violates the free exercise clause and cannot be interpreted as the government establishing a religion, which is the excuse used for all of this nonsense.

If you want to debate the so-called Separation of Church and State issue, then we should start another thread.

 

[adara7537]

Righteous of me to claim that the orginal settlers to this nation were Christians? Righteous of me to claim that the founding documents were written by Christians using Christian principles?

It is a fact and it is beyond me why there are so many people who feel sooooo threatened by it to the degree that they will twist this issue up into a pretzel in order to make themselves feel better about this.

Again, my point in starting this thread was to produce research that gives evidence to the fact that Christian principles played a significant role in the founding of this country. To categorically deny this flies in the face of an intellectually honest debate.

Yes, yes that's what I said righteous.

Hmmm, must be nice for you but I can understand completely why people would feel so threatened. I already briefly discussed this in a different thread and do not care to do so again in this one.

I think what you are missing in what I am trying to say is that the founding documents were not written by Christians alone. The founding settlers where of other religions besides Christianity. That is all I am saying, don't disregard this and try to make it seem as though Christianity is the only thing that played a hand in it. Don't disregard the fact that what the country was really founded on is HUMAN principles. Ones we ALL agree on regardless of religion or anything else. And don't disregard the fact that these principles were in place well before Christianity.

 

[familydog]

What empiracle evidence is there to suggest the Enlightenment was the most important in terms of influence? I've made the case that Christianity played as much of a role as the Enlightenment with regards to the founding. I didn't argue to prove my side is better than anyone else's side. Deborah K is correct in her assertion that Christniaty has been downplayed in the founding. I can speak specifically for the academic community. I don't care what Jerry Fallwell thinks, I care what academia thinks.

As for the "who cares" line of questioning, it matters because the matter is not settled. As someone with a passionate interest in history, questions without answers matter. They may not matter to you, but in terms of intellectual thinking, if you have a set a questions, and set out to answer those questions, it matters. Even if only three people in the world care besides you. That is what the pursuit of knowledge, and the stimulation of intellect is all about.

 

[Deborah K]

Yes, yes that's what I said righteous.

You think that because you have not read everything I've written about this. Don't you think you should read everything a person writes before you pass judgement on them?

Hmmm, must be nice for you but I can understand completely why people would feel so threatened. I already briefly discussed this in a different thread and do not care to do so again in this one.

Fear and contempt are not good reasons for revising history.

I think what you are missing in what I am trying to say is that the founding documents were not written by Christians alone. The founding settlers where of other religions besides Christianity. That is all I am saying, don't disregard this and try to make it seem as though Christianity is the only thing that played a hand in it. Don't disregard the fact that what the country was really founded on is HUMAN principles. Ones we ALL agree on regardless of religion or anything else. And don't disregard the fact that these principles were in place well before Christianity

Produce the evidence that shows that there were founders of other religions who wrote the DOI and the Constitution. If you are going to make such claims, you should back them up with evidence. Here is my evidence that the founders were Christians: http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

The argument that these principles were in place long before Christianity is fallacious because it completely misses the point. I am getting bored with having to explain this over and over again. Read my previous post to understand my intention for this thread and try to stick to the debate at hand.

 

[sophocles07]

Agreed. I believe exactly what the first amendment states on this issue. That the government has no business establishing a religion for the people, and that the government has no right to prohibit the free exercise of religion. So when a valedictorian wants to include in his speech that he is grateful to God for his blessings, or when a football team wants to kneel and pray before a game, it puts my panties in a big tight knot when the school prohibits it. Or when the Boy Scouts are suddenly prohibited from using a public park, or the local school to have their meetings, or when an atheist sues a city over a cross on a mountain, I see red. It violates the free exercise clause and cannot be interpreted as the government establishing a religion, which is the excuse used for all of this nonsense.

I agree with all of this.

If you want to debate the so-called Separation of Church and State issue, then we should start another thread.

Well, unless you have some sort of Christian-centered view on this (that they should not be separated), there is no reason for such a thread.

What empiracle evidence is there to suggest the Enlightenment was the most important in terms of influence?

I could go through writings and find quotes, etc., but that’s a lot of work. I know for sure that Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Franklin, etc. were all influenced by various Enlightenment ideas. Jefferson in particular. There’s probably also ample information on this on the internet and in history books. Also, I think it’s very important to note that the modern ideas of republican government sprang out of Enlightenment thought (Voltaire, Rousseau, Paine, Locke, Spinoza, Tocqueville, Hume, Smith, etc. etc.), as did ideas of equality, modern conceptions of “rights” etc. I don’t see how, even without detailed analysis, anyone could think this wasn’t the major philosophical and social influence on the thought of the Founders. It comes directly from it; many of the Founders are considered figures of the Enlightenment themselves.

I’m not providing a database of source information...it’s there though, in the writings of the Founders. Perhaps Kade or someone else here has an easy link with some information.

 

[adara7537]

You think that because you have not read everything I've written about this. Don't you think you should read everything a person writes before you pass judgement on them?



Fear and contempt are not good reasons for revising history.





Produce the evidence that shows that there were founders of other religions who wrote the DOI and the Constitution. If you are going to make such claims, you should back them up with evidence. Here is my evidence that the founders were Christians: http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

The argument that these principles were in place long before Christianity is fallacious because it completely misses the point. I am getting bored with having to explain this over and over again. Read my previous post to understand my intention for this thread and try to stick to the debate at hand.

Perhaps, but this is a long thread.

I won't touch that one.

I know that this has been discussed on several other threads and I don't feel like wasting my time rehashing it. Inevitably we would get into arguments such as I say Paine and then you say-he didn't write the DOI or the Constitution. And then we could argue about Madison and it could go on and on and on and I just don't feel like it. I don't much like debate online. As you can see I don't post much, I suppose I should keep it that way.

I don't see how it misses the point. Maybe I missed your rebuttal to whomever originally pointed this out, this is a LONG thread.

To spare you wasting your time, I won't be back, so no need for rebuttal.

 

[Deborah K]

I agree with all of this.



Well, unless you have some sort of Christian-centered view on this (that they should not be separated), there is no reason for such a thread.



I could go through writings and find quotes, etc., but that’s a lot of work. I know for sure that Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Franklin, etc. were all influenced by various Enlightenment ideas. Jefferson in particular. There’s probably also ample information on this on the internet and in history books. Also, I think it’s very important to note that the modern ideas of republican government sprang out of Enlightenment thought (Voltaire, Rousseau, Paine, Locke, Spinoza, Tocqueville, Hume, Smith, etc. etc.), as did ideas of equality, modern conceptions of “rights” etc. I don’t see how, even without detailed analysis, anyone could think this wasn’t the major philosophical and social influence on the thought of the Founders. It comes directly from it; many of the Founders are considered figures of the Enlightenment themselves.

I’m not providing a database of source information...it’s there though, in the writings of the Founders. Perhaps Kade or someone else here has an easy link with some information.

I do have a Christian-centered view on SOCS but my view is based primarily on the Supreme Court cases that have systematically removed religion from the public arena, as in the case of the Ten Commandments being stripped away from court houses, etc. and prayer in school being prohibited. These things were considered perfectly Constitutional for over 175 years.

But, as to your question of whether I think the religion of Christianity should be inseparable from the government, that would violate the first amendment, so no, I don't agree with it. I don't want laws passed that are based on religious morality like making adultery or homosexuality illegal, etc. I just don't think that religion should be boxed up and hidden away from the public arena the way the secularists are trying to make it. People should be free to practise it where ever they want. I mean, Congress prays before each session for Pete's sake.

 

[sophocles07]

I do have a Christian-centered view on SOCS but my view is based primarily on the Supreme Court cases that have systematically removed religion from the public arena, as in the case of the Ten Commandments being stripped away from court houses, etc. and prayer in school being prohibited. These things were considered perfectly Constitutional for over 175 years.

Well, all we would really go into is: I don’t think the Ten Commandments should be up, though I think prayer should be allowed (though who really ever wants to pray in school? I’ve never seen a child, during my entire career as student—over 20 years—, have this impulse...I’ve come to believe it’s essentially a wedge issue to get people to vote for people like Huckabee). You would say you think the 10 commandments should be up, etc etc. It gets nowhere.

But, as to your question of whether I think the religion of Christianity should be inseparable from the government, that would violate the first amendment, so no, I don't agree with it. I don't want laws passed that are based on religious morality like making adultery or homosexuality illegal, etc. I just don't think that religion should be boxed up and hidden away from the public arena the way the secularists are trying to make it. People should be free to practise it where ever they want. I mean, Congress prays before each session for Pete's sake.

I agree with all this. Though...we’d have to allow also all religions or non-religions the right to express themselves whenever they wish. (Meaning, if a Hindu wants to pray in school, he should be allowed to.)

I suspect you and I would have to re-define what we mean when we say “separation of Church and State”. I don’t use the term in the sense of “banning religion” from the public sphere; I use it in the sense that the government does not do anything that endorses any religion—which means that I think school prayer is ok as long as the employees in public schools don’t organize it, and that I don’t think the 10 commandments should be up because many commandments are superfluous and simply antithetical to the beliefs of many individuals (really, having “have no god before me” on the courthouse? It’s absolutely repulsive to me; they are supposed to represent me and everybody else, not represent only Christians who believe in this religious law).

 

[Patriot123]

You know, you've just got to love this... Thirty five pages all ready. This has got to be ended rightfully, logically and respectfully.

Our nation was the first to establish the best form of government known to man to this day; a Republic. We were also the FIRST to break off from Christian rule and dominance, ie the Church. Those who believe that our founders would actually found this country on Christian principles after fighting a war against the Church itself is beyond me. We had the chance to be the first nation ever, to have such freedoms. To be so... Independent, and distance ourselves from religion in terms of the state. The Romans couldn't do it. The French couldn't do it after they so proclaimed the idea. We were the first. What we fought for was liberty, and that includes freedom from the Church... to practice whatever religion you like. And now... Three hundred years after what we fought for... There are still people who wish to pervert what this nation was founded for, on, and why. For those that wish to believe this, I simply would like to kindly ask them to take a crash course in Americanism. Because Christianity, a religion which has ruled the world for G-d knows how long, is not going to pervert how this nation was founded, and I apologies for that remark, but I have to lay down the facts now to set this straight, because thirty five pages of this? Really. I don't care what people say, I don't care what conspiracies people come up with, because our founders would drop dead at this hypocrisy. We did not fight a revolution for what people are saying we founded this nation on. It's insane.

The one special thing about this nation was that it wasn't founded with any religion in mind. Without any national religion, or anything of the such. That's the one reason why half the population loves this country so much, and would fight to the death for it. And people are actually trying to turn us right back into Great Britain? That's not what my ancestors fought for. The one reason why America is so great is because of the fact that it was founded with no religious affiliation. Separation of Church and State. Three hundred years... And people are actually trying to pervert the founding of this nation. Disgusting.

I'm done with this thread, after what I've read so far. Disgusting.

 

[familydog]

I agree with all of this.



Well, unless you have some sort of Christian-centered view on this (that they should not be separated), there is no reason for such a thread.



I could go through writings and find quotes, etc., but that’s a lot of work. I know for sure that Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Franklin, etc. were all influenced by various Enlightenment ideas. Jefferson in particular. There’s probably also ample information on this on the internet and in history books. Also, I think it’s very important to note that the modern ideas of republican government sprang out of Enlightenment thought (Voltaire, Rousseau, Paine, Locke, Spinoza, Tocqueville, Hume, Smith, etc. etc.), as did ideas of equality, modern conceptions of “rights” etc. I don’t see how, even without detailed analysis, anyone could think this wasn’t the major philosophical and social influence on the thought of the Founders. It comes directly from it; many of the Founders are considered figures of the Enlightenment themselves.

I’m not providing a database of source information...it’s there though, in the writings of the Founders. Perhaps Kade or someone else here has an easy link with some information.

I'm not disagreeing with you. Enlightenment played a major role. I'm just suggesting it didn't play the most important role.

 

[familydog]

You know, you've just got to love this... Thirty five pages all ready. This has got to be ended rightfully, logically and respectfully.

Our nation was the first to establish the best form of government known to man to this day; a Republic. We were also the FIRST to break off from Christian rule and dominance, ie the Church. Those who believe that our founders would actually found this country on Christian principles after fighting a war against the Church itself is beyond me. We had the chance to be the first nation ever, to have such freedoms. To be so... Independent, and distance ourselves from religion in terms of the state. The Romans couldn't do it. The French couldn't do it after they so proclaimed the idea. We were the first. What we fought for was liberty, and that includes freedom from the Church... to practice whatever religion you like. And now... Three hundred years after what we fought for... There are still people who wish to pervert what this nation was founded for, on, and why. For those that wish to believe this, I simply would like to kindly ask them to take a crash course in Americanism. Because Christianity, a religion which has ruled the world for G-d knows how long, is not going to pervert how this nation was founded, and I apologies for that remark, but I have to lay down the facts now to set this straight, because thirty five pages of this? Really. I don't care what people say, I don't care what conspiracies people come up with, because our founders would drop dead at this hypocrisy. We did not fight a revolution for what people are saying we founded this nation on. It's insane.

The one special thing about this nation was that it wasn't founded with any religion in mind. Without any national religion, or anything of the such. That's the one reason why half the population loves this country so much, and would fight to the death for it. And people are actually trying to turn us right back into Great Britain? That's not what my ancestors fought for. The one reason why America is so great is because of the fact that it was founded with no religious affiliation. Separation of Church and State. Three hundred years... And people are actually trying to pervert the founding of this nation. Disgusting.

I'm done with this thread, after what I've read so far. Disgusting.

Who is trying to turn this country back to Great Britain? You're suggesting because some people say that religion was major part of the founding, but not part of the constitution, that we want a fusion of Church and State? Theocrat doesn't speak for the rest of us. That's one person, so I'm not sure what exactly your talking about. Chill out

 

[sophocles07]

I'm not disagreeing with you. Enlightenment played a major role. I'm just suggesting it didn't play the most important role.

You’d also have to give credit to the philosophers of Greece and the statesmen of Rome, both influencing the movement of thought through the Renaissance on down to the birth of modern science, all of this converging in the Enlightenment; to me, these things converged to give a rational, scientific basis for republican government—whereas Christianity can be used to support a monarchy, the Catholic church’s rule of Italy for many, many years, aristocratic/feudal societies, and republican government. To me, you really have to pick and choose from the Bible to use it as a republican model, which is fine; I just don’t think it manifested republican government principles on its own, or even in the major role. One could use all of Jesus’ main tenets—golden rule, etc etc—but these were already expressed by the Greeks and Romans in different ways (and by Confucius)...so I’m not sure you could say they are specifically “Christian” values...most of what I like that Jesus says is purely rational and humane (love thy neighbor, etc). I don’t even know why we need a code to tell us that.

Who is trying to turn this country back to Great Britain?

Well, Macon, GA and Theocrat. Really, they’re crazy.