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

[mtmedlin]

Well, other people in this thread read what I wrote and responded in intelligent and logical ways, I don't understand why you can't. Why is it long winded? Because I actually use sources to back up my claims? Again, maybe we can have an intelligent conversation when you can refute my sources. I find it humorous you're telling me to read up, but you refuse to read my posts. I also find it humorus you're telling me I don't understand the debate, but again refuse to read anything I typed and you still are trying to argue with me.

It's hard to argue with that since I've agree with half of it, and the other half you'd need to read my posts to understand why I disagree with that other half.

I dont refuse to read your posts, but from what you have said, it seemed to me that we are debating two different positions. I am only refuting what the OP has stated, specifically that the founders used the Bible as their main source for writing the founding documents.
I have no problem with people saying that the bible was an influence to some, but she grossly overstated the postition as many christians do.
I have agreed with many of your posts but I dont feel the need to debate whether or not some men were christians or what period influenced what. It is really unnecessary to coming to the point of proving the OP wrong. Theocrat will debate for hours and never come to the logical point that is so easily proven by just the handful of lines that I have typed.
No disrespect to you.

 

[Theocrat]

Some Examples Which Convince Me of America's Christian Heritage

Just because the Senate in the mid-19th century said something, doesn't mean it is true. Where did those senators get their information from to make their judgement? Just because the House, in the mid 19th century declared something does that make it true? Where did their get their information from to make their judgements? I'm confused on why you think just because the Senate or the House says something about history, it is automatically true. So please, provide their sources of information in which they made that judgement. I'll reiterate that those quotes from some of the founders in this resolution only say how important religion is, not that they were inspired by Christianity to form our government.

So again, please provide the Senate and the House's sources of information on which they made this judgement. Or was it just their opinion? When you talk about history, my friend, you provide sources. Pointing to this resolution and saying "well the Senate said it in 1853, it must be true!" is not sufficient. If you cannot provide me with their sources, I'll just assume that their delcarations were just their opinion which means nothing in the realm of academia.

Please enlighten me.

I understand that just because an individual or group of people make a declaration about something it doesn't make it necessarily or automatically true. That wasn't my point. My point is the truth of America's Christian founding is not something which is (or should be) hard to understand or prove. The problem comes with, during the turn of the 20th Century, all the revisionism of America's history that has occurred by those who have had personal issues with the Christian faith, and therefore, they seek to undermine it at every whim in its influence upon the success of American jurisprudence and its society's morals, values, and ethics.

On this forum thread, it has been shown many times that America was founded primarily on Christian principles. The evidences given to support this claim have been ridiculed, contradicted, or simply ignored by many skeptics and scoffers who visit this thread. I mentioned H. Res. 888 because it is a recent example and testimony that I believe vindicates the truth of America's Christian founding. One of the paragraphs in this Resolution even makes reference to the study mentioned by the thread starter Deborah K which political scientists at the University of Houston proved that the most frequently quoted source used by the Founders in America's birthing was indeed the Bible. Just read the first post of this thread for more information about that.

In passing, I would just like to mention that your questions toward the validity of the truths presented in H. Res. 888 really fall on your shoulders. The link I've posted provides the names of the Representatives who submitted the Resolution, so I would suggest you contact them in their offices to get a more detailed and exhaustive reference to the information and documents they used in the forming of their own Resolution. Having said that, I would like to provide some resources, as you've requested, which I believe prove that America has a major and influential founding on Christian principles. Some of these proofs I've already posted in this thread, but for the sake of time and due to the nature of this involving task, I shall provide only a few examples which will prove my case. The rest of the research I leave at your leisure.

Here is a letter written to Thomas Jefferson from John Adams on June 28th, 1813 about how 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.)

Here's another letter written by John Adams to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts on Ocotber 11, 1798 about how our Constitution is inadequate to govern "atheists":

GENTLEMEN,

I have received from Major-General Hull and Brigadier. General Walker your unanimous address from Lexington, animated with a martial spirit, and expressed with a military dignity becoming your character and the memorable plains on which it was adopted. While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world; because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

An address from the officers commanding two thousand eight hundred men, consisting of such substantial citizens as are able and willing at their own expense completely to arm and clothe themselves in handsome uniforms, does honor to that division of the militia which has done so much honor to its country.

Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken and so solemnly repeated on that venerable spot, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government.

(Source: The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States; With A Life of the Author Notes and Illustrations of his Grandson Charles Francis Adams. Vol. IX, Books For Libraries Press, Freeport, New York, [First Published 1850-1856, Reprinted 1969], 228-29.)

Here's a Resolution from April 22, 1782 which directed that military chaplains, appointed in abundance by Congress during the Revolutionary War, were paid at the rate of a major in the Continental Army:

Here's a picture of the "Liberty Window" which portrays that at its initial meeting in September 1774, Congress invited the Reverend Jacob Duché (1738-1798), rector of Christ Church, Philadelphia, to open its sessions with prayer. Duché ministered to Congress in an unofficial capacity until he was elected the body's first chaplain on July 9, 1776. The top part of this extraordinary stained glass window depicts the role of churchmen in compelling King John to sign the Magna Carta in 1215:

Here's a copy of the "Congressional Fast Day Proclamation" where ongress proclaimed days of fasting and of thanksgiving annually throughout the Revolutionary War. This proclamation by Congress set May 17, 1776, as a "day of Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer" throughout the colonies. Congress urges its fellow citizens to "confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his [God's] righteous displeasure, and through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness." Massachusetts ordered a "suitable Number" of these proclamations be printed so "that each of the religious Assemblies in this Colony, may be furnished with a Copy of the same" and added the motto "God Save This People" as a substitute for "God Save the King":

Here's a couple of pages from the Journals of Congress where they endorsed the Aitken's Bible. The war with Britain cut off the supply of Bibles to the United States with the result that on Sept. 11, 1777, Congress instructed its Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from "Scotland, Holland or elsewhere." On January 21, 1781, Philadelphia printer Robert Aitken (1734-1802) petitioned Congress to officially sanction a publication of the Old and New Testament which he was preparing at his own expense. Congress "highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion . . . in this country, and . . . they recommend this edition of the bible to the inhabitants of the United States." This resolution was a result of Aitken's successful accomplishment of his project:

Here's an extract from the Journals of Congress where Congress took steps to see that Christian morality prevailed in the Navy because they feared the Navy as a source of moral corruption and demanded that skippers of American ships make their men behave. The first article in Rules and Regulations of the Navy, adopted on November 28, 1775, ordered all commanders "to be very vigilant . . . to discountenance and suppress all dissolute, immoral and disorderly practices." The second article required those same commanders "to take care, that divine services be performed twice a day on board, and a sermon preached on Sundays." Article 3 prescribed punishments for swearers and blasphemers: officers were to be fined and common sailors were to be forced "to wear a wooden collar or some other shameful badge of distinction."

Here's a Resolution where Congress makes public lands available to a group for religious purposes. Responding to a plea from Bishop John Ettwein (1721-1802), Congress voted that 10,000 acres on the Muskingum River in the present state of Ohio "be set apart and the property thereof be vested in the Moravian Brethren . . . or a society of the said Brethren for civilizing the Indians and promoting Christianity." The Delaware Indians were the intended beneficiaries of this Congressional resolution:

I could go on and on with examples like this, but I think these examples should suffice. My point is that Christianity was indeed the primary influence upon the political decisions and philosophies of our Founding Fathers in early American jurisprudence, not the Enlightenment, not "Atheism", not Islam, nor any other religious system. Now you may disagree with that, but that doesn't change the facts. I would like to see any original sources or proofs that would disprove the intent of this forum thread, namely, that America was founded on Christian principles. I haven't seen any yet.

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

Actually you made my point. I was off by a year, perhaps?

Then how can a country be founded on something that was never mentioned until over a century after it's founding?

My point is that language is essential in order to convey ideas. By changing meanings of words to conform to ideologies- think "gay marriage"- you can easily convince people that a dog is a cat or up is down, peace war, slavery freedom.

America was no more based on "Judeo-Christian" values than it was on "Islamo-Aryan ones. Allowing the newest power players in the population to redefine it's history doesn't make it so, it only makes it part of the power meme of the day.

Good luck with that.

I agree we need to be accurate in language. For this debate we must remember that we are talking about principals not "values"

As for the suggestion that a newly coined term is unsuitable to describe something pre-existing, I disagree. Language evolves, whether we like it, or not. We deal with it as best we can. Consider the debate among Austrian Economists regarding the accuracy of the, newly coined, terms, "anarcho-capitalism" and "minarchism" in describing the evolution of their pre-existing movement. A newly coined term does not a paradigm shift make, as you seem to suggest.

I contend that both the roots of the term Judeo-Christian, and it's underlying principals, can be found in a few sentences from the bible:

Matt 22:36-39

Matt 22:40 - "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

36-39 IMO- describes the principles of Respect and Charity, while 40 ties the New Testement to the Old.

For further evidence of Judeo-Christian principals influencing our heritage I submit:

1- The continueing use of the Bible in the swearing of oaths

2- This obscure little tidbit, (from FDR's administration no less)

"To show our faith in democracy, we have made the policy of the good neighbor the cornerstone of our foreign relations. No other policy would be consistant with our ideas and ideals. In the fulfillment of this policy we propose to heed the ancient Scriptual admonition not to move our neighbor's landmarks, not to encroach on his notes and bounds"
http://www-tc.pbs.org/kpbs/theborder/images/1934Roosevelt_radio_address.jpg?Log=0

I find the capitalization of the term "Scriptual" (and lower case "democracy") to be an interesting side note...

While the debate has been good, (and at times absurd) I have still yet to see the OP's assertion successfully reputed.

Now, about that gold you offered...

 

[sophocles07]

Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

This doesn’t say it is unfit for Atheists; it says that the Constitution can be broken by “Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry.” “Moral and religious people” can be interpreted widely. An atheist can be moral; and, as you yourself have repeated many, many times throughout my arguments with you, atheism can be considered “religious” as it is based on the idea, without empirical disproof, that god is false.

You are stretching Adams’ phrase for your own benefit in other words.

Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations.

This also does not mean it is a Christian oath; it is obviously an adjective meaning extreme, ritualistic, high value—sacred.

Here's a Resolution from April 22, 1782 which directed that military chaplains, appointed in abundance by Congress during the Revolutionary War, were paid at the rate of a major in the Continental Army:

Why do you think the employed chaplains, Theocrat?

By the way, I can’t read the print on the second of your images; I cannot enlarge it either. If you could highlight the specific points, so I could judge.

Here's a picture of the "Liberty Window" which portrays that at its initial meeting in September 1774, Congress invited the Reverend Jacob Duché (1738-1798), rector of Christ Church, Philadelphia, to open its sessions with prayer. Duché ministered to Congress in an unofficial capacity until he was elected the body's first chaplain on July 9, 1776. The top part of this extraordinary stained glass window depicts the role of churchmen in compelling King John to sign the Magna Carta in 1215

Jesus, man...

I could go on and on with examples like this, but I think these examples should suffice. My point is that Christianity was indeed the primary influence upon the political decisions and philosophies of our Founding Fathers in early American jurisprudence, not the Enlightenment, not "Atheism", not Islam, nor any other religious system. Now you may disagree with that, but that doesn't change the facts. I would like to see any original sources or proofs that would disprove the intent of this forum thread, namely, that America was founded on Christian principles. I haven't seen any yet.

Apparently Theocrat cannot understand the ideas I’m talking about; Job’s got him by the penis down by serpent’s creek. Shame.

 

[Theocrat]

Random Musings of an "Evolved" Mind (sophocles07)

This doesn’t say it is unfit for Atheists; it says that the Constitution can be broken by “Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry.” “Moral and religious people” can be interpreted widely. An atheist can be moral; and, as you yourself have repeated many, many times throughout my arguments with you, atheism can be considered “religious” as it is based on the idea, without empirical disproof, that god is false.

You are stretching Adams’ phrase for your own benefit in other words.

If I understand John Adams's writings correctly, I would deduce that his meaning of "moral and religious people" would be referring to Christians, primarily, especially in consideration of the fact that he believed America was founded on Christian principles, being a Christian himself, and expressed this belief to Thomas Jefferson in the letter I posted previously on this thread.

I do believe "Atheism" is "religious," in a sense, but more accurately, I would say it's "superstitious." I was being nice to you when I called your faith system "religious."

This also does not mean it is a Christian oath; it is obviously an adjective meaning extreme, ritualistic, high value—sacred.

Yeah, because it's not like they swore oaths on the Bible or anything...

Why do you think the employed chaplains, Theocrat?

By the way, I can’t read the print on the second of your images; I cannot enlarge it either. If you could highlight the specific points, so I could judge.

Chaplains were employed by our government because our Founders rightly recognized that these men had holy gifts and callings by God to minister to the spiritual needs of those elected officials in the civil magistrate.

Yeah, I noticed that the printing on some of the images I posted is a bit small. My suggestion to you is get a magnifying glass and read it that way, maybe?

Apparently Theocrat cannot understand the ideas I’m talking about; Job’s got him by the penis down by serpent’s creek. Shame.

If I weren't so used to your personal attacks against me, I would probably say some things to you right now that I'd regret later. I understand, though. You're still struggling to control those random, electrochemical processes in your brain which cause you to speak so foolishly. Damn, evolution can be so unfair sometimes...

I guess you still aren't convinced that America was established on Christian principles and Christianity was the dominant influence of American jurisprudence and society, are you? Oh, well. You can't say I didn't try. However, where's your proof to the contrary, sophocles07? Oh, I forgot. You're too busy to provide any evidence. Right...

 

[familydog]

First of all Theocrat, when you present evidence to me backing up your claim, it is not my responsibility to research your evidence. This is intellectual laziness on your part. It's your evidence, not mine, and if you can't answer my questions regarding your own research, maybe you shouldn't be using that research at all. I'll be more than happy to answer any questions regarding my sources, because I research my sources before I present them.

Secondly, I understand that this country has a religious history. There is no denying that. The premise of the OP is "was America founded upon Judeo-Christian principles." Your latest evidence, primary documents and this resolution, do not prove this.

Let's go back to the time of the founding to visit our good friend Jeremy Benthem for a widely accepted definition of "principle" from the time of our founding:

"The word principle..is applied to any thing which is conceived to serve as a foundation or beginning to any series of operations" Jeremy Benthem - 1780
http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry...=2&search_id=BVLs-lH2Yri-9707&hilite=50188755

With that out of the way, what exactly, based in the resolution you presented, served as the "foundation" of our "series of operations" (the Constitution--thus forming the government)? The only thing that the resolution states is that religion played a big role in our history. Doesn't that mean that religious principles were a basis for the founding then? One can't make that connection without specific evidence by naming specific principles at the time of our founding (which your resolution doesn't do). Why then, can we say that the founding was based on secular Enlightenment principles? Because the founders actually reference these certain principles in their writings such as: Locke's social contract theory and natural law beliefs, Montesquieu's seperation of powers beliefs, Adam Smith's laissez-faire economics beliefs, etc. etc. So if we can find writings by our founders that suggest the formation of this new and radical government should be based on Christian principle A, Christian principle B, etc, the we can make the same conclusion about Christian principles as we can Enlightenment principles. But your latest evidence does not do that.

Going back to your chaplain evidence. There is no denying that. Again that does nothing but point out that there were a lot of religious people at the time of the founding--a big difference between those religious (or non-religious) peoples using specific Christian principles as the "foundation" to a "series of operations." Also, the window does nothing again, but point out a religious past to this country. The "Congressional Fast Day Proclamation" does, yet again, the same thing. The people in Congress were obviously a religious people, but it doesn't prove the premise of this thread. I'd specifically mention the rest of your evidence, but I'd be repeating myself more than I already have.

The point is, this resolution tells us we have a religious history. That is not the same as being founded upon Christian principles. The founders, in a quite clear way stated that their inspiration for the Constitution and this republican form of government came from Enlightenment thinkers. That is a historical fact because it is in their writings. They name specific principles that inspired them and specifically attribute them to Enlightenment thinkers (like I pointed above).

Your arguments are intelligent, but your logic is faulty. You're trying to argue that because we have a religious history, we were founded upon religious principles (which you have yet to define what those religious principles are). By your logic, a lawmaker who has a religious affiliation makes their laws based on their religious beliefs even if they quite clearly state the inspiration for their laws came from a secular source.

 

[Theocrat]

Christianity vs. Enlightenment?

With that out of the way, what exactly, based in the resolution you presented, served as the "foundation" of our "series of operations" (the Constitution--thus forming the government)? The only thing that the resolution states is that religion played a big role in our history. Doesn't that mean that religious principles were a basis for the founding then? One can't make that connection without specific evidence by naming specific principles at the time of our founding (which your resolution doesn't do). Why then, can we say that the founding was based on secular Enlightenment principles? Because the founders actually reference these certain principles in their writings such as: Locke's social contract theory and natural law beliefs, Montesquieu's seperation of powers beliefs, Adam Smith's laissez-faire economics beliefs, etc. etc. So if we can find writings by our founders that suggest the formation of this new and radical government should be based on Christian principle A, Christian principle B, etc, the we can make the same conclusion about Christian principles as we can Enlightenment principles. But your latest evidence does not do that.

I think you're misunderstanding my argument. I'm stating that Christianity had a primary influence on our nation's founding, not the only influence. I recognize that there were some Enlightenment principles involved, but they weren't nearly as used as the Bible. The study referred to in thread starter's original post shows this, and here it is:

Individuals such as Locke, Montesquieu, and Adam Smith were all Christians, to my knowledge, so I would conclude they got their principles using "Christian capital," you might say. These guys were living at a time and culture in history where Christianity was mainly a part of their society, so it seems logical to me that they would be writing and using materials which came from a Biblical worldview of government, law, etc.

The problem I have is when the God-haters in these forums get all fussy and upset when we Christians even mention that the Christian religion was inculcated in American government and culture, and they immediately start quoting the likes of Jefferson or Paine as if these two guys are the "end all, be all" of the discussion against America's religious founding. It's really funny to watch them do this because they're so predictable when God is mentioned in having an influence in government and politics. Then absurd notions that the Enlightenment was the only influence on early American jurisprudence spout out, usually without any evidence to prove their claims. This is what I'm debating against, but lest I be misunderstood, let me reiterate that I believe some Enlightenment principles were used by our Founders in America's political system, just not as much as the Bible was. Many skeptics tend to overlook that fact, even though it has been proven by the study aforementioned. Such arrogance and ignorance is appalling, in my opinion, and it only shows their personal contempt for Christianity, as been attested to by Deborah K.

Going back to your chaplain evidence. There is no denying that. Again that does nothing but point out that there were a lot of religious people at the time of the founding--a big difference between those religious (or non-religious) peoples using specific Christian principles as the "foundation" to a "series of operations." Also, the window does nothing again, but point out a religious past to this country. The "Congressional Fast Day Proclamation" does, yet again, the same thing. The people in Congress were obviously a religious people, but it doesn't prove the premise of this thread. I'd specifically mention the rest of your evidence, but I'd be repeating myself more than I already have.

The point is, this resolution tells us we have a religious history. That is not the same as being founded upon Christian principles. The founders, in a quite clear way stated that their inspiration for the Constitution and this republican form of government came from Enlightenment thinkers. That is a historical fact because it is in their writings. They name specific principles that inspired them and specifically attribute them to Enlightenment thinkers (like I pointed above).

Your arguments are intelligent, but your logic is faulty. You're trying to argue that because we have a religious history, we were founded upon religious principles (which you have yet to define what those religious principles are). By your logic, a lawmaker who has a religious affiliation makes their laws based on their religious beliefs even if they quite clearly state the inspiration for their laws came from a secular source.

I see a major flaw in your reasoning here on the nature of human beings. You seem to assume that somehow a person can have a belief without acting out on that belief in their conduct, thinking, and speech. If these guys are truly religious in their practice of Christianity, then it would seem counter-intuitive to me that they would then act or speak in opposition to their beliefs by adhering only to secular principles (Enlightenment) which would contradict their own faith. The history and culture in early America and its deep Christian religious inculcation in education, Congressional rulings, etc. seem to debunk this notion, as I've shown in the examples I provided a few posts previously. Once again, your assumption here, I feel, is based on some substance of neutrality in the Founders actions, writings, and thoughts. If this is what you believe, then I would disagree with you because these men were pretty steadfast in their Christian convictions, especially in relation to its application on government.

So, once again, my views on the Founders based on the research and debates I've done is that they were primarily influenced by the Bible, and if not the Bible itself, then individuals' writings and thoughts were influenced by the Scriptures. Yes, the Enlightenment was a factor, too. I admit that, but I welcome any evidences presented (hopefully from original sources) that would show that the Enlightenment was more important to the Founders than their own personal Christian faith. I've still not seen it.

 

[Deborah K]

I dont refuse to read your posts, but from what you have said, it seemed to me that we are debating two different positions. I am only refuting what the OP has stated, specifically that the founders used the Bible as their main source for writing the founding documents.
I have no problem with people saying that the bible was an influence to some, but she grossly overstated the postition as many christians do.

Uhhh... wanna show me where I stated that? It appears that you are "grossly" misinterpreting what I wrote! I am contending that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and I used a study that was done to give evidence to the fact that our founders, some of whom wrote our founding documents, quoted the bible more often than any other source during their tenures. NO WHERE will you find that I claim the founders used the bible as a main source for writing the founding documents! You came to that false conclusion because you either have trouble comprehending what you read, or you are an intellectually dishonest debater.

 

[mtmedlin]

Tdcc, you have, not surprisingly, completely missed the point. Your biblical quotes do not refute the fact that our Founders chose a majority of their ideas for our Founding documents(based on their own writings) from the bible and biblical concepts.

NeoRayden:


If you even read what I wrote, then tell me exactly how you can defend that erroneous argument. Start by refuting what I wrote, if you would, please.

So what if our nation was founded on Biblical principles? What exactly is it about this that threatens you so?

Majority, is this not what you said. You made the claim that the founders used as a MAJORITY the bible. I dont think I was stretching. It was an innacurate statement then as it is now but you did say it.

 

[familydog]

I think you're misunderstanding my argument. I'm stating that Christianity had a primary influence on our nation's founding, not the only influence. I recognize that there were some Enlightenment principles involved, but they weren't nearly as used as the Bible. The study referred to in thread starter's original post shows this, and here it is:

Individuals such as Locke, Montesquieu, and Adam Smith were all Christians, to my knowledge, so I would conclude they got their principles using "Christian capital," you might say. These guys were living at a time and culture in history where Christianity was mainly a part of their society, so it seems logical to me that they would be writing and using materials which came from a Biblical worldview of government, law, etc.

The problem I have is when the God-haters in these forums get all fussy and upset when we Christians even mention that the Christian religion was inculcated in American government and culture, and they immediately start quoting the likes of Jefferson or Paine as if these two guys are the "end all, be all" of the discussion against America's religious founding. It's really funny to watch them do this because they're so predictable when God is mentioned in having an influence in government and politics. Then absurd notions that the Enlightenment was the only influence on early American jurisprudence spout out, usually without any evidence to prove their claims. This is what I'm debating against, but lest I be misunderstood, let me reiterate that I believe some Enlightenment principles were used by our Founders in America's political system, just not as much as the Bible was. Many skeptics tend to overlook that fact, even though it has been proven by the study aforementioned. Such arrogance and ignorance is appalling, in my opinion, and it only shows their personal contempt for Christianity, as been attested to by Deborah K.



I see a major flaw in your reasoning here on the nature of human beings. You seem to assume that somehow a person can have a belief without acting out on that belief in their conduct, thinking, and speech. If these guys are truly religious in their practice of Christianity, then it would seem counter-intuitive to me that they would then act or speak in opposition to their beliefs by adhering only to secular principles (Enlightenment) which would contradict their own faith. The history and culture in early America and its deep Christian religious inculcation in education, Congressional rulings, etc. seem to debunk this notion, as I've shown in the examples I provided a few posts previously. Once again, your assumption here, I feel, is based on some substance of neutrality in the Founders actions, writings, and thoughts. If this is what you believe, then I would disagree with you because these men were pretty steadfast in their Christian convictions, especially in relation to its application on government.

So, once again, my views on the Founders based on the research and debates I've done is that they were primarily influenced by the Bible, and if not the Bible itself, then individuals' writings and thoughts were influenced by the Scriptures. Yes, the Enlightenment was a factor, too. I admit that, but I welcome any evidences presented (hopefully from original sources) that would show that the Enlightenment was more important to the Founders than their own personal Christian faith. I've still not seen it.

I never said that the Enlightenment was the only source of the founding and you'd know that if you read my previous arguments supporting the original premise of the thread. The evidence you have presented (which you still won't answer my questions about it) again doesn't suggest the founding was on any religious principles at all, it just tells that religion is in our history.

It seems we have a fundamental disagreement on human nature. I propose that the choices one makes in life can be based in rationality. That is, humans have the intellectual capacity to reason through problems (thus needing to make choices) and the choice is not necesarily based on what one's religious beliefs are. I know specifically the Catholic Church (the majority Christian sect in the world) agrres with this position. Ratzinger himself wrote extensively on it. He knows that humans can make decisions outside of their religious beliefs. The first example coming to mind with regards to this, since we are talking about the founding era, is dower rights. Why was the colonial common law and subsequent post-Revolution government insitent on dower rights? Was it because the lawmakers/judges were religious and were guided by moral Christian principles? No, it was more of a "reason" and "rational" approach to problem solving. These lawmakers didn't want society to have the burden of taking care of women and children after their husband (and only means of support) died, and thus came to be dower rights. That actually sounds kind of selfish on the part of lawmakers. Selfishness is not a Christian principle as far as I know. Either way, their rationality, depsite being Christians, lied simply in the fact that society could not afford to take care of these people. Not because it was right and moral. This rationale is specifically in the writings of these lawmakers and judges. Thus, we have a sitatuon where decision makers use their rational thinking abilities to solve problems that is not influenced by their religion.

You again do not define these Christian principles. What are they and where are they in our founders writings? I'm not talking about statements like "well, we should be religious people," I'm talking about specific statements by our founders that say things like "we must make our government this way or that way because [insert a specific Christian principle] is right and we need to shape our government using that specific principle." Again, you're confusing religious history with religious influence.

Your're arguing that the founding only had "some" Enlightenment influence? I named you several Enlightenment thinkers and you can find many many quotes by the founders in which they attribute those thinkers and their writings specifically as the "foundation" for the "series of operations." I don't care how many times the Bible is mentioned as opposed to the Enlightenment, the only thing that does matter is where they attribute their influence to. If you can find me quotes by the founders that say "we need to form our government a certain way because the Bible, words of Christ, Christian priciple A, Christian principle B, etc, is right, then I'll reconsider my positions.

The founders were not true Christians, according to your standards so you are correct (again going by your standards) that the founders weren't true Christians. I quoted a few posts back sources that show these religious peoples of the colonies were very excited by Tom Paine's Common Sense and Enlightenment thinking and discussed them specifically, without referencing religion, in whether or not the people should seperate from England. Also, whether or not Enlightenment thinkers were religious or not, is not relevent. The only thing that is relevent is whether or not their thinking was derived by religion. If you can point to me where Locke, Smith, Montesquieu , Rosseu, etc were divinely inspired to come up with their ideas, then maybe I'll reconsider my position.

With that said, you must not be that familiar with what the Enlightenment actually was. If so, you'd know that it was a period of thinking specifically relying on empiricism, not religious thinking. With all of this said, my point, and has always been my point (other than the fact your sources are faulty) that Christianity played a major role in the founding, but not the major role. Especially in the lives of the average colonist as opposed to the famous founders.

EDIT: While I'm at it, I'll quote you something from a book I'm currrently reading. "[The founders] goal was to conceive a constituion and a federal union based on rational philosophic ideas and intellectual creativity, on what Alexander Hamilton termed 'reflection and choice.' The founders were 'children of the Enlightenment,' notes one constituional scholar. 'Otherwise they would have tried to write a Constituion whose few thousand words contained a host of untried ideas and instiutions. Thomas Jefferson, hailed by Tocqueville as 'the most powerful apostle that democracy has ever had,' believed that progress would issue from experiment, innovation, and continued political renewal." --p. 29-30 Sister Revolutions by Susan Dunn
No mention of religion or religious principles. Just some food for thought, care to refute?

 

[sophocles07]

If I understand John Adams's writings correctly, I would deduce that his meaning of "moral and religious people" would be referring to Christians, primarily, especially in consideration of the fact that he believed America was founded on Christian principles, being a Christian himself, and expressed this belief to Thomas Jefferson in the letter I posted previously on this thread.

I do believe "Atheism" is "religious," in a sense, but more accurately, I would say it's "superstitious." I was being nice to you when I called your faith system "religious."

This is all opinion; so there is no need for debate here.

Chaplains were employed by our government because our Founders rightly recognized that these men had holy gifts and callings by God to minister to the spiritual needs of those elected officials in the civil magistrate.

Yeah, I noticed that the printing on some of the images I posted is a bit small. My suggestion to you is get a magnifying glass and read it that way, maybe?

I would think that is part of the reason Chaplains are employed. Another obvious one would be that the majority of soldiers (I’m assuming we’re talking about army-based chaplains, because I can’t read the type to say different) were Christian; they would probably offer Jewish versions of the Chaplain (I don’t know what that is) had they been the majority.

I don’t have one around the house; I’ll try to borrow one; my eyesight is pretty bad (even with glasses, plus the computer sometimes obscures things to my eyes).

If I weren't so used to your personal attacks against me, I would probably say some things to you right now that I'd regret later. I understand, though. You're still struggling to control those random, electrochemical processes in your brain which cause you to speak so foolishly. Damn, evolution can be so unfair sometimes...

We’re becoming sitcom-like characters on this forum.

I guess you still aren't convinced that America was established on Christian principles and Christianity was the dominant influence of American jurisprudence and society, are you? Oh, well. You can't say I didn't try. However, where's your proof to the contrary, sophocles07? Oh, I forgot. You're too busy to provide any evidence. Right...

Well, I never said it wasn’t one of the influences, and even a very dominant one. All I’ve said is that I think that the philosophy of the period affected the interpretation of the Bible, which I don’t think is that controversial (it’s not).

 

[Deborah K]

Majority, is this not what you said. You made the claim that the founders used as a MAJORITY the bible. I dont think I was stretching. It was an innacurate statement then as it is now but you did say it.

I owe you an apology. I respect your position on this, and am willing to debate this further as to my claim. Bear with me please, I have to dig around in my research and it will take some time, but I love debating. So as our Governator, Arnold Swarzennuetered so aptly put it: I'lllllll be bauk!!!

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

The first colonists of America were Spanish Catholics.

As in the Iberian Peninsula, inhabitants of Hispaniola were given new landmasters, while religious orders handled the local administration.

In the papal bull Inter caetera (1493) the Borgia Pope Alexander VI had granted the western newly found lands to the Castilian Crown, on the condition that it evangelize these new lands. ".

Next came Protestant English of the Virginia Company

I JAMES, by the Grace of God, King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c... Parts and Territories in America, either appertaining unto us, or which are not now actually possessed by any Christian Prince or People... hereafter tend to the Glory of his Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God, and may in time bring the Infidels and Savages, living in those Parts, to human Civility, and to a settled and quiet Government;...

Perhaps, this can be said to be "pre-history" in regards to America as we know it. So, lets look at the Pilgrims and their first governing document, The Mayflower Compact, (which was spoken of by John Adams as the foundation of our Constitution):

In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, etc.
Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together into a Civil Body Politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute and frame such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini 1620.

Is everyone seeing a pattern here? There was one thing in common with all of these, Christianity. The evidence to support the OP in this vein is overwhelming.

How about we look to the Father of our country, George Washington. He was said to carry two books with him always, The Bible and Hale's CONTEMPLATIONS, MORAL AND DIVINE. Both of these are Judeo-Christian.

Or how about "The genius of the revolution", Benjamin Franklin, the scientist/philospher? While he was certainly no evangelical, (and could hardly be considered Christian), he certainly appreciated the principals of Judeo-Christianity:

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble....

Also, there is this:

On July 4, 1776, Congress appointed a committee that included Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams to design the Great Seal of the United States.[34] Each member of the committee proposed a unique design: Franklin's proposal featured a design with the motto: "Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God." This design was to portray a scene from the Book of Exodus, complete with Moses, the Israelites, the pillar of fire, and George III depicted as Pharaoh

So, we see that both the Father and the Genius of the American Revolution used Judeo-Christian Principals in their work. Hhhhmmm...???

We should also look at Freemasonry;

A Mason is oblig’d by his Tenure, to obey the moral Law ;
and if he rightly understands the Art, he will never be a stupid
Atheist, nor an irreligious Libertine.

which closely follows it's Judeo-Christian roots.

ADAM, our first Parent, created after the
Image of God, the great Architect of the Universe,...

Indeed, freemasonry claims to follow the Laws of Noah,

'The first obligation is that you shall sincerely honor God and obey the laws of the Noachites, because they are divine laws, which should be obeyed by all the world. Therefore, you must avoid all heresies and not thereby sin against God.'"...In ancient Times, the Christian Masons were charged to comply with the Christian usages of each country where they traveled or worked; being found in all nations, even of divers religions...

... Various ancient sources record attempts to define this ancient code of morals and ethics. ... Jewish sages traditionally divide the laws that have universal implications into 7 categories. These seven ëcategoriesí are therefore known to Jews as "The seven Laws of Noah" or the "Noachide Covenant". ... This system of theology predates the ministries of Moses, Jesus and Mohammed and therefore is a fitting place for men of all these faiths to meet and function as partners for a better and more peaceful future.

So, what are the 7 Laws of Noah?

The earliest reference to the "7" laws in a Jewish source lists them as follows; a positive injunction to establish a system of justice, prohibitions against idolatry, blasphemy (profaning the name of God), sexual immorality, bloodshed, robbery and the consumption of blood (or literally a limb torn from a living animal)

And these follow us into the modern age:

President George Bush signed an historic resolution of both Congressional Houses, recognizing the Noachide Laws as the "bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization". He urged the United States to take a lead in "returning the world to the ethical values contained in the Seven Noahide Laws". This historically significant document is recorded as House Joint Resolution 104, Public Law 102-14

Finally, I would like to point out the inscription on the most American of icons, the Liberty Bell

"Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the inhabitants thereof" (Leviticus 25:10)

Judeo-Christian?... through and through!

 

[He Who Pawns]

Haha, I see that you disabled ratings for this thread... wise move!

 

[Deborah K]

Haha, I see that you disabled ratings for this thread... wise move!

I guess that's a mod move, but the truth is, I couldn't care less about ratings. Only an idiot would let ratings influence their opinion or decision to read it.

 

[Brassmouth]

I guess I'll be the asshole to ask, "who the fuck cares what the founders believed!?!"

This country is a failure. The American experiment in limited government failed horrendously. The Founders, some of whom were wise men (Jefferson, Paine, etc), should be commended for their efforts in trying to pioneer a version of statism that worked. The truth is, however, that it failed miserably.

Why is there so much hero worship on these forums? If it's not Ron Paul or Peter Schiff, you people are worshiping men who died hundreds of years ago, and whose ideas, although genius in their own time, are outdated now that we have seen the result of their experiment and their philosophy.


Oh, and there is no god. Invisible men don't exist. Sorry. Time to grow up.

 

[Kludge]

No thread in "General Politics" can be rated.

It was probably an accident from long ago but was never mentioned before now... It's not as though it adds much to the forum. I don't even look at the rating.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I guess I'll be the asshole to ask, "who the fuck cares what the founders believed!?!"

This country is a failure. The American experiment in limited government failed horrendously. The Founders, some of whom were wise men (Jefferson, Paine, etc), should be commended for their efforts in trying to pioneer a version of statism that worked. The truth is, however, that it failed miserably.

Why is there so much hero worship on these forums? If it's not Ron Paul or Peter Schiff, you people are worshiping men who died hundreds of years ago, and whose ideas, although genius in their own time, are outdated now that we have seen the result of their experiment and their philosophy.


Oh, and there is no god. Invisible men don't exist. Sorry. Time to grow up.

Because many here are new to the philosophy of liberty and haven't figured out how to "stand on their own 2 legs" as it were. Keep in mind that many of the hero-worshipers you speak of are still statists in the process of waking up. Try not to be too harsh on them-they are still growing.

 

[Ozwest]

I guess I'll be the asshole to ask, "who the fuck cares what the founders believed!?!"

This country is a failure. The American experiment in limited government failed horrendously. The Founders, some of whom were wise men (Jefferson, Paine, etc), should be commended for their efforts in trying to pioneer a version of statism that worked. The truth is, however, that it failed miserably.

Why is there so much hero worship on these forums? If it's not Ron Paul or Peter Schiff, you people are worshiping men who died hundreds of years ago, and whose ideas, although genius in their own time, are outdated now that we have seen the result of their experiment and their philosophy.


Oh, and there is no god. Invisible men don't exist. Sorry. Time to grow up.

Hey,

Shit for Brains.

I suggest you pull your head in and look under your ball-sack for some guidance.

You are a meandering pseudo-wanker who has no grasp on history, and insults true Patriots.

 

[He Who Pawns]

It's not the Founders' ideas that are outdated. It's that we ignore them.