Framers/Founders Religious beliefs

[jackson33]

Many threads under politics, and some posters, try to define the founders during the early days of America as atheist, non-believers or that they personally believed that religion had no place in in the NATION they were forming. This couldn't be further from the truth....

 

People that came to the 'New Land', particularly in what were later those 13 original Colonies, over the 250 years leading up to Independence were in LARGE part leaving religious intolerance. War's were being fought all over Europe, Asia, most with religious overtone. http://www.zum.de/whkmla/military/18cen/18cenindex.html

A good site and list of wars in any century, nearly 200 in the 1500's alone.

 

I have copied only a few of the opinions of those founders, the site offers many more and there are dozens of books written by historian's from the 1800's up to last year devoted to the religious understanding that led to the US, it's Constitution and the reasons 'Separation for Church/State' exist in the first place.

 

While Society, Courts, Laws, those that interpret them, on to Politics and changes in many religions themselves has changed, at least in my opinion the Founders and American People have been and are a Religious People and if you require Christan, which those founders darn well were, then so be it...

 

Samuel Johnston:

“It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans (Muslims), pagans, etc., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President or other high office, [unless] first the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves.

[Elliot’s Debates, Vol. IV, pp 198-199, Governor Samuel Johnston, July 30, 1788 at the North Carolina Ratifying Convention]

 

Who was Samuel Johnston?

Johnston, Samuel, 1733–1816, political leader in the American Revolution, b. Dundee, Scotland. He emigrated as a child to North Carolina, where his uncle, Gabriel Johnston, was royal governor. After being admitted to the bar, he was a member of the colonial assembly (1759–75) and of its standing Committee of Correspondence after 1773. He was elected to the four provincial congresses (1774–76), presiding at the third and at the fourth, which passed the Halifax Resolves declaring for independence of the colonies; served in the new state senate; and represented North Carolina in the Continental Congress (1780–82). Johnston was governor of North Carolina (1787–89) and presided over the convention that rejected the U.S. Constitution (1788) and over the one (1789) at which North Carolina finally ratified it. He was one of the state's first U.S. Senators (1789–93), a judge of the superior court (1800–1803), and one of the first trustees of the Univ. of North Carolina.

 

 

 

Thomas Jefferson:

“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]

 

 

George Washington:

Farewell Address:

The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion" ...and later: "...reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle..."

 

 

http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

 

The Liberty Bell inscription, was taken from the King James Bible;

 

The source of the inscription is Leviticus 25:10, which reads "And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family."

 

 

The Declaration of Independence makes it quite clear under what authority the signers were acting on.....

 

 

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

 

 

(Moderators) Please do not switch this to Religion; It's offered as a political issue, based on the continuous mentioning of a secular 'ATTITUDE' of the founders, whom in my mind were simply concerned about the Federal or any State following Henry VIII actions and that of England over the Catholic Church/Church of England and the story behind it....(1500-1750'S)

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/cofe/cofe_1.shtml

Henry VIII started the process of creating the Church of England after his split with the Pope in the 1530's. Henry was anxious to ensure a male heir after his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, had borne him only a daughter. He wanted his marriage annulled in order to remarry. In 1534 after several attempts to persuade the Pope to grant an annulment, Henry passed the Act of Succession and then the Act of Supremacy. These recognised that the King was "the only supreme head of the Church of England called Anglicana Ecclesia". Henry adopted the title given to him by the Pope in 1521, that of Defender of the Faith.

[iNow]

While Society, Courts, Laws, those that interpret them, on to Politics and changes in many religions themselves has changed, at least in my opinion the Founders and American People have been and are a Religious People and if you require Christan, which those founders darn well were, then so be it...

 

Well, not all were Christian, but many were. In fact, most were deists, and strongly opposed to theistic dogma. Regardless, the founders took great pains to separate religion from government, so I wonder if you could clarify what point precisely you're trying to make.

 

 

For further context, here's some useful information:

 

 

Dispatches from the Culture Wars: The Definition of Theistic Rationalism

Since all of the religions with which they were familiar promoted morality, they held that virtually all religions were more or less equally valid and led to the same God who is called by many names. Theistic rationalists generally disdained doctrines or dogmas. They found them to be divisive, speculative, and ultimately unimportant since many roads lead to God.

This is an excellent description of the views of the leading founders - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Franklin. In a new paper, Frazer argues that Gouverneur Morris, one of the most unjustly ignored of the founding fathers, also fits that description.

 

The problem here is that most people have attempted to fit the founders into one of two categories, Christian or deist. But as Frazer notes, deism in that day and age was much more hostile toward Christianity than these men were:

 

(Page 1 of 30) - Gouverneur Morris, Theistic Rationalist authored by Frazer, Gregg

.

In addition, deism was in many ways as much a critique of Christianity as a religion of its own. Deist thought rejected virtually every tenet and fundamental of Christianity and deists were generally critical of Christianity's central figure: Jesus. In short, deists wanted nothing to do with Christianity or its Christ. While theistic rationalists shared some ideas with deists, they had a much greater regard for Christianity and for Jesus than did most deists.

Thus we could have Thomas Jefferson reject the notion that Jesus was anything but a mere human being while simultaneously embracing the ethical system of Jesus as the most perfect and sublime ever invented. And thus many of these men could talk of the many corruptions and lies in orthodox Christianity while simultaneously praising other aspects of that religion and believing that it was generally a good thing because it made people more moral.

 

 

 

The Christian Nation Myth

The primary leaders of the so-called founding fathers of our nation were not Bible-believing Christians; they were deists. Deism was a philosophical belief that was widely accepted by the colonial intelligentsia at the time of the American Revolution. Its major tenets included belief in human reason as a reliable means of solving social and political problems and belief in a supreme deity who created the universe to operate solely by natural laws. The supreme God of the Deists removed himself entirely from the universe after creating it. They believed that he assumed no control over it, exerted no influence on natural phenomena, and gave no supernatural revelation to man. A necessary consequence of these beliefs was a rejection of many doctrines central to the Christian religion. Deists did not believe in the virgin birth, divinity, or resurrection of Jesus, the efficacy of prayer, the miracles of the Bible, or even the divine inspiration of the Bible.

 

These beliefs were forcefully articulated by Thomas Paine in Age of Reason, a book that so outraged his contemporaries that he died rejected and despised by the nation that had once revered him as "the father of the American Revolution." To this day, many mistakenly consider him an atheist, even though he was an out spoken defender of the Deistic view of God. Other important founding fathers who espoused Deism were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and James Monroe.

 

Fundamentalist Christians are currently working overtime to convince the American public that the founding fathers intended to establish this country on "biblical principles," but history simply does not support their view. The men mentioned above and others who were instrumental in the founding of our nation were in no sense Bible-believing Christians. Thomas Jefferson, in fact, was fiercely anti-cleric.

 

 

...and here...

 

The Founding Fathers' Religious Wisdom

In recent years, we have been told by a variety of conservatives that America’s founding fathers established the country under Christian doctrine—that we are a “Christian nation” and should operate accordingly.

 

This notion—that our country’s roots are explicitly Christian—is both foolish and wrong, for it devalues the Christian faith and disrespects the genius of the founding fathers.

<...>

The genius of the founding fathers is they understood that Christianity could not only stand on its own but would thrive without being written into the laws and founding documents of the country. In fact, it was likely their own “faith” that led them to this conclusion. Many of the founding fathers—Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and Monroe—practiced a faith called Deism. Deism is a philosophical belief in human reason as a reliable means of solving social and political problems. Deists believe in a supreme being who created the universe to operate solely by natural laws—and after creation, is absent from the world. This belief in reason over dogma helped guide the founders toward a system of government that respected faiths like Christianity, while purposely isolating both from encroaching on one another so as not to dilute the overall purpose and objectives of either.

 

If the founders were dogmatic about anything, it was the belief that a person’s faith should not be intruded upon by government and that religious doctrine should not be written into governance.

 

 

This site below, while much more forceful and not as objective about the approach, makes the case quite plainly. Since you've used quotes in your OP to assist in supporting your position, you will likely appreciate this particular site for giving a vastly different perspective on the topic, but while still using quotes.

 

This site below shares numerous quotes from these thinkers which leave no doubt as to their religious leanings. The author ends his article (which I strongly advice you review for yourself) with the comment:

 

Religion and the Founding Fathers

With just these examples, you have the facts necessary to rebut any fundamentalist who proclaim this to be a Christian nation "just as the founding fathers desired

".

 

 

Even wiki has a link: Religion and the Founding Fathers of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[bascule]

Many threads under politics, and some posters

 

Some people say hearsay is a bad way to make an argument.

 

...try to define the founders during the early days of America as atheist, non-believers or that they personally believed that religion had no place in in the NATION they were forming.

 

Welcome to strawman land!

[jackson33]

iNow; In short, I wrote that post, somewhat disappointed another had been pulled. The subject matter of my post is really not arguable and any person can derive whatever they wish from available quotes/actions of the founders in determining an opinion. It happens to be my position/opinion, that the separation was based on history and as perceived by those people, IN THEIR DAY, as was Jefferson's Wall...

 

Religion, has been very much part of every aspect of the American History, from the first settlements, the cultures that formed, the traditions and the laws that developed from the Constitution. Personally, I accepted the 'peace of mind', those believing in some higher being has given them, probably being elderly and having seen so many pass away. As an agnostic, I understand your viewpoints and won't argue your right to believe in them, but will suggest those viewpoints will never be compatible to what those founders believed they were creating. I did mention Samuel Johnston for a reason, in that he (possibly they) understood a different society could rise up in any society saying "Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves". This reaffirms in my mind the unity of their actions and why. This would beg the question; If atheist, those with your or many of my opinions, ruled this Nation, do you really think she would be better off??? My answer would be an emphatic NO.

 

All this was intended to qualify any bunch of political figures and their advisor's, while discussing an enemy in both political and religious ideology after the fact (9/11) would NOT justify their behavior or that of their enemy, with a sense of religious background. Since that thread is reopened, I have nothing further to add to this or that thread, having never been able to open the authors sites, unless you wish to argue what meanings the American Cultures would have been, with other than the Christan background, which did not happen and of little interest to anyone....

[bascule]

As an agnostic, I understand your viewpoints and won't argue your right to believe in them, but will suggest those viewpoints will never be compatible to what those founders believed they were creating.

 

You mean like a country which is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion?

[jackson33]

From your site;

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries

 

Qualifying statement;

The first treaty is cited as historical evidence in the modern day controversy over whether there was religious intent by the founders of the United States government. Article 11 of the first treaty has been interpreted as an official denial of a Christian basis for the U.S. government.

 

Government qualifier;

Note: This only applies to works of the Federal Government and not to the work of any individual U.S. state, territory, commonwealth, county, municipality, or any other subdivision.

 

 

One conclusion;

In 1931 Hunter Miller completed a commission by the United States government to analyze United States's treaties and to explain how they function and what they mean in terms of the United States's legal position in relationship with the rest of the world.[19] According to Hunter Miller's notes, "the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic" and "Article 11... does not exist at all."[15]

 

My statement post #4;

The subject matter of my post is really not arguable and any person can derive whatever they wish from available quotes/actions of the founders in determining an opinion. It happens to be my position/opinion, that the separation was based on history and as perceived by those people, IN THEIR DAY, as was Jefferson's Wall...

 

bascule; As I mentioned to iNow, the available quotes and actions of the founders can and have been argued for centuries. This particular argument has been hashed out hundreds of times by more qualified historians than either any of us...

 

Whether or not it's possible to prove to the level you wish, the founders were by enlarge Christan, as was the general public in those days, certainly those instrumental in the formation of the Constitution and the events leading up to it. To even suggest that the US was formed under some atheistic understanding of religion, simply won't fly.....IMO.

[bascule]

Whether or not it's possible to prove to the level you wish, the founders were by enlarge Christan

 

You mean they were "by and large Christian"? *boggle*

 

They were people who were strongly opposed to institutionalizing religion within government, many of them having been victims of that in England.

 

And as iNow mentions, they were Deists, which certainly sets them apart from the beliefs of your average modern day Christian.

 

certainly those instrumental in the formation of the Constitution and the events leading up to it.

 

Yes, they were also all English-speaking white males. Is there some point you're trying to make that wouldn't apply equally to those traits?

 

To even suggest that the US was formed under some atheistic understanding of religion, simply won't fly.....IMO.

 

And who exactly is doing that?

 

[Pangloss]

Jackson33's quote is a rather loose interpretation of iNow's "deists" point, but it's an accurate interpretation and therefore not a straw man. The point of calling them deists is to further separate them from most religious concepts. Or as iNow put it, "strongly opposed to religious dogma".

[bascule]

Jackson33's quote is a rather loose interpretation of iNow's "deists" point, but it's an accurate interpretation and therefore not a straw man.

 

Umm...

 

iNow's saying they're deists. Deists are monotheists.

 

To even suggest that the US was formed under some atheistic understanding of religion

 

jackson33 is insisting someone is claiming they're atheists. Nobody is doing that.

[Pangloss]

That's not what he said. He used "atheistic" as an adjective, and you're using it as a noun. That point is not at all inconsistent with what iNow has been opining about the last few times it's come up, which is his belief that the founding fathers were not an overly religious lot by modern standards, and may not have been religious men at all.

[iNow]

That point is not at all inconsistent with what iNow has been opining about the last few times it's come up, which is his belief that the founding fathers were not an overly religious lot by modern standards, and may not have been religious men at all.

 

That is a complete misrepresentation of my actual position, which is precisely why bascule is, in fact, quite right to call it a strawman.

 

Can we all now please move back to debunking the claim that the founding fathers of the United States were a bunch of christians who founded our nation on christian values, a claim which has been repeatedly demonstrated to be false (instead of turning this into yet another thread about me and peoples conjectures about my beliefs and viewpoints)?

[jackson33]

bascule; Sorry I'm not into all this grammar educate or the intricacies of, I presume is modern day debate. We use to just stand up and argue our points. From the following definition and my understanding of strawman, is taking one point of an argument, IMPLYING it's the total of what was said. I replied to your post with an outlined and not addressed reply, from the post and site YOU OFFERED. You mentioned nothing about that argument, only something about grammar and another poster. Unless your painting a self portrait, to me that is the definition of Strawman argument, then addressed to me.

 

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

 

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1] [2]

 

Presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument can be a part of a valid argument. For example, one can argue that the opposing position implies that at least one of two other statements - both being presumably easier to refute than the original position - must be true. If one refutes both of these weaker propositions, the refutation is valid and does not fit the above definition of a "straw man" argument.

 

"To even suggest that the US was formed under some atheistic understanding..." does not accuse anybody of anything. The arguments made on this thread and many others HAVE inferred the founders were in fact NOT religious by nature or in fact intended a separation of' 'Church and State' for that specific reason. I no more know the exact reason, than anyone here, but have suggested the History of the time and the problems with in England, at that time were instrumental in their decsions....

 

 

Yes, they were also all English-speaking white males. Is there some point you're trying to make that wouldn't apply equally to those traits?

 

I have no idea what your getting at. If it bothers you the founders were predominantly 'English Speaking' (many spoke more than one language) or White, then it's you with a problem. Ben Franklin, Adams and most those in the northern States had no problem with Black Men, actually opposed slavery and if they owned land were voters in there Colony. Women was a different issue, took longer to gain their rights, but always KNEW who ruled the roost (opinion, from Abigale Adams). What you and a few others continue to ignore, is that judging anything from the past, must be presented in the context of that past. You are not...IMO.

[bascule]

jackson33, if all this thread is about is that the Founding Fathers had religious beliefs, then yes, conceded, and I think iNow will concede that too. If that's all you're trying to get at. Done! Thread over.

 

Other than that, I'm not sure what all this beating around the bush is really about.

 

Regardless of what the Founders religious beliefs were they sought to create a government neutral to all religions or non-religion, so that all religions are given an equal playing field and everyone has the freedom to worship (or not worship) however they want.

 

They wanted a wall of separation between church and state, so that both entities would be free from the influence of the other.

[Mokele]

Two points that need to be made here:

 

1) We are talking about the founding fathers, not the Borg. They were a quite diverse bunch, and I doubt any single claim applies to all of them. From now on, please specify which founding fathers in particular you are talking about. if you mean "all", "most", "some", or "a few", Be Specific.

 

2) It is well-known and historically established that Deism was, at the least, influential in the philosophies of many prominent founders (Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Adams, Paine). Whether Deism counts as Christianity is a legitimate question, and central to this debate. However, it also runs pretty close to our general embargo on discussions delving into doctrine. It should, at the least, be taken into consideration when making claims in this thread.

[iNow]

From the second reference I shared in post #2:

 

The supreme God of the Deists removed himself entirely from the universe after creating it. They believed that he assumed no control over it, exerted no influence on natural phenomena, and gave no supernatural revelation to man. A necessary consequence of these beliefs was a rejection of many doctrines central to the Christian religion. Deists did not believe in the virgin birth, divinity, or resurrection of Jesus, the efficacy of prayer, the miracles of the Bible, or even the divine inspiration of the Bible.

 

<...>

 

Fundamentalist Christians are currently working overtime to convince the American public that the founding fathers intended to establish this country on "biblical principles," but history simply does not support their view. The men mentioned above and others who were instrumental in the founding of our nation were in no sense Bible-believing Christians.

 

 

For a deeper exploration of the differences between deism and christianity, you might check sites such as this:

 

http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm

 

 

One quote on the very first page of that site written for and by deists is this:

Deism is belief in God based on the application of our reason on the designs/laws found throughout Nature. The designs presuppose a Designer. Deism is therefore a natural religion and is not a "revealed" religion. The natural religion/philosophy of Deism frees those who embrace it from the inconsistencies of superstition and the negativity of fear that are so strongly represented in all of the "revealed" religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam. (These religions are called revealed religions because they all make claim to having received a special revelation from God which they pretend, and many of their sincere followers actually believe, their various and conflicting holy books are based on.)

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

A better link from that site which addresses the question head on:

 

http://www.deism.com/deism_vs.htm

[Pangloss]

That is a complete misrepresentation of my actual position, which is precisely why bascule is, in fact, quite right to call it a strawman.

 

Can we all now please move back to debunking the claim that the founding fathers of the United States were a bunch of christians who founded our nation on christian values, a claim which has been repeatedly demonstrated to be false

 

Rofl! So, just to make sure I understand this, you were not at all trying to, as Jackson33 put it, "suggest that the US was formed under some atheistic understanding of religion".

 

And you would now like the thread to "move back to debunking the claim that the founding fathers of the United States were a bunch of christians who founded our nation on christian values."

 

Classic.

[Kyrisch]

Thomas Jefferson:

“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

 

Let me just point out that these quotes are being misconstrued. Taken separately, they seem to endorse the OP's conclusion, that Jefferson was a deeply Christian man; however, it is clear to me the true message of the last quote is sort of condescending. He is obviously insinuating that most so-called Christians do not actually follow the message of Christ. Here are some more Jefferson quotes for context:

 

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 181

 

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.

 

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820

 

You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819

 

Source

[bascule]

Rofl! So, just to make sure I understand this, you were not at all trying to, as Jackson33 put it, "suggest that the US was formed under some atheistic understanding of religion".

 

And you would now like the thread to "move back to debunking the claim that the founding fathers of the United States were a bunch of christians who founded our nation on christian values."

 

So apparently, the Founding Fathers were either atheists or Christians. There are no other possibilities.

 

Sounds like a classic example of a false dichotomy to me. They were neither Christians nor atheists. They were deists.

 

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter

 

Yeaaaahhhhh... they must've been Christians, for certainly they weren't atheists.

 

(or, per Mokele, Thomas Jefferson was)

[Pangloss]

Of course! iNow's point is that they were deists, not Christians or atheists. Who believed that if there was a divine entity, it exerted no influence on the real universe nor makes his presence known in any way. Why, that's not "an atheistic understanding of religion" at all!

[bascule]

iNow's point is that they [...] believed [...] there was a divine entity

 

Yep... therefore they're monotheists, not atheists. CASE CLOSED!

[iNow]

Rofl! So, just to make sure I understand this, you were not at all trying to, as Jackson33 put it, "suggest that the US was formed under some atheistic understanding of religion".

 

So apparently, the Founding Fathers were either atheists or Christians. There are no other possibilities.

 

Sounds like a classic example of a false dichotomy to me. They were neither Christians nor atheists. They were deists.

 

Of course! iNow's point is that they were deists, not Christians or atheists. Who believed that if there was a divine entity, it exerted no influence on the real universe nor makes his presence known in any way. Why, that's not "an atheistic understanding of religion" at all!

 

Yep... therefore they're monotheists, not atheists. CASE CLOSED!

 

Thank you for your help, bascule. As my words and my interpretations are AGAIN being made the subject of conversation instead of the topic itself, all I can do is to respond and confirm that I agree with your representation of my position, and appreciate your clear response to Pangloss.

 

 

Pangloss - I remember distictly asking you rather politely to please STOP making every response you make (in this thread and others) about me or what you think my worldview is. I am, as has been amply demonstrated during my membership here at SFN, QUITE capable of articulating my own positions rather clearly to others. I neither need nor want your help in that regard, especially when you continually misrepresent my actual positions.

 

I am not sure why you continue to make so many of your responses about my intentions or why you continue to misrepresent the positions I'm actually putting forth. All I can is to politely ask YET AGAIN for you to please stop, and if you are unable, I simply request that you don't respond to my points at all.

 

 

Now, I know you, Pangloss, are the moderator of this Politics board on SFN, but you are also a direct reason this thread is continuing to go off-topic, so I will again try to help refocus the discussion.

 

Everyone, please stick to the subject at hand. This thread is about the claim that the founding fathers of the United States were christians, and that the US was founded on christian values. As has already been pointed out numerous times and by numerous posters, not all of the founding fathers were christian, in fact, many were very explicitly deist. There are critical differences between deism and christianity (also demonstrated previously in the thread), and many of those men DIRECTLY at the heart of the founding documents... who wrote them with their own pen... (Jefferson, Madison, etc.) were very simply not themselves christians.

 

Further, regardless of what these men believed, they very explicitly wrote the constitution and our laws to keep government out of religion, and simultaneously to keep religion out of government.

 

 

NOBODY is claiming that these men were not religious, only that our government is not, should not be, nor is it allowed to be when viewed against the constitution itself.

 

 

 

Can we all now please move back to debunking the claim that the founding fathers of the United States were a bunch of christians who founded our nation on christian values, a claim which has been repeatedly demonstrated to be false?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

Now, in an attempt to lead by example, I will post an on-topic bit of information for perusal and exploration.

 

 

Words of our American Founding Fathers: Refuting the Notion the US was Founded on Christianity

Did the Founding Fathers of the United States

really

mean to disentangle the Church from the State? Many religious conservatives claim that they did not — Church-State separation, they say, "is a myth, like evolution." They argue that the very concept was invented by the United States Supreme Court in the late 1940s and in later court decisions in the 1960s (supposedly in cases instigated by 'secular humanists,' though this too is false).

 

It is claimed that historically the United States was founded by Christians, strictly

for

Christians, as a Christian Nation. Frequently quotations are given to support this false historical view, although most of these quotations — if accurate at all — are not even relevant to the debate. Apparently it is believed that by merely demonstrating that if this-or-that particular Founding Father was a pious Christian, that it then follows that he supports an accommodationist view. But clearly this is false given that most separationists are themselves very pious Christians. If we truely wish to understand what the Framers actually intended we must look at what they had to say about religion and the state, not religion

per se

.

 

What follows bellow are a number of quotations which corroborate the Supreme Court's constitutional interpretation, which can be simply stated that neither the State nor Federal Government may "pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another."

 

From this evidence it may be concluded that:

(

i

) The principle of state-church separation was carefully established and incorporated into the constitution by the founders;

(

ii

) The Establishment Clause was far reaching, intending to go beyond simply abolishing a national-church;

(

iii

) The Enlightenment had a powerful and dramatic influence on the foundation of the new nation;

(

iv

) The majority of our leading founders were not even Christians, but rather self-described deists;

(

v

) That a number of the founders were also, at times, hostile towards Christian theology.

 

 

---

line[/hr]

"[T']he government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;"

"Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary," 1796-97; from Hunter Miller, Treaties and Other International Acts of the U.S. [1776-1818], Vol. II, Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1931, p. 365.

 

 

Some other really great quotes available at the site above, and (lucky for us) given in context.

Edited May 26, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[Sisyphus]

It's been said above, but their religious views were obviously not uniform. They were a diverse group. Furthermore, at least some of them probably did not have unchanged beliefs over the course of their own lives. Why would they? Among them were very intellectually curious men, and I'd be very surprised if their opinions did not evolve over time. And finally, there was clearly a very big public/private divide over how they talked about religion, for obvious reasons. They were upper class, highly educated men infected with the ideas of the Enlightenment. Many were Freemasons. These were not the sort of ideas that politicians would talk about in public, because they belonged almost entirely to the liberal, educated elites alone. Secret societies, you know. All of this muddies the water.

 

Anyway, despite all that, it's clear that Jefferson, Paine, etc. could almost certainly be accurately described as Deists, as could most upper class, highly educated, liberal men of the Enlightenment. Some were probably more traditionally Christian to varying degrees.

 

Of course, none of this really matters to the question of a separation between church and state. The idea predates Enlightenment ideals, deism, etc. Arguably you could say that Jesus Christ himself advocated it. ("Give unto Caesar" etc.) And the tradition in America goes back to very religious men. What apparently most people on both sides of the current debate don't seem to understand is that the separation of church and state was for the purpose of protecting BOTH church AND state. Mixing them corrupts them both. Do modern-day would-be theocrats think so little of their faith and/or so much of government that they'd want each meddling in the other?

[Pangloss]

It's been said above, but their religious views were obviously not uniform. They were a diverse group.

 

Of course, none of this really matters to the question of a separation between church and state. The idea predates Enlightenment ideals, deism, etc. Arguably you could say that Jesus Christ himself advocated it. ("Give unto Caesar" etc.) And the tradition in America goes back to very religious men.

 

Exactly. There's no point in showing how different these men were from the modern religious right, which does not represent the modern majority view today either. People today -- even religious people -- are perfectly capable of separating their religious views from their athe- oh sorry!!!, secular views about how government should be run. Just as we know the founding fathers were, or we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

 

Well put!

 

 

What apparently most people on both sides of the current debate don't seem to understand is that the separation of church and state was for the purpose of protecting BOTH church AND state. Mixing them corrupts them both. Do modern-day would-be theocrats think so little of their faith and/or so much of government that they'd want each meddling in the other?

 

An interesting point.

[bascule]

An interesting point.

 

Deja vu:

 

They wanted a wall of separation between church and state, so that both entities would be free from the influence of the other.

[iNow]

Deja vu:

 

Yeah, no kidding. Deja vu, all over again, in fact.

 

The Founding Fathers' Religious Wisdom

This notion—that our country’s roots are explicitly Christian—is both foolish and wrong, for it devalues the Christian faith and disrespects the genius of the founding fathers.

<...>

The genius of the founding fathers is they understood that Christianity could not only stand on its own but would thrive without being written into the laws and founding documents of the country.

 

And later:

Further, regardless of what these men believed, they very explicitly wrote the constitution and our laws to keep government out of religion, and simultaneously to keep religion out of government.

Edited May 26, 2009 by iNow