PDA

View Full Version : Was America founded on Judeo-Christian Principles? Of Course it was!




Pages : [1] 2

Deborah K
03-06-2008, 03:35 PM
The following thread prompted this one:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=125338&page=38

I reject the obvious desire to revise history on this matter. It is as though our heritage is something that should be feared and reviled, and so it must be denied. An Orwellian trait to be sure.

I’ve decided to share some facts about this issue, but before I get into it, allow me to preface this by stating that I believe in a Creator, and I believe that Christ was the human manifestation of that Creator. However, I do not belong to a religious organization. I am a recovering Catholic. I come from a very long line of Catholics that includes priests and nuns on my French-Canadian Father’s side. My Mother was raised with no religion as her Father was an atheist. I was baptized right after birth, but my parents did not raise me Catholic. I practiced Catholicism of my own volition as a young girl, up until the Priest molestation scandal and subsequent illegal alien advocacy of the Catholic Church.

While I believe there is a place in the world for religion, I also believe that way too many people see it as an end, rather than a means to an end. This undermines a person’s wisdom and sense of balance. Instead of viewing the church as a vehicle in which to teach people about the source of divine power and through which divine power can be channeled into man’s nature, people view the church as the power itself. And the church allows and even encourages this line of thinking. I believe this is extremely deceptive and destructive.

I see organized religion in the same way as I see government. If it is allowed to be corrupted, it will be. The idea of religion, as in the idea of capitalism is not, in and of itself, corrupt. But human nature dictates that those who are left to their own devices without any oversight or intervention, will inevitably succumb to the greed and corruption that comes with too much power.

The founders knew this. You can tell they did when you read the Declaration of Independence. Read how they describe King George. Their goal was to protect us against corruption of power. “[They] delivered to us a system of government which has enjoyed unprecedented success: we are now the world’s longest on-going constitutional republic. Two hundred years under the same document- and under one form of government – is an accomplishment unknown among contemporary nations. For example: Russia, Italy, Spain, and other nations underwent revolutions about the same time as the American Revolution, but with very different results. Consider France: in the last 200 years it has gone through seven completely different forms of governments; Italy has over 50 tries, yet we are still in our first.

Where then, did our Founding Fathers acquire the ideas that produced such longevity? Other nations certainly had access to what our Founders utilized, yet evidently chose not to. From what sources did our Founders choose their ideas?

This question was asked by political science professors at the University of Houston. They rightfully felt that they could determine the source of the Founders’ ideas if they could collect the writings from the Founding Era and see whom the Founders were quoting.

The researchers assembled 15,000 writings from the founding Era – no small sample – and searched those writings. That project spanned ten years; but at the end of that time, the researchers had isolated 3,154 direct quotes made by the Founders and had identified the source of those quotes.

The researchers discovered that Baron Charles de Montesquieu was the man quoted most often by the founding fathers, with 8.3 percent of the Founders’ quotes being taken from his writings. Sir William Blackstone was the second most-quoted individual with 7.9 percent of the Founder’s quotes, and John Locke was third with 2.9 percent.

Surprisingly, the researchers discovered that the founders quoted directly out of the bible 4 times more than they quoted Montesquieu, 4 times more often than they quoted Blackstone, and 12 times more often than they quoted John Locke. Thirty four percent of the Founders’ quotes came directly out of the bible.

The study was even more impressive when the source of the ideas used by Montesquieu, Blackstone, and Locke were identified. Consider for example, the source of Blackstone’s ideas. Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws was first introduced in 1768, and for the next 100 years America’s courts quoted Blackstone to settle disputes, to define words, and to examine procedure; Blackstone’s Commentaries were the final word in the Supreme Courts. So what was a significant source of Blackstone’s ideas? Perhaps the best answer to that question can be given through the life of Charles Finney.

Charles Finney is known as a famous revivalist, minister, and preacher from one of America’s greatest revivals; the Second Great Awakening in the early 1800’s. Finney, in his autobiography, spoke of how he received his call to ministry. He explained that – having determined to become a lawyer – he, like all other law students at the time, commenced the study of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws. Finney observed that Blackstone’s Commentaries not only provided the laws, it also provided the Biblical concepts on which those laws were based. Finney explained that in the process of studying Blackstone, he read so much of the Bible that he became a Christian and received his call to the ministry. Finney’s life story clearly identified a major source of Blackstone’s ideas for law.

So, while 34% of the Founders’ quotes came directly out of the Bible, many of their quotes were taken from men – like Blackstone – who had used the Bible to arrive at their own conclusions.”

This doesn’t even include Supreme Court decisions, Congressional records, speeches, inaugurations, etc. all of which include sources of Biblical content and concepts. I can produce those as well, if need be ,as well as what was taught in American schools for the first 175 years.

Bear in mind, the above is not some made up opinion, it is well documented, irrefutable research into actual quotes from the Founders.


Sources:

David Barton, Original Intent, 1997

Donald Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism 1988

“The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thought” American Political Science Review

NeoRayden
03-06-2008, 03:55 PM
Even though it wasnt founded on Christian values if that is what makes you vote for Paul then so be it.

Tdcci
03-06-2008, 03:58 PM
That is the definitive proof that America was "founded on Judeo-Christian Principles"? Laughable. There are many cute things in the bible- the teachings of Jesus, turn the other cheek etc which are never actually practiced in Christianity or Judaism. These are what are most quoted (see: Thomas Jefferson's Bible). The dogma, the laws in Deuteronomy are what are actually followed by Jews and Christians, and manipulated for the church's political desires. You didn't answer the question of what these "Judeo-Christian Principles" are. You don't have to be a Christian to quote the bible. In fact, I will quote the bible now.



Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)




You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)




"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)




Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)




If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)




All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)




If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)




A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB




Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)




They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)




If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)




Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)




But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)




If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)




Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)




Suppose there are prophets among you, or those who have dreams about the future, and they promise you signs or miracles, and the predicted signs or miracles take place. If the prophets then say, 'Come, let us worship the gods of foreign nations,' do not listen to them. The LORD your God is testing you to see if you love him with all your heart and soul. Serve only the LORD your God and fear him alone. Obey his commands, listen to his voice, and cling to him. The false prophets or dreamers who try to lead you astray must be put to death, for they encourage rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of slavery in the land of Egypt. Since they try to keep you from following the LORD your God, you must execute them to remove the evil from among you. (Deuteronomy 13:1-5 NLT)




But any prophet who claims to give a message from another god or who falsely claims to speak for me must die.' You may wonder, 'How will we know whether the prophecy is from the LORD or not?' If the prophet predicts something in the LORD's name and it does not happen, the LORD did not give the message. That prophet has spoken on his own and need not be feared. (Deuteronomy 18:20-22 NLT)




So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies. Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved. When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving. They are fully aware of God's death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway. And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. (Romans 1:24-32 NLT)




For the LORD had said to Moses, 'Exempt the tribe of Levi from the census; do not include them when you count the rest of the Israelites. You must put the Levites in charge of the Tabernacle of the Covenant, along with its furnishings and equipment. They must carry the Tabernacle and its equipment as you travel, and they must care for it and camp around it. Whenever the Tabernacle is moved, the Levites will take it down and set it up again. Anyone else who goes too near the Tabernacle will be executed.' (Numbers 1:48-51 NLT)




The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)




If I were to go on (and believe me I could) it would be a significant percentage of my writings, I'm sure.

Deborah K
03-06-2008, 04:16 PM
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:

Even though it wasnt founded on Christian values if that is what makes you vote for Paul then so be it.

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?

ForLiberty-RonPaul
03-06-2008, 04:46 PM
oh my goodness. read a history book please.

one word - JAMESTOWN

Cleaner44
03-06-2008, 04:49 PM
Who cares if if was founded on judeo or karate or kung fu values? :confused:

Patriot123
03-06-2008, 05:02 PM
Um, no. Sorry, but no. America was not founded on Jewish values, Christian values, or anything in between. Our founders were not Christian, nor were they Jewish, and again nor where they anything in between.

ToryNotion
03-06-2008, 05:21 PM
Liberty and Liberal (properly understood) ideas have only flourished in this world where Christianity has flourished because Christian doctrine affirms the worth of each and every human being. Where Christianity has not taken a foothold collectivism reigns (and its making a comeback in Christendom as well, unfortunately).

Deborah K
03-06-2008, 05:23 PM
Um, no. Sorry, but no. America was not founded on Jewish values, Christian values, or anything in between. Our founders were not Christian, nor were they Jewish, and again nor where they anything in between.

ROFL!!! Thirty five of the Founding Fathers who worked on the Constitution were members of the orthodox Christian Churches and others were evangelical Christians. Heheh are you implying they were all atheists? Where is your evidence of this? LOL

Deborah K
03-06-2008, 05:30 PM
Who cares if if was founded on judeo or karate or kung fu values? :confused:

I don't care either. But I'll be damned if I'm going to stand by and let these fools who refuse to crack open a history book revise history.

Has anyone read 1984? I had to read it in high school 200 years ago.....anyway.....the job of the main character, Winston, was to rewrite history to fit the agenda of big brother. If atheists and the like keep parroting the lies regarding the founders and their documents, sooner or later, most of the media-mall zombies are going to believe it as the truth much like they already do about the lie of 'Separation of Church and State'.

Paulitician
03-06-2008, 06:27 PM
While I agree to an extent, I don't believe only Christianity or Judaism can lay claim to those principles. So to me, it's rather irrelevant.

Tdcci
03-06-2008, 06:46 PM
ROFL!!! Thirty five of the Founding Fathers who worked on the Constitution were members of the orthodox Christian Churches and others were evangelical Christians. Heheh are you implying they were all atheists? Where is your evidence of this? LOL

Typical backwards Christian logic. When you claim a god exists, and I ask you to prove it, you can't ask me to prove it DOESNT exist because YOU made the assertion! Likewise, YOU must prove that a) they were religious and b) it wholly influenced America's creation; something EASILY attributed to religion like a state religion, not using general attributes like kindness or perserverance!

mtmedlin
03-06-2008, 06:46 PM
1. I would like a list of the people who you claim were christians.

2. Many ideas parroted in the Bible are not ideas solely of the Bible. To say that they used a certain principle that turn up in the Bible is one thing. To attempt to say that those principles originated from the Bible is another. I believe that many of the principles that are attributed to Christianity were actually laid out by Plato roughly 330 years before Jesus ever existed. This argument is typical of Christian arrogance.

3. The majority of our laws are based on English Common law, NOT THE BIBLE. English Common law has major components added to it by Germanic Law and ISLAMIC law.

I have done my history on this and Christians and Christianity DID play a part in the formation of our country and her founding documents but the bloated sense of accomplishment that many christian "historians" have is insulting to those of us that dont take in false propaganda.

mtmedlin
03-06-2008, 06:50 PM
I don't care either. But I'll be damned if I'm going to stand by and let these fools who refuse to crack open a history book revise history.

Has anyone read 1984? I had to read it in high school 200 years ago.....anyway.....the job of the main character, Winston, was to rewrite history to fit the agenda of big brother. If atheists and the like keep parroting the lies regarding the founders and their documents, sooner or later, most of the media-mall zombies are going to believe it as the truth much like they already do about the lie of 'Separation of Church and State'.

The lie of Seperation of Church and State. What lie? It was a suggestion by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a church. The first amendment supports his opinion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"

If they cannot make any laws resecting or prohibiting isnt this a "wall of Seperation between church and state"?

clouds
03-06-2008, 07:17 PM
this is ridiculous. You guys are nitpicking what each other say. A good bit of America's founding did have to do with religious freedom, obviously. The USA, on the other hand, has more to do with political freedom.

jglapski
03-06-2008, 07:33 PM
What did the Founders actually write?
"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 tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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."
-passed unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams

With respect to Blackstone's thoughts being based on Christianity, let's hear from Founding Father Thomas Jefferson:
"And Blackstone repeats, in the words of Sir Matthew Hale, that 'Christianity is part of the laws of England,' citing Ventris and Strange ubi surpa. 4. Blackst. 59. Lord Mansfield qualifies it a little by saying that 'The essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law." In the case of the Chamberlain of London v. Evans, 1767. But he cites no authority, and leaves us at our peril to find out what, in the opinion of the judge, and according to the measure of his foot or his faith, are those essential principles of revealed religion obligatory on us as a part of the common law."
Thus we find this string of authorities, when examined to the beginning, all hanging on the same hook, a perverted expression of Priscot's, or on one another, or nobody."

(Priscot's expression was "ancien scripture"; the perversion was that it meant "Holy" scripture.)

Jefferson also writes:
"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it."

". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

Think about that: "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law," courtesy of Thomas Jefferson.

Was America founded as a Pagan country?
http://www.nobeliefs.com/pagan.htm

And as far as your quote count goes:

"atheist" has 3 hits. "Jesus" has 0. I guess you must be an atheist.

IcyPeaceMaker
03-06-2008, 08:15 PM
This from wikipedia:

The history of the Jews in the United States comprises a theological dimension, with a three-way division into Orthodox, Conservative and Reform. In social terms the Jewish community began with small groups of merchants in colonial ports such as New York City and Charleston. In the mid and late 19th century well-educated German Jews arrived and settled in cities across the United States. From 1880 to 1924 large numbers of Yiddish-speaking Jews arrived from Eastern Europe, settling in New York City and other large cities. After 1926 numbers came as refugees from Europe; after 1980 many came from the Soviet Union, and there has been a flow from Israel. By the year 1900 the 1.5 million Jews residing in the United States were the third most of any nation, behind Russia and Austria-Hungary. The proportion of the population has been about 2 to 3% since 1900, but in the 21st century Jews were widely diffused in major metropolitan areas in New York, South Florida, Philadelphia, California, New England, Ohio, and Illinois.

Tdcci
03-06-2008, 08:21 PM
the Jewish community began with small groups of merchants in colonial ports

That doesn't mean anything.

IcyPeaceMaker
03-06-2008, 08:28 PM
That doesn't mean anything.
Maybe not to you, but the cities and ports were up and running, the country started in 1492, settled in 1533, and they showed up in the early 1800's. Maybe you can cypher it for yourself?

This from a jewish site:
http://jewishwebindex.com/unitedstates.htm

Deborah K
03-06-2008, 08:31 PM
Typical backwards Christian logic. When you claim a god exists, and I ask you to prove it, you can't ask me to prove it DOESNT exist because YOU made the assertion! Likewise, YOU must prove that a) they were religious and b) it wholly influenced America's creation; something EASILY attributed to religion like a state religion, not using general attributes like kindness or perserverance!

What in the hell are you talking about?! What does this have to do with anything? I never asked you to prove God didn't exist. I've already proven what I set out to prove. Regardless of your apparent cognitive dissonance.

IcyPeaceMaker
03-06-2008, 08:33 PM
This will shed much light on the Johnny-come-lately "judeo" thingy:
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

Deborah K
03-06-2008, 08:44 PM
The lie of Seperation of Church and State. What lie? It was a suggestion by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a church. The first amendment supports his opinion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"

If they cannot make any laws resecting or prohibiting isnt this a "wall of Seperation between church and state"?

You are right that the words come from a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Church in an attempt to calm their concerns over a rumor they heard that the government was planning to choose a 'state religion'. The lie I refer to is the one that has been perpetuated ever since the Engle v. Vitale case in which the attorney took those words out of context in an effort to remove religion from public affairs, specifically prayer from schools. Since then, that phrase has been taken to mean "freedom FROM religion" and completely ignores the second clause "...prohibiting the free exercise thereof". If you ask the average Media mall zombie if that phrase, SOCS, is in the first amendment, they'll answer "yes".

No where in the amendment, or any where else in the Constitution does it prohibit the free exercise of religious practices in public forums yet ever since that unprecedented ruling, the 'free exercise' clause has been systematically removed from public arenas. And thus, we now have a movement in this country that is denying our godly heritage altogether.

I don't have time tonight, but I'll answer your questions about who was what religion, etc.

IcyPeaceMaker
03-06-2008, 09:08 PM
Want to know why there is an attack on Christianity?


Written by a Jew (a real one)
WHY JEWS DESPISE THE IDEA OF AMERICAN “NATIONHOOD”

Here are 3 reason why Jews wage war on American nationalism:


1) The soul of the American nation is built *not* upon ideals such as the Jew-promoted ideas of “democracy” & “equality for all men.” But rather on our common memory of America’s Christian roots, Her heroes, and a shared hope in Christ’s Providential care.

~~ But Jews despise Christianity and hate the Lord Jesus Christ! ~~

2) The soul of the American nation is built upon love for America’s soil upon which Her heroes fought for freedom. These heroes were Christians such as George Washington, Patrick Henry, Jonathan Edwards, Davy Crockett, Daniel Boone, Fanny Crosby, William Jennings Bryan, and Louis T. McFadden.

~~ But Jews despise Christian heroes and their love of the Christian cause! ~~

3) The soul of the American nation is built upon the common culture and customs of America. The customs of America which have formed American culture are Christian holy days such as Christmas, Easter, and Thanksgiving.

~~ But Jews despise Christian holy days and wage war on all public expressions of love for Christian holy days! ~~

Please see the whole article here: http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=159

Patriot123
03-06-2008, 10:38 PM
ROFL!!! Thirty five of the Founding Fathers who worked on the Constitution were members of the orthodox Christian Churches and others were evangelical Christians. Heheh are you implying they were all atheists? Where is your evidence of this? LOL

Benjamin Franklin was quite possibly if not definitely an Atheist, however an overwhelming majority of them were Deists. This includes the most notable founders. Just to set the stage light metaphorically speaking, Thomas Paine even wrote a book to disprove the religion of Christianity. Even if you want to delve into trying to dispute this and arguing these facts, what you cannot argue is that our founders created a nation and society where religious freedom was an absolute right. They did not, never intended to and would likely to have refused to base the country off of any religion including Christianity and Judaism. There were no Jews, if not one or two in America when it was founded, anyway. So even if you want to argue that the founders were Christian [which a large majority of them were abolutely not] you cannot dispute the fact that our nation was not founded on the basis of any religion, because our founders knew that with an established religion came persecution, hatred, etcetera.




1) The soul of the American nation is built *not* upon ideals such as the Jew-promoted ideas of “democracy” & “equality for all men.” But rather on our common memory of America’s Christian roots, Her heroes, and a shared hope in Christ’s Providential care.

~~ But Jews despise Christianity and hate the Lord Jesus Christ! ~~

2) The soul of the American nation is built upon love for America’s soil upon which Her heroes fought for freedom. These heroes were Christians such as George Washington, Patrick Henry, Jonathan Edwards, Davy Crockett, Daniel Boone, Fanny Crosby, William Jennings Bryan, and Louis T. McFadden.

~~ But Jews despise Christian heroes and their love of the Christian cause! ~~

3) The soul of the American nation is built upon the common culture and customs of America. The customs of America which have formed American culture are Christian holy days such as Christmas, Easter, and Thanksgiving.

~~ But Jews despise Christian holy days and wage war on all public expressions of love for Christian holy days! ~~

Oh, please. George Washington was a deist. Not a Christian. And this nation was never founded as a Christian nation, ever. And I love how you're trying to come across as making all Jews out to be these, "evil pigs who are trying to take over America" ;)

IcyPeaceMaker
03-06-2008, 11:43 PM
My friend, thay aren't trying..........they rule America today.

There is alot of proof, even Harvard University knows these facts:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Who+rules+america&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8

Even Harvard University knows they control America:
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-83-page-report-AIPAC-controls-USA.pdf

Patriot123
03-06-2008, 11:50 PM
My friend, thay aren't trying..........they rule America today.

There is alot of proof, even Harvard University knows these facts:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Who+rules+america&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8

Even Harvard University knows they control America:
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-83-page-report-AIPAC-controls-USA.pdf
Ah... We're ruling America, now? Like dictators? Sorry, believe I'm ten pages back in the conspircay book about the "Holohoax"one. I'm sorry, perhaps you bring me up to speed on Alex Jones' newest page?

Deborah K
03-07-2008, 10:44 AM
[QUOTE=Patriot123;1332464]Benjamin Franklin was quite possibly if not definitely an Atheist, however an overwhelming majority of them were Deists. This includes the most notable founders. Just to set the stage light metaphorically speaking, Thomas Paine even wrote a book to disprove the religion of Christianity. Even if you want to delve into trying to dispute this and arguing these facts, what you cannot argue is that our founders created a nation and society where religious freedom was an absolute right. They did not, never intended to and would likely to have refused to base the country off of any religion including Christianity and Judaism. There were no Jews, if not one or two in America when it was founded, anyway. So even if you want to argue that the founders were Christian [which a large majority of them were abolutely not] you cannot dispute the fact that our nation was not founded on the basis of any religion, because our founders knew that with an established religion came persecution, hatred, etcetera.

So what you're saying is, the research done by the University of Houston which I presented in my OP and which is based on 15,000 writings and their origins, is just bunk because you said so??? Sorry but you're going to have to do a much better job of disproving the research.

As far as your claim that the founders were atheists, deists, etc. blah, blah, blah.
Debunk the following then, and do it with the research of reputable sources otherwise please stop wasting my time and everyone else's who would like to have an intellectually honest debate about this.

Religious Affiliation of the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, including the Signers of the Constitution of the United States of America.

There were 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 at which the U.S. Constitution was drafted and signed. All participated in the proceedings which resulted in the Constitution, but only 39 of these delegates were actually signers of the document.

From: Robert G. Ferris (editor), Signers of the Constitution: Historic Places Commemorating the Signing of the Constitution, published by the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service: Washington, D.C. (revised edition 1976), page 138:

Most of the [signers of the Constitution] married and fathered children. Sherman sired the largest family, numbering 15 by two wives... Three (Baldwin, Gilman, and Jenifer) were lifetime bachelors. In terms of religious affiliation, the men mirrored the overwhelmingly Protestant character of American religious life at the time and were members of various denominations. Only two, Carroll and Fitzsimons, were Roman Catholics.

Religious Affiliation # of delegates % of delegates

Episcopalian/Anglican 31 56.4%
Presbyterian 16 29.1%
Congregationalist 8 14.5%
Quaker 3 5.5%
Catholic 2 3.6%
Methodist 2 3.6%
Lutheran 2 3.6%
Dutch Reformed 2 3.6%

TOTAL 55 100%


Name of Signer State Religious Affiliation

Daniel Carroll Maryland Catholic
Thomas Fitzsimons Pennsylvania Catholic
Roger Sherman Connecticut Congregationalist
Nathaniel Gorham Massachusetts Congregationalist
John Langdon New Hampshire Congregationalist
Nicholas Gilman New Hampshire Congregationalist
Abraham Baldwin Georgia Congregationalist; Episcopalian
William Samuel Johnson Connecticut Episcopalian; Presbyterian
James Madison Jr. Virginia Episcopalian
George Read - Delaware Episcopalian
Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer Maryland Episcopalian
David Brearly New Jersey Episcopalian
Richard Dobbs Spaight, Sr. North Carolina Episcopalian
Robert Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian
Gouverneur Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian
John Rutledge South Carolina Episcopalian
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney South Carolina Episcopalian
Charles Pinckney South Carolina Episcopalian
Pierce Butler South Carolina Episcopalian
George Washington Virginia Episcopalian
Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Episcopalian (Deist)
William Blount North Carolina Episcopalian; Presbyterian
James Wilson Pennsylvania Episcopalian; Presbyteran
Rufus King Massachusetts Episcopalian; Congregationalist
Jacob Broom Delaware Lutheran
William Few Georgia Methodist
Richard Bassett Delaware Methodist
Gunning Bedford Jr. Delaware Presbyterian
James McHenry Maryland Presbyterian
William Livingston New Jersey Presbyterian
William Paterson New Jersey Presbyterian
Hugh Williamson North Carolina Presbyterian
Jared Ingersoll Pennsylvania Presbyterian
Alexander Hamilton New York Huguenot; Presbyterian; Episcopalian
Jonathan Dayton New Jersey Presbyterian; Episcopalian
John Blair Virginia Presbyterian; Episcopalian
John Dickinson Delaware Quaker; Episcopalian
George Clymer Pennsylvania Quaker; Episcopalian
Thomas Mifflin Pennsylvania Quaker; Lutheran


Name of Non-Signing Delegate State Religious Affiliation
Oliver Ellsworth Connecticut Congregationalist
Caleb Strong Massachusetts Congregationalist
John Lansing, Jr. New York Dutch Reformed
Robert Yates New York Dutch Reformed
William Houstoun Georgia Episcopalian
William Leigh Pierce Georgia Episcopalian
Luther Martin Maryland Episcopalian
John F. Mercer Maryland Episcopalian
Elbridge Gerry Massachusetts Episcopalian
George Mason Virginia Episcopalian
Edmund J. Randolph Virginia Episcopalian
George Wythe Virginia Episcopalian
James McClurg Virginia Presbyterian
William C. Houston New Jersey Presbyterian
William R. Davie North Carolina Presbyterian
Alexander Martin North Carolina Presbyterian


Source: http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

LibertiORDeth
03-07-2008, 10:52 AM
Although a large part of the founders were Christians, there was a large group of atheists/pagans such as the Masons who laid the foundation for this country. And I find this who discussion ludicrous.

mtmedlin
03-07-2008, 10:55 AM
So what is your argument? Are you saying that because these men self identified themselves as one of the many factions of Christianity that our government is founded on Christian principles? My question is this, what was Christianity founded on? Many of the "ideals" that were laid out in the carefully selected scrolls commonly refered to as the Bible are nothing more then ancient principles handed down by vocal tradition or writings of other great thinkers. Plato played a much bigger role in the formation of our country then the biblical principles of the christians.

IN PLATO WE TRUST!

Deborah K
03-07-2008, 11:03 AM
So what is your argument? Are you saying that because these men self identified themselves as one of the many factions of Christianity that our government is founded on Christian principles? My question is this, what was Christianity founded on? Many of the "ideals" that were laid out in the carefully selected scrolls commonly refered to as the Bible are nothing more then ancient principles handed down by vocal tradition or writings of other great thinkers. Plato played a much bigger role in the formation of our country then the biblical principles of the christians.

IN PLATO WE TRUST!

As I mentioned in my first post, my argument is that I reject the desire to revise history on this matter. First it was the misinterpretation of "Separation of Church and State" and now all we hear is how our Founders were atheists and deists. Granted, some were, but a very small number. It's sickening how people with an agenda will advance a lie and repeat it often enough that people begin to believe it is the truth.

I am making an attempt at quelling yet another lie about the founders, the founding documents, and the role Christianity has played in our nation's history.

That's it.

Deborah K
03-07-2008, 11:05 AM
Although a large part of the founders were Christians, there was a large group of atheists/pagans such as the Masons who laid the foundation for this country. And I find this who discussion ludicrous.

Feel free NOT to participate then. Do you know anything about the masons? Are you implying they are atheists?

micahnelson
03-07-2008, 11:19 AM
The country was founded on the principles of the enlightenment, religious affiliations of the founders aside.

Though, as you so meticulous pointed out, they all were involved with religious organizations, they saw it neccessary to leave out religious documentation in our founding articles with the exception of a concept that the people get their rights from a creator- not a government.

Missing are references to the Christian church, Jesus, etc. While initially the founders were much more open to religious functions of government at the state level, Massachusetts is a great example, Religious observance beyond simple traditions such as opening with prayer were purposefully and specifically left out.

The reason? The mike huckabee's of the world. The founders were wise enough to know that state religions become tools of oppression. While we come from a heritage of Christian principles, lets not remember that the puritans that brought us that heritage were, themselves, running from a state religion. We inherited much from the enlightenment, Plato, and certainly English Common Law.

Saying all that to say this, most people who espouse the idea that we have a Christian heritage are not aiming to establish a nostalgic look back to our foundation. They are looking to establish a historical link that will justify actions today. Modern Christianity, if it continues to imbed itself into the federal government, will become a tool of oppression like all the others in their arsenal.

As a Christian, i deeply oppose the use of the name of God to justify everything from a war on terror to welfare programs.

Do you really want to shake up government in the name of Christ? Care for the poor, clothe the naked, teach the illiterate. Our government requires dependency. If the church could fill its proper role as "Salt of the earth", then we would see the type of Christianity that focuses on the individual- something the state will never do.

I'm not attacking you, please don't misunderstand. It has taken me a while to understand that the government can't and should not preserve our faith. Society isn't going down the drain because of the government's lack of support for the church, it is the failure of the Church to be what it can and should be.

Ranger29860
03-07-2008, 11:26 AM
I heard this argument all the time while i was in high school (private Christian school) they all said that the country was founded on Christian values and anytime you questioned that you got in trouble


my question to you is what are Christian values and how do they differ from other values I'm not a Christian i'm a deist but i still believe in allot of things (morally) in the bible that had not originated solely from the bible .

Now there are some things that do concern me like the putting to death of gays and children. that brings me to another question how could the idea of liberty and justice be prevalent in the constitution if most of the founders were 100% Christians i don't see how stoning children is a GOOD value that would be accepted in a free society same with the homosexual's are bad argument i hear on a daily basis

just because a person declares themselves as Christian does not mean that they base there decisions on the bible or believe every word of it .if the founders did influence the country based on Christian values that it is not apparent in the constitution or the bill of rights. read Thomas Pains writings there are some real eye openers

p.s. i'm not taking any particular swipes at individuals are groups just stating opinion so please be gentle :D

Deborah K
03-07-2008, 11:34 AM
Do you really want to shake up government in the name of Christ?

I don't think you can deduce that from my argument. If you're asking me if I think Christianity should hijack the government then the answer is a resounding no. My objective as I stated before is to try and stop this ridiculous myth that Judeo-Christian values had nothing whatever to do with the founding of this nation.

Tdcci
03-07-2008, 11:40 AM
The lie I refer to is the one that has been perpetuated ever since the Engle v. Vitale case in which the attorney took those words out of context in an effort to remove religion from public affairs, specifically prayer from schools.

This is a half-truth at best, at worst an outright lie. Engle v. Vitale established that Government directed prayer was unconstitutional, for obvious reasons- the school is part of the state!


Since then, that phrase has been taken to mean "freedom FROM religion" and completely ignores the second clause "...prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Nothing stops you from exercising your religion, you are merely restricted from using your position of authority, whether it be in school or anywhere else to impose your religious views on everyone else.


If you ask the average Media mall zombie if that phrase, SOCS, is in the first amendment, they'll answer "yes".

SOCS is implied with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

No one is "denying our godly heritage", religion is just not something to be proud of, it's an old and destructive thing that has outlived its usefulness. My ancestors, as well as probably being religious, probably didn't practice proper hygiene by today's standards. Why should I emulate that?

Deborah K
03-07-2008, 11:48 AM
my question to you is what are Christian values and how do they differ from other values I'm not a Christian i'm a deist but i still believe in allot of things (morally) in the bible that had not originated solely from the bible

This is sort of off the point, but I'll try....Christian values are ideas and beliefs that are held up as a way to conduct oneself. iThey are how individuals or a group of individuals organize their ethical or ideological belief systems. They give us a basis for determining what is right and what is wrong. For example, the law says, don't kill, the bible says it as well but we're also told by Jesus in the bible, 'don't be angry, don't hate'. Clearly if you can prevent the anger and the hate, you can prevent the murder. I know this is very simplistic, and it barely scratches the surface, but it might help give you an idea about how Christian values work.

mtmedlin
03-07-2008, 11:50 AM
As I mentioned in my first post, my argument is that I reject the desire to revise history on this matter. First it was the misinterpretation of "Separation of Church and State" and now all we hear is how our Founders were atheists and deists. Granted, some were, but a very small number. It's sickening how people with an agenda will advance a lie and repeat it often enough that people begin to believe it is the truth.

I am making an attempt at quelling yet another lie about the founders, the founding documents, and the role Christianity has played in our nation's history.

That's it.

Ok, but you also didnt mention any of the other points that I made. Most christian principles arent anything new. Even Christianity has roots that are far deeper then a religion that is only 2000 years old. read the Bhagavad Gita and many of the same principles are there and is over 1000 years older.

yongrel
03-07-2008, 11:52 AM
Agreed. The United States was founded on Christian values. This is why stoning disobedient women and sons is a pillar of our society. It is also why we are a polygamous culture. In addition, because of America's Christian founding values, we practice the custom of eating the "fruit of the womb,"; the flesh of the children of our slain enemies.

I'm glad America was founded with Christian values.

Deborah K
03-07-2008, 11:57 AM
This is a half-truth at best, at worst an outright lie. Engle v. Vitale established that Government directed prayer was unconstitutional, for obvious reasons- the school is part of the state!



Nothing stops you from exercising your religion, you are merely restricted from using your position of authority, whether it be in school or anywhere else to impose your religious views on everyone else.



SOCS is implied with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

No one is "denying our godly heritage", religion is just not something to be proud of, it's an old and destructive thing that has outlived its usefulness. My ancestors, as well as probably being religious, probably didn't practice proper hygiene by today's standards. Why should I emulate that?

An outright lie? How so? Up to that point in our history, kids could pray in school, etc, etc. For 175 years this was the case and more. Again, sheesh, you need to check your history facts. Look at Reynolds v. United States, Everson v. Board of Education, Baer v. Kolmorgen.

No one is denying our godly heritage? I invite the readers on this forum to look through Tdcc's posts and read what he/she has written. Talk about lies.

Tdcc, start backing up your argument with facts because I'm not going to waste my time with baseless opinions.

Deborah K
03-07-2008, 11:59 AM
Ok, but you also didnt mention any of the other points that I made. Most christian principles arent anything new. Even Christianity has roots that are far deeper then a religion that is only 2000 years old. read the Bhagavad Gita and many of the same principles are there and is over 1000 years older.

I have no argument with you on that. Again, I am debating the denial of Christian principles in our heritage.

yongrel
03-07-2008, 12:00 PM
Other fun Christian values:

GE 3:1-7, 22-24 God allows Adam and Eve to be deceived by the Serpent (the craftiest of all of God's wild creatures). They eat of the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil," thereby incurring death for themselves and all of mankind for ever after. God prevents them from regaining eternal life, by placing a guard around the "Tree of Eternal Life." (Note: God could have done the same for the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" in the first place and would thereby have prevented the Fall of man, the necessity for Salvation, the Crucifixion of Jesus, etc.)

GE 4:2-8 God's arbitrary preference of Abel's offering to that of Cain's provokes Cain to commit the first biblically recorded murder and kill his brother Abel.

GE 34:13-29 The Israelites kill Hamor, his son, and all the men of their village, taking as plunder their wealth, cattle, wives and children.

GE 6:11-17, 7:11-24 God is unhappy with the wickedness of man and decides to do something about it. He kills every living thing on the face of the earth other than Noah's family and thereby makes himself the greatest mass murderer in history.

GE 19:26 God personally sees to it that Lot's wife is turned to a pillar of salt (for having looked behind her while fleeing the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah).

GE 38:9 "... whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked ..., so the Lord put him to death."

EX 2:12 Moses murders an Egyptian.

EX 7:1, 14, 9:14-16, 10:1-2, 11:7 The purpose of the devastation that God brings to the Egyptians is as follows:
to show that he is Lord;
to show that there is none like him in all the earth;
to show his great power;
to cause his name to be declared throughout the earth;
to give the Israelites something to talk about with their children;
to show that he makes a distinction between Israel and Egypt.

EX 9:22-25 A plague of hail from the Lord strikes down everything in the fields of Egypt both man and beast except in Goshen where the Israelites reside.

EX 12:29 The Lord kills all the first-born in the land of Egypt.

EX 17:13 With the Lord's approval, Joshua mows down Amalek and his people.

EX 21:20-21 With the Lord's approval, a slave may be beaten to death with no punishment for the perpetrator as long as the slave doesn't die too quickly.

EX 32:27 "Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.

EX 32:27-29 With the Lord's approval, the Israelites slay 3000 men.

LE 26:7-8 The Lord promises the Israelites that, if they are obedient, their enemies will "fall before your sword."

LE 26:22 "I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children."

LE 26:29, DT 28:53, JE 19:9, EZ 5:8-10 As a punishment, the Lord will cause people to eat the flesh of their own sons and daughters and fathers and friends.

LE 27:29 Human sacrifice is condoned. (Note: An example is given in JG 11:30-39)

NU 11:33 The Lord smites the people with a great plague.

NU 12:1-10 God makes Miriam a leper for seven days because she and Aaron had spoken against Moses.

NU 15:32-36 A Sabbath breaker (who had gathered sticks for a fire) is stoned to death at the Lord's command.

NU 16:27-33 The Lord causes the earth to open and swallow up the men and their households (including wives and children) because the men had been rebellious.

NU 16:35 A fire from the Lord consumes 250 men.

NU 16:49 A plague from the Lord kills 14,700 people.

NU 21:3 The Israelites utterly destroy the Canaanites.

NU 21:6 Fiery serpents, sent by the Lord, kill many Israelites.

NU 21:35 With the Lord's approval, the Israelites slay Og "... and his sons and all his people, until there was not one survivor left ...."

NU 25:4 (KJV) "And the Lord said unto Moses, take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun ...."

NU 25:8 "He went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly."

NU 25:9 24,000 people die in a plague from the Lord.

NU 31:9 The Israelites capture Midianite women and children.

NU 31:17-18 Moses, following the Lord's command, orders the Israelites to kill all the Midianite male children and "... every woman who has known man ...." (Note: How would it be determined which women had known men? One can only speculate.)

NU 31:31-40 32,000 virgins are taken by the Israelites as booty. Thirty-two are set aside (to be sacrificed?) as a tribute for the Lord.

DT 2:33-34 The Israelites utterly destroy the men, women, and children of Sihon.

DT 3:6 The Israelites utterly destroy the men, women, and children of Og.

DT 7:2 The Lord commands the Israelites to "utterly destroy" and shown "no mercy" to those whom he gives them for defeat.

DT 20:13-14 "When the Lord delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the males .... As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves."

DT 20:16 "In the cities of the nations the Lord is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes."

DT 21:10-13 With the Lord's approval, the Israelites are allowed to take "beautiful women" from the enemy camp to be their captive wives. If, after sexual relations, the husband has "no delight" in his wife, he can simply let her go.

DT 28:53 "You will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the Lord your God has given you."

JS 1:1-9, 18 Joshua receives the Lord's blessing for all the bloody endeavors to follow.

JS 6:21-27 With the Lord's approval, Joshua destroys the city of Jericho men, women, and children with the edge of the sword.

JS 7:19-26 Achan, his children and his cattle are stoned to death because Achan had taken a taboo thing.

JS 8:22-25 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly smites the people of Ai, killing 12,000 men and women, so that there were none who escaped.

JS 10:10-27 With the help of the Lord, Joshua utterly destroys the Gibeonites.

JS 10:28 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the people of Makkedah.

JS 10:30 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the Libnahites.

JS 10:32-33 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the people of Lachish.

JS 10:34-35 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the Eglonites.

JS 10:36-37 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the Hebronites.

JS 10:38-39 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the Debirites.

JS 10:40 (A summary statement.) "So Joshua defeated the whole land ...; he left none remaining, but destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded."

JS 11:6 The Lord orders horses to be hamstrung. (Exceedingly cruel.)

JS 11:8-15 "And the lord gave them into the hand of Israel, ...utterly destroying them; there was none left that breathed ...."

JS 11:20 "For it was the Lord's doing to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle, in order that they should be utterly destroyed, and should receive no mercy but be exterminated, as the Lord commanded Moses."

JS 11:21-23 Joshua utterly destroys the Anakim.

JG 1:4 With the Lord's support, Judah defeats 10,000 Canaanites at Bezek.

JG 1:6 With the Lord's approval, Judah pursues Adoni-bezek, catches him, and cuts off his thumbs and big toes.

JG 1:8 With the Lord's approval, Judah smites Jerusalem.

JG 1:17 With the Lord's approval, Judah and Simeon utterly destroy the Canaanites who inhabited Zephath.

JG 3:29 The Israelites kill about 10,000 Moabites.

JG 3:31 (A restatement.) Shamgar killed 600 Philistines with an oxgoad.

JG 4:21 Jael takes a tent stake and hammers it through the head of Sisera, fastening it to the ground.

JG 7:19-25 The Gideons defeat the Midianites, slay their princes, cut off their heads, and bring the heads back to Gideon.

JG 8:15-21 The Gideons slaughter the men of Penuel.

JG 9:5 Abimalech murders his brothers.

JG 9:45 Abimalech and his men kill all the people in the city.

JG 9:53-54 "A woman dropped a stone on his head and cracked his skull. Hurriedly he called to his armor-bearer, 'Draw your sword and kill me, so that they can't say a woman killed me.' So his servant ran him through, and he died."

JG 11:29-39 Jepthah sacrifices his beloved daughter, his only child, according to a vow he has made with the Lord.

JG 14:19 The Spirit of the Lord comes upon a man and causes him to slay thirty men.

JG 15:15 Samson slays 1000 men with the jawbone of an ass.

JG 16:21 The Philistines gouge out Samson's eyes.

JG 16:27-30 Samson, with the help of the Lord, pulls down the pillars of the Philistine house and causes his own death and that of 3000 other men and women.

JG 18:27 The Danites slay the quiet and unsuspecting people of Laish.

JG 19:22-29 A group of sexual depraved men beat on the door of an old man's house demanding that he turn over to them a male house guest. Instead, the old man offers his virgin daughter and his guest's concubine (or wife): "Behold, here are my virgin daughter and his concubine; let me bring them out now. Ravish them and do with them what seems good to you; but against this man do not do so vile a thing." The man's concubine is ravished and dies. The man then cuts her body into twelve pieces and sends one piece to each of the twelve tribes of Israel.

JG 20:43-48 The Israelites smite 25,000+ "men of valor" from amongst the Benjamites, "men and beasts and all that they found," and set their towns on fire.

JG 21:10-12 "... Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword and; also the women and little ones.... every male and every woman that has lain with a male you shall utterly destroy." They do so and find four hundred young virgins whom they bring back for their own use.

1SA 4:10 The Philistines slay 30,000 Israelite foot soldiers.

1SA 5:6-9 The Lord afflicts the Philistines with tumors in their "secret parts," presumably for having stolen the Ark.

1SA 6:19 God kills seventy men (or so) for looking into the Ark (at him?). (Note: The early Israelites apparently thought the Ark to be God's abode.)

1SA 7:7-11 Samuel and his men smite the Philistines.

1SA 11:11 With the Lord's blessing, Saul and his men cut down the Ammonites.

1SA 14:31 Jonathan and his men strike down the Philistines.

1SA 14:48 Saul smites the Amalekites.

1SA 15:3, 7-8 "This is what the Lord says: Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass ....' And Saul ... utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword."

1SA 15:33 "Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord ...."

1SA 18:7 The women sing as they make merry: "Saul has slain his thousands and David his ten thousands."

1SA 18:27 David murders 200 Philistines, then cuts off their foreskins.

1SA 30:17 David smites the Amalekites.

2SA 2:23 Abner kills Asahel.

2SA 3:30 Joab and Abishai kill Abner.

2SA 4:7-8 Rechan and Baanah kill Ish-bosheth, behead him, and take his head to David.

2SA 4:12 David has Rechan and Baanah killed, their hands and feet cut off, and their bodies hanged by the pool at Hebron.

2SA 5:25 "And David did as the Lord commanded him, and smote the Philistines ...."

2SA 6:2-23 Because she rebuked him for having exposed himself, Michal (David's wife) was barren throughout her life.

2SA 8:1-18 (A listing of some of David's murderous conquests.)

2SA 8:4 David hamstrung all but a few of the horses.

2SA 8:5 David slew 22,000 Syrians.

2SA 8:6, 14 "The Lord gave victory to David wherever he went."

2SA 8:13 David slew 18,000 Edomites in the valley of salt and made the rest slaves.

2SA 10:18 David slew 47,000+ Syrians.

2SA 11:14-27 David has Uriah killed so that he can marry Uriah's wife, Bathsheba.

2SA 12:1, 19 The Lord strikes David's child dead for the sin that David has committed.

2SA 13:1-15 Amnon loves his sister Tamar, rapes her, then hates her.

2SA 13:28-29 Absalom has Amnon murdered.

2SA 18:6 -7 20,000 men are slaughtered at the battle in the forest of Ephraim.

2SA 18:15 Joab's men murder Absalom.

2SA 20:10-12 Joab's men murder Amasa and leave him "... wallowing in his own blood in the highway. And anyone who came by, seeing him, stopped."

2SA 24:15 The Lord sends a pestilence on Israel that kills 70,000 men.

1KI 2:24-25 Solomon has Adonijah murdered.

1KI 2:29-34 Solomon has Joab murdered.

1KI 2:46 Solomon has Shime-i murdered.

1KI 13:15-24 A man is killed by a lion for eating bread and drinking water in a place where the Lord had previously told him not to. This is in spite of the fact that the man had subsequently been lied to by a prophet who told the man that an angel of the Lord said that it would be alright to eat and drink there.

1KI 20:29-30 The Israelites smite 100,000 Syrian soldiers in one day. A wall falls on 27,000 remaining Syrians.

2KI 1:10-12 Fire from heaven comes down and consumes fifty men.

2KI 2:23-24 Forty-two children are mauled and killed, presumably according to the will of God, for having jeered at a man of God.

2KI 5:27 Elisha curses Gehazi and his descendants forever with leprosy.

2KI 6:18-19 The Lord answers Elisha's prayer and strikes the Syrians with blindness. Elisha tricks the blind Syrians and leads them to Samaria.

2KI 6:29 "So we cooked my son and ate him. The next day I said to her, 'Give up your son so we may eat him,' but she had hidden him."

2KI 9:24 Jehu tricks and murders Joram.

2KI 9:27 Jehu has Ahaziah killed.

2KI 9:30-37 Jehu has Jezebel killed. Her body is trampled by horses. Dogs eat her flesh so that only her skull, feet, and the palms of her hands remain.

2KI 10:7 Jehu has Ahab's seventy sons beheaded, then sends the heads to their father.

2KI 10:14 Jehu has forty-two of Ahab's kin killed.

2KI 10:17 "And when he came to Samaria, he slew all that remained to Ahab in Samaria, till he had wiped them out, according to the word of the Lord ...."

2KI 10:19-27 Jehu uses trickery to massacre the Baal worshippers.

2KI 11:1 Athaliah destroys all the royal family.

2KI 14:5, 7 Amaziah kills his servants and then 10,000 Edomites.

2KI 15:3-5 Even though he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, the Lord smites Azariah with leprosy for not having removed the "high places."

2KI 15:16 Menahem ripped open all the women who were pregnant.

2KI 19:35 An angel of the Lord kills 185,000 men.

1CH 20:3 (KJV) "And he brought out the people that were in it, and cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes."

2CH 13:17 500,000 Israelites are slaughtered.

2CH 21:4 Jehoram slays all his brothers.

PS 137:9 Happy will be the man who dashes your little ones against the stones.

PS 144:1 God is praised as the one who trains hands for war and fingers for battle.

IS 13:15 "Everyone who is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their ... wives will be ravished."

IS 13:18 "Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children."

IS 14:21-22 "Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers."

IS 49:26 The Lord will cause the oppressors of the Israelite's to eat their own flesh and to become drunk on their own blood as with wine.

JE 16:4 "They shall die grievous deaths; they shall not be lamented; neither shall they be buried; but they shall be as dung upon the face of the earth: and they shall be consumed by the sword, and by famine; and their carcasses shall be meat for the fowls of heaven, and for the beasts of the earth."

LA 4:9-10 "Those slain by the sword are better off than those who die of famine; racked with hunger, they waste away for lack of food. ... pitiful women have cooked their own children, who became their food ..."

EZ 6:12-13 The Lord says: "... they will fall by the sword, famine and plague. He that is far away will die of the plague, and he that is near will fall by the sword, and he that survives and is spared will die of famine. So will I spend my wrath upon them. And they will know I am the Lord, when the people lie slain among their idols around their altars, on every high hill and on all the mountaintops, under every spreading tree and every leafy oak ...."

EZ 9:4-6 The Lord commands: "... slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women ...."

EZ 20:26 In order that he might horrify them, the Lord allowed the Israelites to defile themselves through, amongst other things, the sacrifice of their first-born children.

EZ 21:3-4 The Lord says that he will cut off both the righteous and the wicked that his sword shall go against all flesh.

EZ 23:25, 47 God is going to slay the sons and daughters of those who were whores.

EZ 23:34 "You shall ... pluck out your hair, and tear your breasts."

HO 13:16 "They shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."

MI 3:2-3 "... who pluck off their skin ..., and their flesh from off their bones; Who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them; and they break their bones, and chop them in pieces, as for the pot, and as flesh within the caldron."

MT 3:12, 8:12, 10:21, 13:30, 42, 22:13, 24:51, 25:30, LK 13:28, JN 5:24 Some will spend eternity burning in Hell. There will be weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth.

MT 10:21 "... the brother shall deliver up his brother to death, and the father his child, ... children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death."

MT 10:35-36 "For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law a man's enemies will be the members of his own family."

MT 11:21-24 Jesus curses [the inhabitants of] three cities who were not sufficiently impressed with his great works.

AC 13:11 Paul purposefully blinds a man (though not permanently).

mtmedlin
03-07-2008, 12:07 PM
I have no argument with you on that. Again, I am debating the denial of Christian principles in our heritage.

and I am arguing that they arent Christian principles if the bible ripped of the principles from other places. Just my minor distate for the arrogance of those that profess the incomplete holy book known as the Bible.



btw Yongrel, nice list.

yongrel
03-07-2008, 12:12 PM
Even more Family Values from Christianity!

GE 4:17 Cain's wife would likely have been his sister. (Note, assuming that Cain was, say, 100 years older than his wife, his wife could possibly have been a niece rather than a sister.)

(KJV) GE 17:10-14, 23-27, 21:4, 34:15, 17, 22, 24, EX 4:26, 12:44, 48, LE 12:3, DT 10:16, 30:6, JS 5:2-5, 7-8, JE 4:4, 9:25, LK 1:59, LK 2:21, JN 7:22-23, AC 7:8, 10:45, 11:2, 15:1, 5, 24, 16:3, RO 2:25-29, 3:1, 30, 4:9-12, 15:8, CO 7:18-19, GA 2:3, 7-9, 12, 5:2-3, 6, 11, 6:12-13, 15, EP 2:11, PH 3:3, 3:5, CN 2:11, 3:11, 4:11, TS 1:10 Various references to circumcision, some quite vulgar.

(KJV)GE 17:11, 14, 23-25, EX 4:25, LE 12:3, DE 10:16, JS 5:3, SA 18:25, 27, SA 3:14, JE 4:4, HA 2:16 Various references to foreskins, some rather vulgar.

GE 9:22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness.

GE 19:4-8 A group of sexually depraved men demands that Lot turn over to them his two male visitors. Lot offers his two virgin daughters instead.

GE 19:30-38 Lot's daughters have sexual intercourse with him while he is drunk and both become pregnant by their father.

GE 24:2-9, 47:29 "... put your hand under my thigh, and I will make you swear by the Lord ...." (Note: This means "put your hand under my testicles," which is the manner in which oaths were taken at the time; "testament," "testify," and "testicle" have the same root.)

GE 29:16-30 Jacob marries both Leah and her sister Rachel. He has children by both Leah and Rachel's maid Bilhah, but Rachel remains barren. Due apparently to Rachel's generosity to her husband, the Lord eventually allows Rachel to conceive.

GE 34:1-2 Shechem defiles Dinah.

GE 34:13-29 Hamor, his son, and the men of their village agree to be circumcised so as to be allowed to marry the daughters of the Israelites. On the third day, "when they were sore," the Israelites kill Hamor, his son, and all the men of the village, and plunder their wealth, taking their wives and children, thus getting revenge for the defiling of Dinah.

GE 35:22 (KJV) "Reuben went and lay with Bilhah, his fathers concubine."

GE 38:9 Onan "spills his seed" on the ground rather than fulfill his obligation to his widowed sister-in-law to father a child by her.

GE 38:13-19 Tamar plays the role of a harlot in order to have sexual intercourse with her father-in-law. She conceives and twins are born.

GE 39:7-23 The wife of Joseph's master tries to get Joseph to go to bed with her. He refuses, and flees leaving his "garment in her hand." She claims that Joseph tried to rape her, and Joseph ends up imprisoned.

EX 20:26 "Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon."

LE 15:16-19 (KJV) "And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even. And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the even. The woman also with whom man shall lie with seed of copulation, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the even. And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean ...."

LE 21:20, 22:24 (References to testicles, or "stones" in the KJV.)

NU 31:17-18 "... all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." (Note: How did they determine which girls were virgins, and what did they do with them after they kept them alive for themselves? This is not a pretty picture.)

NU 31:31-40 32,000 virgins are taken by the Israelites as booty of which thirty-two are set aside as a tribute for the Lord.

DT 21:10-14 With the Lord's approval, the Israelites are allowed to kidnap "beautiful women" from the enemy camp to be their trial wives. If, after having sexual relations, a man has "no delight" in his wife, he can simply let her go.

DT 23:1 (KJV) "He that is wounded in the stones [testicles], or hath his privy member [penis] cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord."

DT 28:15, 30 If you do not obey the voice of the Lord, the Lord will cause another man to "lie with" your wife-to-be.

JS 5:3 "... the Hill of Foreskins."

JG 8:30-31 Gideon had many wives as well as a concubine.

JG 19:22-29 A group of sexual depraved men beat on the door of an old man's house demanding that he turn over to them a male house guest. Instead, the old man offers his virgin daughter and his guest's concubine (or wife): "Behold, here are my virgin daughter and his concubine; let me bring them out now. Ravish them and do with them what seems good to you; but against this man do not do so vile a thing." The man's concubine is ravished and dies. The man then cuts her body into twelve pieces and sends one piece to each of the twelve tribes of Israel.

JG 21:11-12 "This is what you shall do; every male and every woman that has lain with man you shall utterly destroy. And they found ... four hundred young virgins who had not known man by lying with him; and they brought them to the camp ...." (Again, how did they determine which girls were virgins? This is not a pretty picture.)

JG 21:14-23 The 400 virgins captured above prove to be insufficient, so the Benjaminites hide in the vineyards and kidnap "the daughters of Shiloh" as they come out to dance and celebrate.

SA 5:6-9 The Lord afflicts Philistines with tumors in their "secret parts."

SA 18:27 So that David might be allowed to marry the king's daughter, the king asks David to bring him 100 Philistine foreskins. David does the job right and brings the king not 100, but 200, foreskins of murdered Philistines.

SA 25:22, 25:34, 1KI 14:10, 16:10-11, 21:21, 2KI 9:8 (KJV) "... him that pisseth ...."

SA 19:24 "And he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked all that day and all that night."

SA 3:7 (KJV) "Wherefore hast thou gone in unto [a euphemism for sexual intercourse] my fathers concubine?"

SA 5:13, 20:3 David had many concubines.

SA 6:14, 16, 20-23 David dances and exposes himself to his maids. (His wife, Michal rebukes him for having done so, and as a consequence she is made barren.)

SA 12:11-12 The Lord is going to punish David for his sin by taking his wives and causing his neighbor to have sexual relations with them in public.

SA 13:1-14 King David's son, Amnon, rapes his half-sister, Tamar.

SA 16:22 Absalom "went into his father's concubines" in the sight of all Israel.

KI 1:1-4 David was old, and although covered with clothes, could not get warm. A beautiful, young virgin is brought in to be his concubine and nurse. But alas, he was so old and infirm that he "knew her not."

KI 11:3 Solomon (the wisest man ever) had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

KI 6:29 "So we cooked my son and ate him. The next day I said to her, 'Give up your son so we may eat him,' but she had hidden him."

KI 18:27, IS 36:12 (KJV) "... eat their own dung and drink their own piss." (Note: Although correctly translated according to the oldest Hebrew manuscripts, piss and pisseth have been re-translated to something more "godly" in all versions since the KJV.)

CH 11:21 Rehoboam had eighteen wives and sixty concubines.

ES 2:2-17 King Ahasuerus holds a sexual contest with "fair young virgins" to pick a new Queen (after having been spurned by Queen Vashti).

PR 5:19 (KJV) "... Let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love."

SO 1:13 "My beloved is to me a bag of myrrh, that lies between my breasts."

SO 2:3 "I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste."

SO 2:6, 8:3 "His left hand is under my head, and his right hand embraces me."

SO 2:16, 6:3 "My lover is mine and I am his. He browses among the lilies."

SO 4:5, 7:3 "Your two breasts are like two fawns ...."

SO 5:4 (KJV) "My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him."

SO 7:1-2 "... the joints of your thighs are like jewels ...."

SO 7:7-9 "You are stately as a palm tree, and your breasts are like its clusters. I say I will climb the palm tree and lay hold of its branches. Oh may your breasts be like clusters of the vine ...."

SO 8:10 "... and my breasts were like towers."

IS 3:17 "The Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will uncover their secret parts."

IS 13:15 "Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their ... wives will be ravished."

IS 20:2-4 The Lord himself apparently commands his servant to go naked for three years.

IS 57:8 "Behind your doors and doorpost ... you uncovered your bed, you climbed into it and opened it wide; you made a pact with those whose beds you love, and you looked on their nakedness."

LA 4:21 "... thou shalt be drunken, and shalt make thyself naked."

EZ 4:12 (KJV) "And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight. And the Lord said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread ...."

EZ 4:15 (KJV) "... I have given thee cows dung for mans dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith."

EZ 16:7 "... You grew up and ... arrived at full maidenhood; your breasts were formed ... yet you were naked and bare."

EZ 16:8 "Later I passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love, I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness. I gave you my solemn oath and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Sovereign Lord, and you became mine."

EZ 16:22 "... you were naked and bare, kicking about in your blood."

EZ 16:36 "... your shame was laid bare and your nakedness uncovered in your harlotries with your lovers ...."

EZ 16:37 "Therefore I am going to gather all your lovers, with whom you took pleasure, those you loved as well as those you hated. I will gather them against you from every side and will strip you in front of them, and they will see all your nakedness."

EZ 16:39 "... they will strip you of your clothes, ... and leave you naked and bare."

EZ 23:3 "They played the harlot in Egypt; they played the harlot in their youth; there were their breasts fondled and their virgin bosoms handled." Or, as the KJV puts it: "they bruised the teats of their virginity."

EZ 23:8 (KJV) "... in her youth they lay with her, and they bruised the breasts of her virginity, and poured their whoredom upon her."

EZ 23:10 "They stripped her naked, took away her sons and daughters and killed her with the sword."

EZ 23:17 (KJV) "And the Babylonians came to her into the bed of love, and they defiled her with their whoredom, and she was polluted with them ...."

EZ 23:18 (KJV) "So she discovered her whoredoms, and discovered her nakedness: ...."

EZ 23:20-21 (RSV) "Yet she increased her harlotry ... and doted on her paramours there, whose members [i.e., sexual organs] were like those of asses and whose issue was like that of horses. Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom and pressed your young breasts."

EZ 23:29 (KJV) "... and shall leave thee naked and bare: and the nakedness of thy whoredoms shall be discovered, both thy lewdness and thy whoredoms."

EZ 23:34 "You shall ... pluck out your hair, and tear your breasts."

HO 1:2 (KJV) "And the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom.'"

HO 2:2 (KJV) "... let her ... put away her whoredoms out of her sight, and her adulteries from between her breasts ...."

HO 2:3 "Otherwise I will strip her naked and make her as bare as the day she was born."

HO 13:16 "They shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."

AM 2:16 " Even the bravest warriors will flee naked on that day,' declares the Lord."

MI 1:8 "I will go stripped and naked."

MI 3:2-3 "... who pluck off their skin ..., and their flesh from off their bones; Who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them; and they break their bones, and chop them in pieces, as for the pot, and as flesh within the caldron."

NA 3:5 " I am against you,' says the Lord ... , and will lift up your skirts over your face; I will show the nations your nakedness and kingdoms your shame.'"

HA 2:15 "Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbors, pouring it from the wineskin till they are drunk, so that he can gaze on their naked bodies."

MA 2:3 The Lord says that he will spread dung upon the faces of the priests.

MK 14:51-52 A young man discards his clothing and flees naked.

JN 21:7 (KJV) "Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fishers coat unto him, for he was naked, and did cast himself into the sea."

AC 19:13-16 Seven Jewish exorcists are overpowered by a man with a demon and flee naked and wounded.

RE 16:15 When Jesus comes again, he will come like a thief in the night so that those who do not have their clothes [on] will go naked and be shamefully exposed.

RE 17:16 "They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire."

Deborah K
03-07-2008, 12:15 PM
Yongrel:

Every single verse you just quoted comes from the Old Testament which pre-dates Christianity with exception to the book of Revelation, and the couple of others you listed at the end.

Yes, Christianity was born out of Judaism, but if you know anything about the bible you know that Jesus came to fulfill the prophesies in the Old Testament and begin a new convenant. Another mistake you are making is in trying to take modern day views and apply them to ancient practices, ie. your example about stoning women. What makes you think that was a "Christian" value?

There is a story in the New Testament where Jesus intervenes on behalf of a woman being stoned, but again, if you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that during the time of Jesus, "Christianity" did not exist. Jesus was a Jew, his followers were all Jews. Christianity didn't take its form until long after he was crucified.

yongrel
03-07-2008, 12:18 PM
Yongrel:

Every single verse you just quoted comes from the Old Testament which pre-dates Christianity with exception to the book of Revelation, and the couple of others you listed at the end.

Yes, Christianity was born out of Judaism, but if you know anything about the bible you know that Jesus came to fulfill the prophesies in the Old Testament and begin a new convenant. Another mistake you are making is in trying to take modern day views and apply them to ancient practices, ie. your example about stoning women. What makes you think that was a "Christian" value?

There is a story in the New Testament where Jesus intervenes on behalf of a woman being stoned, but again, if you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that during the time of Jesus, "Christianity" did not exist. Jesus was a Jew, his followers were all Jews. Christianity didn't take its form until long after he was crucified.

So does Chrisitianity not include the Old Testament? The Old Testament doesn't count?

So where are these Young Earth creationists getting their info from?

Tdcci
03-07-2008, 12:28 PM
An outright lie? How so? Up to that point in our history, kids could pray in school, etc, etc. For 175 years this was the case and more.

Children could ALWAYS pray in school, even today! You can't regulate that, because you don't know what the kids are thinking. As I explained in the second paragraph, the court struck down GOVERNMENT DIRECTED PRAYING, THAT IS GOVERNMENT RESPECTING A PARTICULAR RELIGION


Again, sheesh, you need to check your history facts. Look at Reynolds v. United States, Everson v. Board of Education, Baer v. Kolmorgen.

Reynolds v. United States: A man violated polygamy laws and tried to evade the fine by saying that his religion permitted it. This is absolutely insane. If this passed, then everybody would have their own law according to their religion! There would be chaos! The court ruled that it was not a valid defense and I completely agree with the court's decision.

Everson v. Board of Education: a New Jersey public school subsidized travel to private catholic schools, therefore respecting one religion. The court recognized that, but ruled it was constitutionally permissable. I see nothing wrong with the ruling.

Baer v. Kolmorgen: I actually couldn't find what this case was about, whether that was by intentional misspelling or how it was covered up in Christian blogs using it to attack the seperation of church and state. What I gather from those who reference the case is that a dissenting judge predicted that if the principle of Seperation of Church and State was going to continue to be used, that people would believe someday that it was part of the Constitution. You're going to have to get me a link to the case, if the case is relevant and not that quote (unlikely).


No one is denying our godly heritage? I invite the readers on this forum to look through Tdcc's posts and read what he/she has written. Talk about lies.

I've written some unpopular things, but I wouldn't call them lies. Good job avoiding the question, btw.


Tdcc, start backing up your argument with facts because I'm not going to waste my time with baseless opinions.

I should ask the same of you, but I already did. You presented all the "facts" in your arsenal, that X% of those who wrote key founding documents were religious. Doesn't prove that religion had any influence on the Country's founding, but that doesn't stop you from going into a rant about seperation of church and state and how the godless communists are oppressing religious children.

mtmedlin
03-07-2008, 12:29 PM
The 400 virgins captured above prove to be insufficient, so the Benjaminites hide in the vineyards and kidnap "the daughters of Shiloh" as they come out to dance and celebrate

Wow, I thought that I had a strong "drive"

Tdcci
03-07-2008, 12:30 PM
So does Chrisitianity not include the Old Testament? The Old Testament doesn't count?

So where are these Young Earth creationists getting their info from?

If you strip out the old testament you have to take the "Judeo" out of "Judeo-Christian". Even with the old testament, Judaism and Christianity have very little in common. Christians love to quote the Old Testment to justify their hatred for gays, women, and black people but then throw it all away when they are shown what other things appear in those books :D

micahnelson
03-07-2008, 12:31 PM
Ok, shes just saying Christianity played a role in the founding of America. I don't think you can argue against that point- what hasn't had a religious element in recent history. Shes not a theocrat give her a break.

We are, or should be, all on the same side here.

Tdcci
03-07-2008, 12:33 PM
Ok, shes just saying Christianity played a role in the founding of America.

That deviates significantly from the title. Maybe Christianity showed the founders how NOT to run a country, Church of England etc. I can accept that.


I don't think you can argue that point. Shes not a theocrat give her a break.

I think she is a theocrat, she is trying to argue that the seperation of church and state is a lie.


We are, or should be, all on the same side here.

Which side is that?

micahnelson
03-07-2008, 12:46 PM
The side of limited government. Shes coming in from a Conservative Christian background, drawn by limited government and lower taxes. She probably had to overcome the war issue and is still learning. I think we should regard each other as works in progress, ya know? I came from this camp to some degree as well.

Others have come from the left side, these are typified by the Kucinich supporters we have attracted. The anti-war draws them, but they have to learn how social programs are not really beneficial to end poverty, etc. Its a learning curve for all of us.

I just want to make sure this doesn't become like the hannity forums, institutionalized bickering. Points have been made, and she has backed off her original assertions.

Lets not be pricks about it, i guess is what im saying.

Patriot123
03-07-2008, 02:41 PM
[QUOTE]

So what you're saying is, the research done by the University of Houston which I presented in my OP and which is based on 15,000 writings and their origins, is just bunk because you said so??? Sorry but you're going to have to do a much better job of disproving the research.

As far as your claim that the founders were atheists, deists, etc. blah, blah, blah.
Debunk the following then, and do it with the research of reputable sources otherwise please stop wasting my time and everyone else's who would like to have an intellectually honest debate about this.

Religious Affiliation of the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, including the Signers of the Constitution of the United States of America.

There were 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 at which the U.S. Constitution was drafted and signed. All participated in the proceedings which resulted in the Constitution, but only 39 of these delegates were actually signers of the document.

From: Robert G. Ferris (editor), Signers of the Constitution: Historic Places Commemorating the Signing of the Constitution, published by the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service: Washington, D.C. (revised edition 1976), page 138:

Most of the [signers of the Constitution] married and fathered children. Sherman sired the largest family, numbering 15 by two wives... Three (Baldwin, Gilman, and Jenifer) were lifetime bachelors. In terms of religious affiliation, the men mirrored the overwhelmingly Protestant character of American religious life at the time and were members of various denominations. Only two, Carroll and Fitzsimons, were Roman Catholics.

Religious Affiliation # of delegates % of delegates

Episcopalian/Anglican 31 56.4%
Presbyterian 16 29.1%
Congregationalist 8 14.5%
Quaker 3 5.5%
Catholic 2 3.6%
Methodist 2 3.6%
Lutheran 2 3.6%
Dutch Reformed 2 3.6%

TOTAL 55 100%


Name of Signer State Religious Affiliation

Daniel Carroll Maryland Catholic
Thomas Fitzsimons Pennsylvania Catholic
Roger Sherman Connecticut Congregationalist
Nathaniel Gorham Massachusetts Congregationalist
John Langdon New Hampshire Congregationalist
Nicholas Gilman New Hampshire Congregationalist
Abraham Baldwin Georgia Congregationalist; Episcopalian
William Samuel Johnson Connecticut Episcopalian; Presbyterian
James Madison Jr. Virginia Episcopalian
George Read - Delaware Episcopalian
Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer Maryland Episcopalian
David Brearly New Jersey Episcopalian
Richard Dobbs Spaight, Sr. North Carolina Episcopalian
Robert Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian
Gouverneur Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian
John Rutledge South Carolina Episcopalian
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney South Carolina Episcopalian
Charles Pinckney South Carolina Episcopalian
Pierce Butler South Carolina Episcopalian
George Washington Virginia Episcopalian
Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Episcopalian (Deist)
William Blount North Carolina Episcopalian; Presbyterian
James Wilson Pennsylvania Episcopalian; Presbyteran
Rufus King Massachusetts Episcopalian; Congregationalist
Jacob Broom Delaware Lutheran
William Few Georgia Methodist
Richard Bassett Delaware Methodist
Gunning Bedford Jr. Delaware Presbyterian
James McHenry Maryland Presbyterian
William Livingston New Jersey Presbyterian
William Paterson New Jersey Presbyterian
Hugh Williamson North Carolina Presbyterian
Jared Ingersoll Pennsylvania Presbyterian
Alexander Hamilton New York Huguenot; Presbyterian; Episcopalian
Jonathan Dayton New Jersey Presbyterian; Episcopalian
John Blair Virginia Presbyterian; Episcopalian
John Dickinson Delaware Quaker; Episcopalian
George Clymer Pennsylvania Quaker; Episcopalian
Thomas Mifflin Pennsylvania Quaker; Lutheran


Name of Non-Signing Delegate State Religious Affiliation
Oliver Ellsworth Connecticut Congregationalist
Caleb Strong Massachusetts Congregationalist
John Lansing, Jr. New York Dutch Reformed
Robert Yates New York Dutch Reformed
William Houstoun Georgia Episcopalian
William Leigh Pierce Georgia Episcopalian
Luther Martin Maryland Episcopalian
John F. Mercer Maryland Episcopalian
Elbridge Gerry Massachusetts Episcopalian
George Mason Virginia Episcopalian
Edmund J. Randolph Virginia Episcopalian
George Wythe Virginia Episcopalian
James McClurg Virginia Presbyterian
William C. Houston New Jersey Presbyterian
William R. Davie North Carolina Presbyterian
Alexander Martin North Carolina Presbyterian


Source: http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

I'll say one thing, and one thing only. For you to come onto this forum and try to affirm that the nation that our ancestors gave their blood for what was completely the opposite of what they were fighting for is an insult to this nation, to my family relatives who have fought in wars and were ready to give their life to fight against what you're trying to affirm, and all of the fellow patriots on this forum. Our country was NOT founded on a Christian basis, is NOT Vatican City nor will it ever be, so please take your religion and impose it on someone else, because in the words of our founders, go back to Britain if you want to try to re-write history and change what this country was founded upon.

Deborah K
03-07-2008, 02:54 PM
So does Chrisitianity not include the Old Testament? The Old Testament doesn't count?

So where are these Young Earth creationists getting their info from?

As I stated, Christianity was born out of Judaism, Christ was a Jew. In studying the books of the Bible and their origins, one has to bear in mind that they span thousands of years. The bible is a collection of writings that were assembled and then re-assembled. There are many books that were deliberately not included which are very interesting reading.

Deborah K
03-07-2008, 02:56 PM
The 400 virgins captured above prove to be insufficient, so the Benjaminites hide in the vineyards and kidnap "the daughters of Shiloh" as they come out to dance and celebrate

Wow, I thought that I had a strong "drive"

ROFL!!

Deborah K
03-07-2008, 03:01 PM
The side of limited government. Shes coming in from a Conservative Christian background, drawn by limited government and lower taxes. She probably had to overcome the war issue and is still learning. I think we should regard each other as works in progress, ya know? I came from this camp to some degree as well.

Others have come from the left side, these are typified by the Kucinich supporters we have attracted. The anti-war draws them, but they have to learn how social programs are not really beneficial to end poverty, etc. Its a learning curve for all of us.

I just want to make sure this doesn't become like the hannity forums, institutionalized bickering. Points have been made, and she has backed off her original assertions.

Lets not be pricks about it, i guess is what im saying.

Actually, I've been against the war from the beginning, but you're right about the conservative part, I lean libertarian/conservative. The Christians on this forum would probably beg to differ with you as to whether I am a real Christian. :)

What do you mean about my backing off my original assertions? I have done nothing of the sort. :confused:

Deborah K
03-07-2008, 03:08 PM
[QUOTE=Deborah K;1333840]

I'll say one thing, and one thing only. For you to come onto this forum and try to affirm that the nation that our ancestors gave their blood for what was completely the opposite of what they were fighting for is an insult to this nation, to my family relatives who have fought in wars and were ready to give their life to fight against what you're trying to affirm, and all of the fellow patriots on this forum. Our country was NOT founded on a Christian basis, is NOT Vatican City nor will it ever be, so please take your religion and impose it on someone else, because in the words of our founders, go back to Britain if you want to try to re-write history and change what this country was founded upon.

It's curious how offended you are. I've produced well-founded research to back up my argument and you have produced an angry opinion based on nothing. Do not attempt to put words in my mouth (so to speak) by referring to the Vatican, etc. - what bunk! If you even read what I wrote you would know that I practice no religion.

For the love of God, can anyone debate an issue and produce facts to back up their stance? These are the people I would like to debate with, not people who resort to slinging insults because they feel threatened by an opinion that doesn't fit in with their misguided version of history.

Theocrat
03-07-2008, 03:12 PM
[QUOTE=Deborah K;1333840]

I'll say one thing, and one thing only. For you to come onto this forum and try to affirm that the nation that our ancestors gave their blood for what was completely the opposite of what they were fighting for is an insult to this nation, to my family relatives who have fought in wars and were ready to give their life to fight against what you're trying to affirm, and all of the fellow patriots on this forum. Our country was NOT founded on a Christian basis, is NOT Vatican City nor will it ever be, so please take your religion and impose it on someone else, because in the words of our founders, go back to Britain if you want to try to re-write history and change what this country was founded upon.

What is your proof of this, Patriot123? Deborah K just gave you ample evidence to support her claim that America's Founders were Christian-oriented, but all you've done is stated your opinion that the contrary of what she's provided is true, based on your own feelings that her information is an "insult" to our nation and she's "imposing" her religion on you. I'm not trying to attack you, but I'm just making an observation based on what I've just read from you. If Deborah K is lying, give us the evidence to support your claim. Thank you.

New Governor Of Alaska
03-07-2008, 03:16 PM
The United States: A Country founded on Paganism
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=126821

Theocrat
03-07-2008, 03:24 PM
The United States: A Country founded on Paganism
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=126821

Here is an article which might give you a different perspective on your notion that America was founded on paganism.

Click here (http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=90).

kyleAF
03-07-2008, 06:15 PM
Was America founded on Judeo-Christian Principles? Of Course it was!

We are incredibly fortunate that the founders didn't carry it through to its logical conclusion.


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

So was the third Reich... "Wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross" and all of that.

Difference? We kept our sanity... and our Constitutional Republic kept those who would impose religion in check.

Let's keep it that way.

CountryboyRonPaul
03-07-2008, 06:39 PM
The founders were all Christians, but the country was founded on FREEDOM above and beyond everything else.

If it were founded solely on Christianity, we would most likely have a state religion.

However, the founders believed that people had the right to believe whatever they want to believe. Even Atheists. ;)

jglapski
03-07-2008, 06:42 PM
[QUOTE=Patriot123;1334784]

It's curious how offended you are. I've produced well-founded research to back up my argument and you have produced an angry opinion based on nothing. Do not attempt to put words in my mouth (so to speak) by referring to the Vatican, etc. - what bunk! If you even read what I wrote you would know that I practice no religion.

For the love of God, can anyone debate an issue and produce facts to back up their stance? These are the people I would like to debate with, not people who resort to slinging insults because they feel threatened by an opinion that doesn't fit in with their misguided version of history.

No you haven't.

I've destroyed your "proof" with historical documents showing that it was US law at the founding to recognize that the US is not in any way founded on Christianity, and that the common law is not founded on Christianity.

I also note that you haven't responded to those. Evasion speaks volumes.

Deborah K
03-07-2008, 08:40 PM
[QUOTE=Deborah K;1334855]

No you haven't.

I've destroyed your "proof" with historical documents showing that it was US law at the founding to recognize that the US is not in any way founded on Christianity, and that the common law is not founded on Christianity.

I also note that you haven't responded to those. Evasion speaks volumes.

You have destroyed nothing. Your so-called "historical documents" are just quotes. Do you honestly think I can't come up with my own set of quotes to counter yours? Your denial of the research I've provided to back up my argument won't magically make it all disappear.

I have sufficiently refuted the ridiculous myth that our Founders were all atheists and deists. And I have sufficiently proven that we have a godly heritage.

Here is more evidence of that:

John Adams: "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were....the general principles of Christianity....I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existance and attributes of God."

John Jay: "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty - as well as the privilege and interest - of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

George Washington: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indespensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars."

Here are some Supreme Court ruling quotes:

"No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people...This is a Christian nation. "
Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S. (1892)

"Whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government"
People v. Ruggles (1811)

"By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion, and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing."
Runkel v. Winemiller (1799)

I could go on and on and on..... but you get the point. I didn't make this up so don't kill the messenger. And for God's sake don't misinterpret my argument to mean that I want Christianity to take over the government.

For the fifty millionth time: I reject the implication that our founders were all atheists, agnostics, and deists and that Christian principles had nothing to do with our nation's founding.

We were clearly founded on Christian principles. For the life of me I can't understand why some people are sooooo threatened by that. I would think you would be thrilled to death that we have since become so secularized. Just stop trying to deny it, accept it for what it is and move on already.

Patriot123
03-07-2008, 11:38 PM
It's curious how offended you are. I've produced well-founded research to back up my argument and you have produced an angry opinion based on nothing. Do not attempt to put words in my mouth (so to speak) by referring to the Vatican, etc. - what bunk! If you even read what I wrote you would know that I practice no religion.
For the love of God, can anyone debate an issue and produce facts to back up their stance? These are the people I would like to debate with, not people who resort to slinging insults because they feel threatened by an opinion that doesn't fit in with their misguided version of history.

Mis-guided... Oh please.

First of all, please note that in article six section three of the Constitution, it states the following: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The words, "Christ, Christianity, Christian, Cross," or any other "Christian word" or even "Jewish" word are not mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or any other document from the 1700 era.
Second. There were no Jews in the US when it was founded. Hello? Really, that one is common sense. So that completely eliminates the Jewish part of the debate.
Thirdly, if you read the text of the Treaty of Tripoli, it specifically states that America was not, will not, and is not founded on any specific religion, specifically Christianity in article 11. "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
Fourthly. Yeah, some of the founders were Christians. No one is disputing that. But

The Christian right wing is trying to re-write history, and you know it. George Washington was NOT a Christian, but a Deist. Our founders were Deists, Unitarians and Atheists. Get your facts straight. Thomas Paine wrote a book denouncing Christianity, calling it evil, false, etcetera. Thomas Jefferson and Adams were Deists. Madison was a Deist. Madison himself: "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."




I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.




Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus.




I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible).

Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible).

It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible.

Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and you will have sins in abundance.

The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty.




What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.

Deborah K
03-08-2008, 07:47 PM
The words, "Christ, Christianity, Christian, Cross," or any other "Christian word" or even "Jewish" word are not mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or any other document from the 1700 era.

That is only partially true. The word Providence is used repeatedly in the DOI. The fact that the words are not in the documents does not disqualify the evidence that our founders used Christian principles as a basis for the foundation of our republic.


There were no Jews in the US when it was founded. Hello?

Uh….hello to you? Christianity was born out of the Jewish religion. Christ was a practicing Jew, a Rabbi, his followers were Jews. The Old Testament comes directly from the Torah.


The Christian right wing is trying to re-write history, and you know it. George Washington was NOT a Christian, but a Deist. Our founders were Deists, Unitarians and Atheists. Get your facts straight.

LOL! http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html The evidence is in this link as to what religion our founders were. Perhaps your problem is with my sources. If you want your argument to have any standing with anyone reading it, then you will need to discredit my sources as you will now discover I have done with yours as well as your baseless argument.


Thomas Paine wrote a book denouncing Christianity, calling it evil, false, etcetera.

Paine’s, Age of Reason, infuriated many of the Founding Fathers. John Adams wrote, “The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard [scoundrel, rogue] Paine say what he will.”

Samuel Adams wrote Paine a stiff rebuke, telling him, “[W]hen I heard you had turned your mind to a defense of infidelity, I felt myself much astonished and more grieved that you had attempted a measure so injurious to the feelings and so repugnant to the true interest of so great a part of the citizens of the United States.”

Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration, wrote to his friend and signer of the Constitution John Dickinson that Paine's Age of Reason was “absurd and impious”;

Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration, described Paine's work as “blasphemous writings against the Christian religion”;

John Witherspoon said that Paine was “ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy to the Christian faith”;

and Elias Boudinot, President of Congress, even published the Age of Revelation—a full-length rebuttal to Paine's work.

Patrick Henry, too, wrote a refutation of Paine's work which he described as “the puny efforts of Paine.”

When William Paterson, signer of the Constitution and a Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court, learned that some Americans seemed to agree with Paine's work, he thundered, “Infatuated Americans, why renounce your country, your religion, and your God?”

Zephaniah Swift, author of America's first law book, noted, “He has the impudence and effrontery [shameless boldness] to address to the citizens of the United States of America a paltry performance which is intended to shake their faith in the religion of their fathers.”

John Jay, an author of the Federalist Papers and the original Chief-Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, was comforted by the fact that Christianity would prevail despite Paine's attack,” I have long been of the opinion that the evidence of the truth of Christianity requires only to be carefully examined to produce conviction in candid minds.”


In fact, Paine's views caused such vehement public opposition that he spent his last years in New York as “an outcast” in “social ostracism” and was buried in a farm field because no American cemetery would accept his remains.



Quote:
False quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson

Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus.

This quote is not an actual quote. It has been disputed by Monticello.org : http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Christianity_is_the_most_perverted_system_that_eve r_shone_on_man


Another false and misleading quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson

I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.

The first part of this quote is also disputed. It has falsely been attached to the second part (underlined) that has been taken out of context. Here is the context: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-singleauthor?specfile=/web/data/jefferson/texts/jefall.o2w&act=text&offset=8287826&textreg=1&query=burnt

You ought to be more careful about from where you pull your information. It doesn't help your argument at all.

And here is what Ron Paul thinks of people who are trying to revise our nation's history: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

clouds
03-08-2008, 07:59 PM
seems like there are a lot of agendas being hurled around this thread

Paul Revered
03-08-2008, 08:20 PM
The following thread prompted this one:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=125338&page=38

I reject the obvious desire to revise history on this matter. It is as though our heritage is something that should be feared and reviled, and so it must be denied. An Orwellian trait to be sure.

I’ve decided to share some facts about this issue, but before I get into it, allow me to preface this by stating that I believe in a Creator, and I believe that Christ was the human manifestation of that Creator. However, I do not belong to a religious organization. I am a recovering Catholic. I come from a very long line of Catholics that includes priests and nuns on my French-Canadian Father’s side. My Mother was raised with no religion as her Father was an atheist. I was baptized right after birth, but my parents did not raise me Catholic. I practiced Catholicism of my own volition as a young girl, up until the Priest molestation scandal and subsequent illegal alien advocacy of the Catholic Church.

While I believe there is a place in the world for religion, I also believe that way too many people see it as an end, rather than a means to an end. This undermines a person’s wisdom and sense of balance. Instead of viewing the church as a vehicle in which to teach people about the source of divine power and through which divine power can be channeled into man’s nature, people view the church as the power itself. And the church allows and even encourages this line of thinking. I believe this is extremely deceptive and destructive.

I see organized religion in the same way as I see government. If it is allowed to be corrupted, it will be. The idea of religion, as in the idea of capitalism is not, in and of itself, corrupt. But human nature dictates that those who are left to their own devices without any oversight or intervention, will inevitably succumb to the greed and corruption that comes with too much power.

The founders knew this. You can tell they did when you read the Declaration of Independence. Read how they describe King George. Their goal was to protect us against corruption of power. “[They] delivered to us a system of government which has enjoyed unprecedented success: we are now the world’s longest on-going constitutional republic. Two hundred years under the same document- and under one form of government – is an accomplishment unknown among contemporary nations. For example: Russia, Italy, Spain, and other nations underwent revolutions about the same time as the American Revolution, but with very different results. Consider France: in the last 200 years it has gone through seven completely different forms of governments; Italy has over 50 tries, yet we are still in our first.

Where then, did our Founding Fathers acquire the ideas that produced such longevity? Other nations certainly had access to what our Founders utilized, yet evidently chose not to. From what sources did our Founders choose their ideas?

This question was asked by political science professors at the University of Houston. They rightfully felt that they could determine the source of the Founders’ ideas if they could collect the writings from the Founding Era and see whom the Founders were quoting.

The researchers assembled 15,000 writings from the founding Era – no small sample – and searched those writings. That project spanned ten years; but at the end of that time, the researchers had isolated 3,154 direct quotes made by the Founders and had identified the source of those quotes.

The researchers discovered that Baron Charles de Montesquieu was the man quoted most often by the founding fathers, with 8.3 percent of the Founders’ quotes being taken from his writings. Sir William Blackstone was the second most-quoted individual with 7.9 percent of the Founder’s quotes, and John Locke was third with 2.9 percent.

Surprisingly, the researchers discovered that the founders quoted directly out of the bible 4 times more than they quoted Montesquieu, 4 times more often than they quoted Blackstone, and 12 times more often than they quoted John Locke. Thirty four percent of the Founders’ quotes came directly out of the bible.

The study was even more impressive when the source of the ideas used by Montesquieu, Blackstone, and Locke were identified. Consider for example, the source of Blackstone’s ideas. Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws was first introduced in 1768, and for the next 100 years America’s courts quoted Blackstone to settle disputes, to define words, and to examine procedure; Blackstone’s Commentaries were the final word in the Supreme Courts. So what was a significant source of Blackstone’s ideas? Perhaps the best answer to that question can be given through the life of Charles Finney.

Charles Finney is known as a famous revivalist, minister, and preacher from one of America’s greatest revivals; the Second Great Awakening in the early 1800’s. Finney, in his autobiography, spoke of how he received his call to ministry. He explained that – having determined to become a lawyer – he, like all other law students at the time, commenced the study of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws. Finney observed that Blackstone’s Commentaries not only provided the laws, it also provided the Biblical concepts on which those laws were based. Finney explained that in the process of studying Blackstone, he read so much of the Bible that he became a Christian and received his call to the ministry. Finney’s life story clearly identified a major source of Blackstone’s ideas for law.

So, while 34% of the Founders’ quotes came directly out of the Bible, many of their quotes were taken from men – like Blackstone – who had used the Bible to arrive at their own conclusions.”

This doesn’t even include Supreme Court decisions, Congressional records, speeches, inaugurations, etc. all of which include sources of Biblical content and concepts. I can produce those as well, if need be ,as well as what was taught in American schools for the first 175 years.

Bear in mind, the above is not some made up opinion, it is well documented, irrefutable research into actual quotes from the Founders.


Sources:

David Barton, Original Intent, 1997

Donald Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism 1988

“The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thought” American Political Science ReviewI posted this on MySpace.

Deborah K
03-08-2008, 08:30 PM
I posted this on MySpace.

Wow, thank you.

Paul Revered
03-08-2008, 09:43 PM
Wow, thank you.Thank you. I posted in the religion forum. It is getting the same hostile resistance there. These Atheists seem to be highly organized. They hold conventions. I say that it takes more faith to be an Atheist; than it does to believe in God.

Ranger29860
03-08-2008, 09:50 PM
i got a question your source for the religious affiliations is

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

is there any proof of this other than this page like where they got there sources knowing me its probably there i just missed it if you could please point me in the direction

Ranger29860
03-08-2008, 09:51 PM
Thank you. I posted in the religion forum. It is getting the same hostile resistance there. These Atheists seem to be highly organized. They hold conventions. I say that it takes more faith to be an Atheist; than it does to believe in God.

not an atheist jut not a Christian here :D

IcyPeaceMaker
03-08-2008, 10:04 PM
Deborah K, I'm pleased and impressed with your work, it is very good, well thought through and supported. You get a 5 pointed star by your name for that. I have made the same (basic) research as you and came to the same conclusions.

The shadowy ones have co-opted our country, they attack our roots, like mold, and they attack our virtue in an effort to replace it with their base depravity. This country was never founded on immorality or debauchery, so the tainted ones must try to destroy what displeases them. Unfortunately, they have gained the upper hand by guile, stealth and cunning. There is no depth they refuse to sink to to further their agenda.

If I fight back, I'm labeled a bigot, because far too many are still asleep. I'm not a bigot, I'm a realist and their adversary. I want my country back, as pristine as it was before they corrupted it. I wish them the just fruits of their treason.

yongrel
03-08-2008, 10:13 PM
Deborah K, I'm pleased and impressed with your work, it is very good, well thought through and supported. You get a 5 pointed star by your name for that. I have made the same (basic) research as you and came to the same conclusions.

The shadowy ones have co-opted our country, they attack our roots, like mold, and they attack our virtue in an effort to replace it with their base depravity. This country was never founded on immorality or debauchery, so the tainted ones must try to destroy what displeases them. Unfortunately, they have gained the upper hand by guile, stealth and cunning. There is no depth they refuse to sink to to further their agenda.

If I fight back, I'm labeled a bigot, because far too many are still asleep. I'm not a bigot, I'm a realist and their adversary. I want my country back, as pristine as it was before they corrupted it. I wish them the just fruits of their treason.

The tainted ones? Oi vey.

Ranger29860
03-08-2008, 10:16 PM
The tainted ones? Oi vey.

yeah i thought the same thing when i read that

Deborah K
03-08-2008, 10:42 PM
i got a question your source for the religious affiliations is

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

is there any proof of this other than this page like where they got there sources knowing me its probably there i just missed it if you could please point me in the direction

Look on their home page:http://www.adherents.com/ for their sourcing. Actually, I think if you peruse their site, you'll find a wealth of information.

IcyPeaceMaker
03-08-2008, 10:55 PM
chalere, isn't it? I mean when the truth is understood.

Deborah K
03-08-2008, 11:03 PM
Deborah K, I'm pleased and impressed with your work, it is very good, well thought through and supported. You get a 5 pointed star by your name for that. I have made the same (basic) research as you and came to the same conclusions.

The shadowy ones have co-opted our country, they attack our roots, like mold, and they attack our virtue in an effort to replace it with their base depravity. This country was never founded on immorality or debauchery, so the tainted ones must try to destroy what displeases them. Unfortunately, they have gained the upper hand by guile, stealth and cunning. There is no depth they refuse to sink to to further their agenda.

If I fight back, I'm labeled a bigot, because far too many are still asleep. I'm not a bigot, I'm a realist and their adversary. I want my country back, as pristine as it was before they corrupted it. I wish them the just fruits of their treason.

Thank you for the kudos. Much appreciated.
:)

Dr.3D
03-08-2008, 11:18 PM
Deborah K, I'm pleased and impressed with your work, it is very good, well thought through and supported. You get a 5 pointed star by your name for that. I have made the same (basic) research as you and came to the same conclusions.

The shadowy ones have co-opted our country, they attack our roots, like mold, and they attack our virtue in an effort to replace it with their base depravity. This country was never founded on immorality or debauchery, so the tainted ones must try to destroy what displeases them. Unfortunately, they have gained the upper hand by guile, stealth and cunning. There is no depth they refuse to sink to to further their agenda.

If I fight back, I'm labeled a bigot, because far too many are still asleep. I'm not a bigot, I'm a realist and their adversary. I want my country back, as pristine as it was before they corrupted it. I wish them the just fruits of their treason.


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

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

ronpaulhawaii
03-09-2008, 12:26 AM
I am amazed at the ignorance and intolerance shown in this thread by those who would complain of the ignorance and intolorance of religious folk. Most of the vitriol seems to miss the point of the OP entirely. ITSM the denial of the bible's influence on western society is silly. It doesn't matter if the underlying tenents of the book were based on reptilian texts from atlantis:p, the evidence put forth clearly shows that the bible was the most qouted source and that the vast majority of founders were affiliated with JC religions.

Interesting and well researched post, Deborah. Thanks

IcyPeaceMaker
03-09-2008, 01:31 AM
I believe some of our friends may have been offended by my post above, so let me explain. I do not for one second believe all Jews are anti-American, but many despise our heritage and anything Christian.

The ones I refer to embody that and the following characteristics, as well.

1) Knowing and understanding who those puppeteers are and refusing to renounce or expose them, preferring to be Jews first and Americans second, or benefiting from the deeds of those I refer to.

2) Allowing those descendents of Khazars to remain in their midst and shielding them from exposure and harm. (see #1) Working with or for them to the detriment of America, regardless of the degree of harm.

3) Refusing to assimilate and to become Americans first, determined to share our fate and to rejoice in our triumphs and commiserate in our failures, placing this country ahead of self. i.e. any loyalty to any other country, including Israel.

4) Anyone who assaults American traditions, including Christianity is NOT a true American. Jews have American principals and traditions under attack, just as they have done in every country they have occupied and destroyed for more than 5,000 years. Many Jews are not involved in this assault but shield and defend those who are involved. You are with America or you are with Israel, when it comes down to it, when support for Israel becomes damaging to America, failure to defend America makes you my enemy.

Anyone who refuses to understand that Israel and America's involvement and support for her has tended to destroy American values, traditions and standing in the world community, is intentionally blind, deceiving themselves or has been so totally indoctrinated by the Jewish-devised institution of political correctness, that they too should leave our shores.

This is my only country, I have served her and would gladly give my life to preserve her and keep her safe against all enemies foreign and particularly domestic. Anyone born here who gives their allegiance to any other country is no countryman of mine, and I would sooner they occupied the land with which they identify.

To defend the evil ones among us, who are damaging this country, or to identify with them, is treason. From my perspective, an offense deserving the death penalty.

I have no problem with someone being ultra rich, but when they use their power, as in the MSM, global banking, etc., to destroy ANY aspect of America-first culture, to the detriment of Americans, they have crossed the line in the sand, and there can be no redemption for them. They should be deported or executed.

America's relationship with Israel has damaged America and should be severed. Given the opportunity, I would put a sheet of black glass over Israel and seek out those responsible, here in America or abroad, and summarily execute them.

While I have no doubt that many Jews here in America are truly Americans first and share my love for her, many do not. To those, I would ask, if someone within your family had committed a heinous crime, would you help justice to be served or would you become and accessory to the crime? I understand how difficult a question like that is, but that is the choice many Jews are faced with, they know and understand America's plight, yet refuse to stand with her against her cloaked enemy. Being a chameleon doesn't hide your heart or end the conflict within you, it defines you, it is who you are.

Benjamin Freedman (a Jew) said that Jews are vampires, in that they can't live in Israel, inhabited only by other vampires, they must live among those they feed off of. Those are the ones to whom I refer.

Patriot123
03-09-2008, 01:36 AM
That is only partially true. The word Providence is used repeatedly in the DOI. The fact that the words are not in the documents does not disqualify the evidence that our founders used Christian principles as a basis for the foundation of our republic.



Uh….hello to you? Christianity was born out of the Jewish religion. Christ was a practicing Jew, a Rabbi, his followers were Jews. The Old Testament comes directly from the Torah.



LOL! http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html The evidence is in this link as to what religion our founders were. Perhaps your problem is with my sources. If you want your argument to have any standing with anyone reading it, then you will need to discredit my sources as you will now discover I have done with yours as well as your baseless argument.



Paine’s, Age of Reason, infuriated many of the Founding Fathers. John Adams wrote, “The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard [scoundrel, rogue] Paine say what he will.”

Samuel Adams wrote Paine a stiff rebuke, telling him, “[W]hen I heard you had turned your mind to a defense of infidelity, I felt myself much astonished and more grieved that you had attempted a measure so injurious to the feelings and so repugnant to the true interest of so great a part of the citizens of the United States.”

Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration, wrote to his friend and signer of the Constitution John Dickinson that Paine's Age of Reason was “absurd and impious”;

Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration, described Paine's work as “blasphemous writings against the Christian religion”;

John Witherspoon said that Paine was “ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy to the Christian faith”;

and Elias Boudinot, President of Congress, even published the Age of Revelation—a full-length rebuttal to Paine's work.

Patrick Henry, too, wrote a refutation of Paine's work which he described as “the puny efforts of Paine.”

When William Paterson, signer of the Constitution and a Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court, learned that some Americans seemed to agree with Paine's work, he thundered, “Infatuated Americans, why renounce your country, your religion, and your God?”

Zephaniah Swift, author of America's first law book, noted, “He has the impudence and effrontery [shameless boldness] to address to the citizens of the United States of America a paltry performance which is intended to shake their faith in the religion of their fathers.”

John Jay, an author of the Federalist Papers and the original Chief-Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, was comforted by the fact that Christianity would prevail despite Paine's attack,” I have long been of the opinion that the evidence of the truth of Christianity requires only to be carefully examined to produce conviction in candid minds.”


In fact, Paine's views caused such vehement public opposition that he spent his last years in New York as “an outcast” in “social ostracism” and was buried in a farm field because no American cemetery would accept his remains.




This quote is not an actual quote. It has been disputed by Monticello.org : http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Christianity_is_the_most_perverted_system_that_eve r_shone_on_man



The first part of this quote is also disputed. It has falsely been attached to the second part (underlined) that has been taken out of context. Here is the context: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-singleauthor?specfile=/web/data/jefferson/texts/jefall.o2w&act=text&offset=8287826&textreg=1&query=burnt

You ought to be more careful about from where you pull your information. It doesn't help your argument at all.

And here is what Ron Paul thinks of people who are trying to revise our nation's history: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
1) I never knew that the word, "Providence" was strictly meant for the Christian religion...
2) Christ was not a Rabbi. I've heard all the arguments from the Christian right, and this is pathetic. Even if he existed, he was Christian. Not Jewish in any way after his childhood. And excuse my language, but no crap? I don't need things that I learned in my Hebrew School and Jewish Studies to be lectured to me. Even then, it does not mean that Christians are Jews. There were no Jews in the US in the 1700's. Get your facts straight, please. Christians are not Jews, and if you wish to argue this, I gladly will, like I have with hundreds of other fanatics in the past. And I haven't lost a single argument to date.
3) Oh, please. Your source is a website that looks like it was made in a matter of minutes which has no credibility whatsoever. EVEN IF a majority of our founders were Christians, that doesn't mean our country was founded on Christian principles. It never was, and NEVER will be. There's no way in hell some bloody right winged Christian fanatics are going to try to re-write history in this country. And I love how you completely ignored the statement about that treaty ;)
4) ...And that's why many of our founders agreed and praised him? Do you have any proof to back your statements?
5) Note how it's disputed. Not necessarily false. Just disputed.
6) Again, not even going to visit the second link. Why? Key word; disputed. What you were looking for and didn't find was a definite, "false statement."
7) Right back at ya'.
8) Note how he said traditions, and not roots, foundation, etcetera. As our nation grew, so did the amount of Christians. This nation was never founded on Christian traditions. Many people celebrate Christmas. Does that mean that you have to subjugate the entire country to your damn religions holiday, and proclaim that our nation is specifically for your own religion? Please.

kyleAF
03-09-2008, 01:35 PM
I suppose that I just don't care where the Founders got their influence. Truth is, they got their influence from a great deal of sources... religious and secular alike.

You see, they were *intelligent* people. So they looked to many sources for the answers, since in nearly any argument, one side is never completely right.

And it is important to remember that the Judeo-Christian values are FAR older than the Judeo-Christian religions. Making murder illegal---as it is in this country---is never a reason to claim a Judeo-Christian influence. Just a JC coincidence.

Citing sources of quotes and such is all well and good, but it's also a logical fallacy to extend the argument beyond one of History. To speak to Political Theory or Morality, one must go beyond quotations and into the actual practice of philosophy. Relying on quotes and attributions to famous people is an actual logical fallacy, and little more than hearsay (When divorced from a Historical study--in which such efforts of attribution DO have merit!).

The important thing in my mind is that the Country remain rooted in its freedom and Constitutional government, NOT in any specific religion through law.

THAT WOULD BE A THEOCRACY. And that is certainly not what the Founders had in mind. I think we can all agree with that.

If someone can't, then come and try to impose your ideals on me. I'll impose right back, and we'll let might be right... :mad:

allyinoh
03-09-2008, 01:40 PM
I'm not sure, however, I just got done reading Common Sense by Thomas Paine, and I can definitely tell you that even if he wasn't into "religion," the man definitely believed in the God of the Bible.

I went into reading this GREAT book might I add, under the pretenses that Thomas Paine did not believe in Jesus Christ but did believe that there was a higher being. After reading it, I can definitely say that he did believe in Jesus Christ.

Patriot123
03-09-2008, 02:03 PM
I'm not sure, however, I just got done reading Common Sense by Thomas Paine, and I can definitely tell you that even if he wasn't into "religion," the man definitely believed in the God of the Bible.

I went into reading this GREAT book might I add, under the pretenses that Thomas Paine did not believe in Jesus Christ but did believe that there was a higher being. After reading it, I can definitely say that he did believe in Jesus Christ.

Well of course he would come off as an all mighty believer in Christ. During his time, if you weren't Christian or were Atheist, the Christian Church would have your head, literally speaking. All though they might bury it so that they wouldn't necessarily own it for more than a few hours, but you get the point ;)

yongrel
03-09-2008, 02:04 PM
I believe some of our friends may have been offended by my post above, so let me explain. I do not for one second believe all Jews are anti-American, but many despise our heritage and anything Christian.

The ones I refer to embody that and the following characteristics, as well.

1) Knowing and understanding who those puppeteers are and refusing to renounce or expose them, preferring to be Jews first and Americans second, or benefiting from the deeds of those I refer to.

2) Allowing those descendents of Khazars to remain in their midst and shielding them from exposure and harm. (see #1) Working with or for them to the detriment of America, regardless of the degree of harm.

3) Refusing to assimilate and to become Americans first, determined to share our fate and to rejoice in our triumphs and commiserate in our failures, placing this country ahead of self. i.e. any loyalty to any other country, including Israel.

4) Anyone who assaults American traditions, including Christianity is NOT a true American. Jews have American principals and traditions under attack, just as they have done in every country they have occupied and destroyed for more than 5,000 years. Many Jews are not involved in this assault but shield and defend those who are involved. You are with America or you are with Israel, when it comes down to it, when support for Israel becomes damaging to America, failure to defend America makes you my enemy.

Anyone who refuses to understand that Israel and America's involvement and support for her has tended to destroy American values, traditions and standing in the world community, is intentionally blind, deceiving themselves or has been so totally indoctrinated by the Jewish-devised institution of political correctness, that they too should leave our shores.

This is my only country, I have served her and would gladly give my life to preserve her and keep her safe against all enemies foreign and particularly domestic. Anyone born here who gives their allegiance to any other country is no countryman of mine, and I would sooner they occupied the land with which they identify.

To defend the evil ones among us, who are damaging this country, or to identify with them, is treason. From my perspective, an offense deserving the death penalty.

I have no problem with someone being ultra rich, but when they use their power, as in the MSM, global banking, etc., to destroy ANY aspect of America-first culture, to the detriment of Americans, they have crossed the line in the sand, and there can be no redemption for them. They should be deported or executed.

America's relationship with Israel has damaged America and should be severed. Given the opportunity, I would put a sheet of black glass over Israel and seek out those responsible, here in America or abroad, and summarily execute them.

While I have no doubt that many Jews here in America are truly Americans first and share my love for her, many do not. To those, I would ask, if someone within your family had committed a heinous crime, would you help justice to be served or would you become and accessory to the crime? I understand how difficult a question like that is, but that is the choice many Jews are faced with, they know and understand America's plight, yet refuse to stand with her against her cloaked enemy. Being a chameleon doesn't hide your heart or end the conflict within you, it defines you, it is who you are.

Benjamin Freedman (a Jew) said that Jews are vampires, in that they can't live in Israel, inhabited only by other vampires, they must live among those they feed off of. Those are the ones to whom I refer.

You know a post is bad when vampires are the least absurd subject of it.

IcyPeaceMaker
03-09-2008, 02:09 PM
You know a post is bad when vampires are the least absurd subject of it.
Thank you for your failure, your unthinking displeasure pleases me to no end.

IcyPeaceMaker
03-09-2008, 03:34 PM
This is why the Jews are hated. From a retired Brigadier General. Read it here: http://www.mediamonitors.net/jamesjdavid1.html

Let me be direct and come straight to the point. The cause of this terrorism is our involvement in and support of the criminal behavior of the Israeli government. You can be certain that you will never hear this accusation from the controlled news media, but nevertheless, let the truth be known. It may not be the "political correct" response, but political correctness is not one of my concerns.

You see, the Palestinians and many of their Arab allies have been the target of a half-century of unrelenting Israeli terrorism. Israel took over Palestine and drove out over 800,000 people from their homes through horrendous acts of terrorism. Among those acts was the sadistic massacre of over 250 Palestinian old men, women and children at Deir Yassin. After the bloodletting, the Jews then purposely publicized the event so as to make the people flee in panic from their homes and businesses from which they still haven't been allowed to return.

The terror also was applied to the British, such as the horrendous bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.

Not only did they establish their Israeli state over Palestinian land, the Jews took the Palestinians' personal property: their land, farms, homes and businesses. After driving out the Palestinian refugees and refusing their return, they then passed an "abandonment land" law that gave it to the Jews.

In 1980s Israel killed an estimated 40,000 civilians as it invaded the nation of Lebanon and relentlessly bombed and attacked cities and villages, including the ancient and beautiful city of Beirut. The current Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon, oversaw the massacre of thousands of refugees in the Sabra and Shatila camps in Lebanon.

And what about Iraq? Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright called the death of 500,000 Iraqi children from starvation due to UN sanctions, "acceptable and worth it" during a CBS interview on "60 Minutes" a few years ago. In other words, it's worth having 500,000 Iraqi children die in misery in order to safeguard Israel's position.

It has not stopped since. Israel has more prisoners per capita than any other nation of the world, more than Stalinist Russia, or Red China during their worst periods. It routinely tortures its Palestinian prisoners, and is in fact the only nation in the modern world that legally sanctions torture.

Israel has targeted and assassinated thousands of Palestinian leaders, and this includes scholars, clerics, businessmen, philosophers and poets, anyone who inspires the Palestinian people to restoration of their homeland. These assassinations have occurred all over the world, even in the United States.

In the process, they have killed many thousands of women and children. Even today, while America reads of the World Trade Center Tragedy, Israeli troops have killed 20 Palestinians in less than 72 hours, including two young Palestinian girls, ages 9 and 11 and one Palestinian boy, age 14. Ariel Sharon is taking advantage of America's tragedy to hide any news coverage of his continued carnage and destruction to the Palestinian people.

In addition to the many human rights violations committed against the Palestinian people, Amnesty International, in 1999, reported that "Since 1987 the Israeli authorities have demolished at least 2,650 Palestinian homes in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.... As a result 16,700 Palestinians (including 7,300 children) have lost their homes."

In addition, the Israelis have uprooted over 100,000 olive trees which were, in many cases, the only sources of income for these Palestinian farmers. These homes and olive trees were demolished with American made bulldozers while the leaders in Washington looked the other way, giving the green light to these Israeli barbaric acts.

And it has not just been the Palestinians who have suffered Israeli terror. In April 1996 the Israeli military targeted a Lebanese Refugee Camp in Qana, Lebanon that killed 103 innocent men, women, and especially children, in which a U.N. investigation found Israel to be at fault. When a vote was taken in the United Nations to condemn Israel for the killings, the United States was the only country to vote against the condemnation. What does that tell the rest of the world?

Every Palestinian and Arab is aware that Israel's half century of terror could never have occurred without the active financial, military, and diplomatic support of the United States. They know that the Jewish Lobby has dominant control of American Mideast Policy.

They know that almost every bomb that kills their people comes from America. Every bullet, every tank, every fighter plane, is manufactured or paid for by American dollars. It is America's billions of dollars of support that have enabled the Jewish state to terrorize the Arab people for half a century.

That is why the Arabs hate us; and that is why they are trying to strike back at us. That is why we will continue to be vulnerable to men who willingly give up their lives to avenge their people. Striking back at the terrorists is important, but getting to the source of terrorism is even more important.

It's time to get tough with Israel.

James J. David is a retired Brigadier General, and a graduate of the U.S. Army's Command and General Staff College, and the National Security Course, National Defense University, Washington DC. He served nearly 3 years of Army active duty in and around the Middle East from 1967-1969.

yongrel
03-09-2008, 03:42 PM
Thank you for your failure, your unthinking displeasure pleases me to no end.

Thank you for displaying the absurdities of collectivism.

IcyPeaceMaker
03-09-2008, 04:06 PM
If the shoe fits, wear it, if it didn't, then your injury would have been unjustified.

Theocrat
03-09-2008, 05:28 PM
That is only partially true. The word Providence is used repeatedly in the DOI. The fact that the words are not in the documents does not disqualify the evidence that our founders used Christian principles as a basis for the foundation of our republic.



Uh….hello to you? Christianity was born out of the Jewish religion. Christ was a practicing Jew, a Rabbi, his followers were Jews. The Old Testament comes directly from the Torah.



LOL! http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html The evidence is in this link as to what religion our founders were. Perhaps your problem is with my sources. If you want your argument to have any standing with anyone reading it, then you will need to discredit my sources as you will now discover I have done with yours as well as your baseless argument.



Paine’s, Age of Reason, infuriated many of the Founding Fathers. John Adams wrote, “The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard [scoundrel, rogue] Paine say what he will.”

Samuel Adams wrote Paine a stiff rebuke, telling him, “[W]hen I heard you had turned your mind to a defense of infidelity, I felt myself much astonished and more grieved that you had attempted a measure so injurious to the feelings and so repugnant to the true interest of so great a part of the citizens of the United States.”

Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration, wrote to his friend and signer of the Constitution John Dickinson that Paine's Age of Reason was “absurd and impious”;

Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration, described Paine's work as “blasphemous writings against the Christian religion”;

John Witherspoon said that Paine was “ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy to the Christian faith”;

and Elias Boudinot, President of Congress, even published the Age of Revelation—a full-length rebuttal to Paine's work.

Patrick Henry, too, wrote a refutation of Paine's work which he described as “the puny efforts of Paine.”

When William Paterson, signer of the Constitution and a Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court, learned that some Americans seemed to agree with Paine's work, he thundered, “Infatuated Americans, why renounce your country, your religion, and your God?”

Zephaniah Swift, author of America's first law book, noted, “He has the impudence and effrontery [shameless boldness] to address to the citizens of the United States of America a paltry performance which is intended to shake their faith in the religion of their fathers.”

John Jay, an author of the Federalist Papers and the original Chief-Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, was comforted by the fact that Christianity would prevail despite Paine's attack,” I have long been of the opinion that the evidence of the truth of Christianity requires only to be carefully examined to produce conviction in candid minds.”


In fact, Paine's views caused such vehement public opposition that he spent his last years in New York as “an outcast” in “social ostracism” and was buried in a farm field because no American cemetery would accept his remains.




This quote is not an actual quote. It has been disputed by Monticello.org : http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Christianity_is_the_most_perverted_system_that_eve r_shone_on_man



The first part of this quote is also disputed. It has falsely been attached to the second part (underlined) that has been taken out of context. Here is the context: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-singleauthor?specfile=/web/data/jefferson/texts/jefall.o2w&act=text&offset=8287826&textreg=1&query=burnt

You ought to be more careful about from where you pull your information. It doesn't help your argument at all.

And here is what Ron Paul thinks of people who are trying to revise our nation's history: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

Thanks for setting the record straight about this issue, so far. I've been saying this for such a long time, and all I ever get from the opposition is ignorant speculations and personal attacks. It will be interesting to see what evidence the revisionists will bring to counter you.

Tdcci
03-09-2008, 05:51 PM
In fact, Paine's views caused such vehement public opposition that he spent his last years in New York as “an outcast” in “social ostracism” and was buried in a farm field because no American cemetery would accept his remains.

I challenge this, show me where you got this information. Also, this is an argumentum ad populum.

IcyPeaceMaker
03-09-2008, 06:18 PM
I challenge this, show me where you got this information. Also, this is an argumentum ad populum.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine

Thomas Paine had passed the legendary limit of life. One by one most of his old friends and acquaintances had deserted him. Maligned on every side, execrated, shunned and abhorred – his virtues denounced as vices – his services forgotten – his character blackened, he preserved the poise and balance of his soul. He was a victim of the people, but his convictions remained unshaken. He was still a soldier in the army of freedom, and still tried to enlighten and civilize those who were impatiently waiting for his death, Even those who loved their enemies hated him, their friend – the friend of the whole world – with all their hearts. On the 8th of June, 1809, death came – Death, almost his only friend. At his funeral no pomp, no pageantry, no civic procession, no military display. In a carriage, a woman and her son who had lived on the bounty of the dead – on horseback, a Quaker, the humanity of whose heart dominated the creed of his head – and, following on foot, two negroes filled with gratitude – constituted the funeral cortege of Thomas Paine.[15]

Tdcci
03-09-2008, 06:43 PM
okay, so maybe his views were less popular when the crazy evangelical Christians started to dominate the population, but that quote said nothing about Deborah's claiming that Thomas paine "was buried in a farm field because no American cemetery would accept his remains."

IcyPeaceMaker
03-09-2008, 06:45 PM
Paine died at 59 Grove Street in Greenwich Village, New York City, on the morning of June 8, 1809. He was 72. His burial site is located in New Rochelle, New York where he had lived after returning to America in 1802. His remains were later disinterred by an admirer looking to return them to England however; his final resting place today is unknown.

Tdcci
03-09-2008, 07:01 PM
farm field - not verified by maybe, more importantly, I suspect the "because no American cemetery would accept his remains" is opinion.

1000-points-of-fright
03-09-2008, 07:23 PM
It doesn't matter if all of the founding fathers were Christians, Muslims, or Voodoo Priests. They still founded a government based on individual freedom that would not promote nor inhibit religious practices.

The only reason people today insist on pointing out that this nation was founded on Christian principles is because they want us to be ruled by their particular Christian laws. Otherwise they would just go about their Christian lives and not try to impose it on the rest of the country.

FYI: Judeo-Christian principles are based on a basic set of ethics that evolved way before the bible was ever written. As soon as humans began living in groups larger than a single family they figured out pretty quick that you don't murder, steal, or screw your neighbors wife. It tends to create conflict.

Organized religion just took those ethics and codified them. Plus, they added some extras to help control the masses.

Mesogen
03-09-2008, 08:28 PM
Liberty and Liberal (properly understood) ideas have only flourished in this world where Christianity has flourished because Christian doctrine affirms the worth of each and every human being. Where Christianity has not taken a foothold collectivism reigns (and its making a comeback in Christendom as well, unfortunately).

So the Salem witch trials and all the puritan intolerance were exercises in liberty and liberalism?
How about that Spanish Inquisition? Maybe throw in some pogroms for good measure.

And xtianity is all about collectivism.

Give up all your possessions and follow me.

Patriot123
03-09-2008, 09:32 PM
okay, so maybe his views were less popular when the crazy evangelical Christians started to dominate the population, but that quote said nothing about Deborah's claiming that Thomas paine "was buried in a farm field because no American cemetery would accept his remains."
+1 to that.


It doesn't matter if all of the founding fathers were Christians, Muslims, or Voodoo Priests. They still founded a government based on individual freedom that would not promote nor inhibit religious practices.

The only reason people today insist on pointing out that this nation was founded on Christian principles is because they want us to be ruled by their particular Christian laws. Otherwise they would just go about their Christian lives and not try to impose it on the rest of the country.

FYI: Judeo-Christian principles are based on a basic set of ethics that evolved way before the bible was ever written. As soon as humans began living in groups larger than a single family they figured out pretty quick that you don't murder, steal, or screw your neighbors wife. It tends to create conflict.

Organized religion just took those ethics and codified them. Plus, they added some extras to help control the masses.
Thank you. Finally someone with some common sense in this movement.

IcyPeaceMaker
03-10-2008, 08:46 AM
Mis-guided... Oh please.

First of all, please note that in article six section three of the Constitution, it states the following: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The words, "Christ, Christianity, Christian, Cross," or any other "Christian word" or even "Jewish" word are not mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or any other document from the 1700 era.


There is a good reason for the ommission of any jewish words, there were no jews on our shores until well after the documents were written, jews didn't show up until the early 1800s, prolly around 1830 or so, nearly 50 years after the constitutional convention was over. But now we have a judeo-christian country? You attack christianity, just as Benjamin Freedman said you would, and demand that you are the one with any light to shine?!?! Israel awaits you sir.

Theocrat
03-10-2008, 10:28 AM
Here is an excellent video by historian/author David Barton of WallBuilders which unequivocally proves that America was established on Christian principles and the Founders' intent was for this country to be a Christian nation. If you have any disputes or questions about this presentation, you can contact WallBuilders by phone at (817) 441-6044 or by e-mail at info@wallbuilders.com.

I pray this video will answer any questions concerning the religious intent of our Founding Fathers as well as clear up any confusion by setting the record straight about our country's religious heritage. May the naysayers and scoffers be forever silenced!

"America's Godly Heritage" (Part 1) (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7243716805363959903&q=America%27s+Godly+Heritage&total=3&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

"America's Godly Heritage" (Part 2) (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3013044804401748229&q=America%27s+Godly+Heritage&total=3&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1)

yongrel
03-10-2008, 10:57 AM
Here is an excellent video by historian/author David Barton of WallBuilders which unequivocally proves that America was established on Christian principles and the Founders' intent was for this country to be a Christian nation. If you have any disputes or questions about this presentation, you can contact WallBuilders by phone at (817) 441-6044 or by e-mail at info@wallbuilders.com.

I pray this video will answer any questions concerning the religious intent of our Founding Fathers as well as clear up any confusion by setting the record straight about our country's religious heritage. May the naysayers and scoffers be forever silenced!

"America's Godly Heritage" (Part 1) (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7243716805363959903&q=America%27s+Godly+Heritage&total=3&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

"America's Godly Heritage" (Part 2) (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3013044804401748229&q=America%27s+Godly+Heritage&total=3&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1)

... Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
-- Jesus, Matthew 22:21


"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law."
-Thomas Jefferson

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."
-Thomas Jefferson

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty."
-Thomas Jefferson

"I may grow rich by an art I am compelled to follow; I may recover health by medicines I am compelled to take against my own judgment; but I cannot be saved by a worship I disbelieve and abhor."
-Thomas Jefferson

"If by religion we are to understand sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your exclamation on that hypothesis is just, "that this would be the best of worlds if there were no religion in it.""
-Thomas Jefferson

"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."
-Thomas Jefferson

"Every new & successful example of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance."
-James Madison

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
-James Madison

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect."
-James Madison

"Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity."
-Thomas Paine

"It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man."
-Thomas Paine

"Of all the tyrannies that afflict mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst. Every other species of tyranny is limited to the world we live in, but this attempts a stride beyond the grave and seeks to pursue us into eternity."
-Thomas Paine

"The Christian system of religion is an outrage on common sense."
-Thomas Paine

"Yet this is trash that the Church imposes upon the world as the Word of God; this is the collection of lies and contradictions called the Holy Bible! this is the rubbish called Revealed Religion!"
-Thomas Paine

"Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."
-John Adams

"Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it."
-John Adams

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
-John Adams

"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world."
-John Adams

"The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [Washington; Adams; Jefferson; Madison; Monroe; Adams; Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in Christianity....
"Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism."
--- The Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in a sermon preached in October, 1831.

IcyPeaceMaker
03-10-2008, 11:09 AM
The defining line between Judaism & Christianity is the difference between the new and old testaments. Christians live by the New Testament and the Jews believe there is no such thing as the New Testament.

People are free to believe that which they wish, but Jews despise Christianity. The real question is why, and please don't give us the crap that it's because Jews killed Jesus. Nobody is branding anyone with any crime they themselves did not commit.

yongrel
03-10-2008, 11:13 AM
The defining line between Judaism & Christianity is the difference between the new and old testaments. Christians live by the New Testament and the Jews believe there is no such thing as the New Testament.

People are free to believe that which they wish, but Jews despise Christianity. The real question is why, and please don't give us the crap that it's because Jews killed Jesus. Nobody is branding anyone with any crime they themselves did not commit.

I love the smell of collectivism in the morning.
http://cache04.stormap.sapo.pt/fotostore02/fotos//c7/f4/9f/29108_000991zk.jpg

IcyPeaceMaker
03-10-2008, 11:16 AM
I believe the word supplanted was actually Napalm.

ARealConservative
03-10-2008, 11:23 AM
ROFL!!! Thirty five of the Founding Fathers who worked on the Constitution were members of the orthodox Christian Churches and others were evangelical Christians. Heheh are you implying they were all atheists? Where is your evidence of this? LOL


What is the purpose of these types of posts? They do nothing but divide us.

The vast majority of our leaders since the ratification of the constitution have also been Christian.

So if we are to attribute the original views of government towards Judeo-Christian Principles, then why would we not also attribute this version of the government towards the same?

and in the end, wasn't ratification a product of individual decisions?

So why try to "collectivize" our foundation at all?

ToryNotion
03-10-2008, 11:41 AM
Objectivists vs. Libertarians in Political/Religious Ideology Deathmatch 2008!

I saw this in 'Fugitive Essays' by Frank Chodorov pg 238 ('Education and Freedom')

It should be recalled that only the agnostic leanings of several constitutional fathers prevented the official designation of the new nation as a 'Christian Country' - which, by a strange twist of bigotry, meant an anti-Catholic country; there were few Jews and fewer Muhammadans in the colonies.

-----
I take this to mean that the issue of Christianity was quite well settled on in the whole and to most it was really more a question of which side of the reformation you favored.

micahnelson
03-10-2008, 11:41 AM
WHhhhhhhhhhhho Cares?

Our dollar is collapsing, a government is oozing with corruption, and you want to associate that with a Christian foundation?

Theocrat
03-10-2008, 12:01 PM
... Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
-- Jesus, Matthew 22:21


"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law."
-Thomas Jefferson

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."
-Thomas Jefferson

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty."
-Thomas Jefferson

"I may grow rich by an art I am compelled to follow; I may recover health by medicines I am compelled to take against my own judgment; but I cannot be saved by a worship I disbelieve and abhor."
-Thomas Jefferson

"If by religion we are to understand sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your exclamation on that hypothesis is just, "that this would be the best of worlds if there were no religion in it.""
-Thomas Jefferson

"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."
-Thomas Jefferson

"Every new & successful example of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance."
-James Madison

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
-James Madison

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect."
-James Madison

"Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity."
-Thomas Paine

"It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man."
-Thomas Paine

"Of all the tyrannies that afflict mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst. Every other species of tyranny is limited to the world we live in, but this attempts a stride beyond the grave and seeks to pursue us into eternity."
-Thomas Paine

"The Christian system of religion is an outrage on common sense."
-Thomas Paine

"Yet this is trash that the Church imposes upon the world as the Word of God; this is the collection of lies and contradictions called the Holy Bible! this is the rubbish called Revealed Religion!"
-Thomas Paine

"Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."
-John Adams

"Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it."
-John Adams

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
-John Adams

"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world."
-John Adams

"The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [Washington; Adams; Jefferson; Madison; Monroe; Adams; Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in Christianity....
"Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism."
--- The Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in a sermon preached in October, 1831.

What are your sources for these quotes, yongrel?

Theocrat
03-10-2008, 12:30 PM
WHhhhhhhhhhhho Cares?

Our dollar is collapsing, a government is oozing with corruption, and you want to associate that with a Christian foundation?

The reason why our dollar is collapsing and our government is riddled with corruption (among a host of other things immoral and unconstitutional) is precisely because we have forgotten or forsaken our nation's Christian heritage. Our Founding Fathers gave us strict admonitions against those who would seek to tear down the moral and religious nature of our constitutional republic and what the consequences would be as a result. Hear it from their own words:

"[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams (John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor , Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)

"There are three points of doctrine the belief of which forms the foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of God; the second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future state of rewards and punishments. Suppose it possible for a man to disbelieve either of these three articles of faith and that man will have no conscience, he will have no other law than that of the tiger or the shark. The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy." -- [B]John Quincy Adams (John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams to His Son on the Bible and Its Teachings [Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850], pp. 22-23.)

"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." -- Charles Carroll (Bernard C. Steiner, The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry [Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers, 1907], p. 475. In a letter from Charles Carroll to James McHenry of November 4, 1800.)

"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest." -- Benjamin Franklin (James Madison, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Max Farrand, editor [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911], Vol. I, pp. 450-452, June 28, 1787.)

And the list goes on and on. That's why we need to be concerned about our nation's Godly heritage because without it, our country will fall, at least according to our Founders. Even Congressman Paul (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=337) understands how important the Christian religion was to the early Framers of our republic!

Tdcci
03-10-2008, 12:39 PM
The reason why our dollar is collapsing and our government is riddled with corruption (among a host of other things immoral and unconstitutional) is precisely because we have forgotten or forsaken our nation's Christian heritage. Our Founding Fathers gave us strict admonitions against those who would seek to tear down the moral and religious nature of our constitutional republic and what the consequences would be as a result. Hear it from their own words

"[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . ."

Morality does not depend on or come from religion :rolleyes:
Our dollar is collapsing because of inflation not lack of religion :rolleyes:
If we had LESS dogma and blind trust in the Federal Reserve System perhaps the dollar would be in better shape.

yongrel
03-10-2008, 01:07 PM
What are your sources for these quotes, yongrel?

http://www.positiveatheism.org/

or I just made them up. You choose.

ToryNotion
03-10-2008, 01:21 PM
So the some of the founding fathers had criticisms of the practice of Christianity. Find me a Christian who doesn't see the gulf between the potential of Christianity and the practice in the hear and now. Back to the quotes and the founders, I've yet to see one other than Tom Paine that denies the tenets of Christianity or disparaged Jesus Christ. And the last quotation could be taken to mean that the listed presidents weren't Christian enough in the judgment of the author, not that they weren't Christian at all.

ARealConservative
03-10-2008, 01:34 PM
The reason why our dollar is collapsing and our government is riddled with corruption (among a host of other things immoral and unconstitutional) is precisely because we have forgotten or forsaken our nation's Christian heritage.

This is an argument from emotion and void of logic or reasoning.

You have no basis to claim that our founders actions were more Christian in nature then todays actions.

When you strip your argument down to its base element, it's just a holier then though attitude now rendered naked for all to see.

yongrel
03-10-2008, 01:37 PM
So the some of the founding fathers had criticisms of the practice of Christianity. Find me a Christian who doesn't see the gulf between the potential of Christianity and the practice in the hear and now. Back to the quotes and the founders, I've yet to see one other than Tom Paine that denies the tenets of Christianity or disparaged Jesus Christ. And the last quotation could be taken to mean that the listed presidents weren't Christian enough in the judgment of the author, not that they weren't Christian at all.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

We are a human nation, not a Christian nation.

Deborah K
03-10-2008, 01:58 PM
I am amazed at the ignorance and intolerance shown in this thread by those who would complain of the ignorance and intolorance of religious folk. Most of the vitriol seems to miss the point of the OP entirely. ITSM the denial of the bible's influence on western society is silly. It doesn't matter if the underlying tenents of the book were based on reptilian texts from atlantis:p, the evidence put forth clearly shows that the bible was the most qouted source and that the vast majority of founders were affiliated with JC religions.

Interesting and well researched post, Deborah. Thanks


Thank you. I am amazed as well at the hypocrisy of those who bitterly complain about how hostile and hateful Christians are when defending their faith. On the other hand, it is painful to hear it coming from Christians.

I've come to the conclusion that all the hostility really has nothing to do with "evil" atheists and "ignorant" Christians. It has everything to do with the maturity level of some individuals. If you take 'collectivism' out of the equation, all you're left with is individuals who either can or cannot have an intellectual debate with a certain level of maturity. Unfortunately, a lot of people have what I lovingly call a 'sandbox' mentality.

Dr.3D
03-10-2008, 02:01 PM
Unfortunately, a lot of people have what I lovingly call a 'sandbox' mentality.

'Mommy, Johnny threw sand in my hair!"
"She started it first!"
"No he did!"

"Whaaaaa!"

The typical sandbox politics.

Deborah K
03-10-2008, 02:07 PM
What is the purpose of these types of posts? They do nothing but divide us.

The vast majority of our leaders since the ratification of the constitution have also been Christian.

So if we are to attribute the original views of government towards Judeo-Christian Principles, then why would we not also attribute this version of the government towards the same?

and in the end, wasn't ratification a product of individual decisions?

So why try to "collectivize" our foundation at all?

If you will recall, I was responding to a post that claimed ALL of the founders were atheists, etc., etc.

How does providing a fact divide us? Try as you might, you will never completely remove collectivism, however it is good to always be conscious of it and avoid "grouping" people in adverse ways, if at all possible. On this, I agree with you.

ToryNotion
03-10-2008, 02:18 PM
Those arguing the no position seem to forget that there were other folks peopling the colonies besides the skeptical, disreputable swine we call the Founding Fathers. Your incisive arguments and your pages of internet quotes have convinced me that they were all the lot of them capital A atheists. Now even if this nonsense were true, you forget the millions of poor simple Christian believers that populated the early nation. Or are you going to try to convince us that they were also atheists. or deists or free masons or perhaps adherents of some other religion than Christianity in one of its many flavors? It seems to me that I remember a fable about many of them crossing the ocean in search of freedom to practice religion not freedom from religion (ie. from religion itself).

Deborah K
03-10-2008, 02:18 PM
The only reason people today insist on pointing out that this nation was founded on Christian principles is because they want us to be ruled by their particular Christian laws. Otherwise they would just go about their Christian lives and not try to impose it on the rest of the country.


I have noticed in threads that get rather long, people don't have the time to read through every post and it becomes necessary to repeat one's self, several times, it seems. I do NOT want us to be ruled by my particular Christian laws - as you put it. Please read my OP to see what my objective is.


FYI: Judeo-Christian principles are based on a basic set of ethics that evolved way before the bible was ever written. As soon as humans began living in groups larger than a single family they figured out pretty quick that you don't murder, steal, or screw your neighbors wife. It tends to create conflict.

Organized religion just took those ethics and codified them. Plus, they added some extras to help control the masses.

I can agree with this.

Deborah K
03-10-2008, 02:20 PM
Those arguing the no position seem to forget that there were other folks peopling the colonies besides the skeptical, disreputable swine we call the Founding Fathers. Your incisive arguments and your pages of internet quotes have convinced me that they were all the lot of them capital A atheists. Now even if this nonsense were true, you forget the millions of poor simple Christian believers that populated the early nation. Or are you going to try to convince us that they were also atheists. or deists or free masons or perhaps adherents of some other religion than Christianity in one of its many flavors? It seems to me that I remember a fable about many of them crossing the ocean in search of freedom to practice religion not freedom from religion (ie. from religion itself).

Bingo.

Deborah K
03-10-2008, 02:22 PM
The facts of the matter as I see them are as follows:

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

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

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

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


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

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

We are a human nation, not a Christian nation.


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

ToryNotion
03-10-2008, 02:25 PM
I detect the odious scent of historical revisionism in the arguments of those hostile to Christianities influence in the founding of this nation. I hope that neither side of the 'discussion' is so blinded by their bias that they would wish to present an inaccurate and deceitful account of the founding. Paraphrasing Albert Jay Nock, what is important is not who is right, but rather what is the truth.

Deborah K
03-10-2008, 02:47 PM
1) I never knew that the word, "Providence" was strictly meant for the Christian religion...


Who said it was?


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

Who said Christians are Jews? How did you deduce that from I said? As far as Christ being a rabbi? Mathew 26:49 and there's one other reference in the book of Mark, I think. (I'll have to look it up). And here is a link that covers research into this: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/rabbi.html

But then, you've already said that you don't like my sources. LOL!




3) Oh, please. Your source is a website that looks like it was made in a matter of minutes which has no credibility whatsoever. EVEN IF a majority of our founders were Christians, that doesn't mean our country was founded on Christian principles. It never was, and NEVER will be. There's no way in hell some bloody right winged Christian fanatics are going to try to re-write history in this country. And I love how you completely ignored the statement about that treaty

and

6) Again, not even going to visit the second link. Why? Key word; disputed. What you were looking for and didn't find was a definite, "false statement."

You don't like the look of the website so that automatically renders it not credible?? Did you even look at their sourcing? Obviously not.


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

Uhh ..... what are you talking about? This cannot be attributed to me.


You clearly have waaaay too much emotion attached to this issue and it is affecting the way you interpret my argument. I'm not interested in debating someone who attempts to discredit sources before even reading them and who attributes quotes to me that I did not make.

Deborah K
03-10-2008, 03:07 PM
Deborah K, I too am impressed by your research. Most likely even somebody with a Ph.D. in Biblical studies hasn't researched this topic as thoroughly.

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

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

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

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

Mesogen
03-10-2008, 05:11 PM
Those arguing the no position seem to forget that there were other folks peopling the colonies besides the skeptical, disreputable swine we call the Founding Fathers. Your incisive arguments and your pages of internet quotes have convinced me that they were all the lot of them capital A atheists. Now even if this nonsense were true, you forget the millions of poor simple Christian believers that populated the early nation. Or are you going to try to convince us that they were also atheists. or deists or free masons or perhaps adherents of some other religion than Christianity in one of its many flavors? It seems to me that I remember a fable about many of them crossing the ocean in search of freedom to practice religion not freedom from religion (ie. from religion itself).

These people did not write the Constitution.

mtmedlin
03-10-2008, 06:09 PM
I detect the odious scent of historical revisionism in the arguments of those hostile to Christianities influence in the founding of this nation. I hope that neither side of the 'discussion' is so blinded by their bias that they would wish to present an inaccurate and deceitful account of the founding. Paraphrasing Albert Jay Nock, what is important is not who is right, but rather what is the truth.

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

allyinoh
03-10-2008, 06:15 PM
I detect a scent of Christians taking positions that existed long before Christianity and claiming them as Christian. the Gita and Plato were here LONG before Christ but if it makes you feel better to claim the ideas as Christians, then plagarize all you want.

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

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

rockwell
03-10-2008, 06:56 PM
I'll Give You An Ounce Of Gold If You Can Find The Term "judeo-christian" Appearing Anywhere Before The Year 1900.

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

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

ronpaulhawaii
03-10-2008, 08:20 PM
I'll Give You An Ounce Of Gold If You Can Find The Term "judeo-christian" Appearing Anywhere Before The Year 1900.

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

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

Etymological background
The first-known uses of the terms "Judeo-Christian" and "Judeo-Christianity", according to the Oxford English Dictionary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary), are 1899 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1899) and 1910 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1910) respectively, but both were discussing the emergence of Christianity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian_tradition

Wish I could afford the subscription, might just win an ounce of gold... - lol

m

Delegates unite!!!

Dare to WIN!!!

BuddyRey
03-10-2008, 08:50 PM
I can't wait until Kade finds this thread!!!

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

Deborah K
03-10-2008, 09:12 PM
I'll Give You An Ounce Of Gold If You Can Find The Term "judeo-christian" Appearing Anywhere Before The Year 1900.

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

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


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

Deborah K
03-10-2008, 09:17 PM
I detect a scent of Christians taking positions that existed long before Christianity and claiming them as Christian. the Gita and Plato were here LONG before Christ but if it makes you feel better to claim the ideas as Christians, then plagarize all you want.

Another nit-picker who would just as soon deny Christianity ever existed. Gita and Plato can't take credit for Christ's message of love and forgiveness.

Dr.3D
03-10-2008, 09:25 PM
From Strong's Greek Dictionary


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

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

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

Deborah K
03-10-2008, 09:30 PM
From Strong's Greek Dictionary



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

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

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

ChooseLiberty
03-10-2008, 09:37 PM
You know you can argue both sides of this forever and neither side will be convinced.

BIG WASTE OF TIME.

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

Dr.3D
03-10-2008, 10:02 PM
Here is a good article on it: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/rabbi.html

So we are in agreement. :)

IcyPeaceMaker
03-10-2008, 10:28 PM
This thread has been Deborah's truth versus subterfuge. Debbie wins!

Kade
03-11-2008, 09:50 AM
The following thread prompted this one:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=125338&page=38

I reject the obvious desire to revise history on this matter. It is as though our heritage is something that should be feared and reviled, and so it must be denied. An Orwellian trait to be sure.

I’ve decided to share some facts about this issue, but before I get into it, allow me to preface this by stating that I believe in a Creator, and I believe that Christ was the human manifestation of that Creator. However, I do not belong to a religious organization. I am a recovering Catholic. I come from a very long line of Catholics that includes priests and nuns on my French-Canadian Father’s side. My Mother was raised with no religion as her Father was an atheist. I was baptized right after birth, but my parents did not raise me Catholic. I practiced Catholicism of my own volition as a young girl, up until the Priest molestation scandal and subsequent illegal alien advocacy of the Catholic Church.

While I believe there is a place in the world for religion, I also believe that way too many people see it as an end, rather than a means to an end. This undermines a person’s wisdom and sense of balance. Instead of viewing the church as a vehicle in which to teach people about the source of divine power and through which divine power can be channeled into man’s nature, people view the church as the power itself. And the church allows and even encourages this line of thinking. I believe this is extremely deceptive and destructive.

I see organized religion in the same way as I see government. If it is allowed to be corrupted, it will be. The idea of religion, as in the idea of capitalism is not, in and of itself, corrupt. But human nature dictates that those who are left to their own devices without any oversight or intervention, will inevitably succumb to the greed and corruption that comes with too much power.

The founders knew this. You can tell they did when you read the Declaration of Independence. Read how they describe King George. Their goal was to protect us against corruption of power. “[They] delivered to us a system of government which has enjoyed unprecedented success: we are now the world’s longest on-going constitutional republic. Two hundred years under the same document- and under one form of government – is an accomplishment unknown among contemporary nations. For example: Russia, Italy, Spain, and other nations underwent revolutions about the same time as the American Revolution, but with very different results. Consider France: in the last 200 years it has gone through seven completely different forms of governments; Italy has over 50 tries, yet we are still in our first.

Where then, did our Founding Fathers acquire the ideas that produced such longevity? Other nations certainly had access to what our Founders utilized, yet evidently chose not to. From what sources did our Founders choose their ideas?

This question was asked by political science professors at the University of Houston. They rightfully felt that they could determine the source of the Founders’ ideas if they could collect the writings from the Founding Era and see whom the Founders were quoting.

The researchers assembled 15,000 writings from the founding Era – no small sample – and searched those writings. That project spanned ten years; but at the end of that time, the researchers had isolated 3,154 direct quotes made by the Founders and had identified the source of those quotes.

The researchers discovered that Baron Charles de Montesquieu was the man quoted most often by the founding fathers, with 8.3 percent of the Founders’ quotes being taken from his writings. Sir William Blackstone was the second most-quoted individual with 7.9 percent of the Founder’s quotes, and John Locke was third with 2.9 percent.

Surprisingly, the researchers discovered that the founders quoted directly out of the bible 4 times more than they quoted Montesquieu, 4 times more often than they quoted Blackstone, and 12 times more often than they quoted John Locke. Thirty four percent of the Founders’ quotes came directly out of the bible.

The study was even more impressive when the source of the ideas used by Montesquieu, Blackstone, and Locke were identified. Consider for example, the source of Blackstone’s ideas. Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws was first introduced in 1768, and for the next 100 years America’s courts quoted Blackstone to settle disputes, to define words, and to examine procedure; Blackstone’s Commentaries were the final word in the Supreme Courts. So what was a significant source of Blackstone’s ideas? Perhaps the best answer to that question can be given through the life of Charles Finney.

Charles Finney is known as a famous revivalist, minister, and preacher from one of America’s greatest revivals; the Second Great Awakening in the early 1800’s. Finney, in his autobiography, spoke of how he received his call to ministry. He explained that – having determined to become a lawyer – he, like all other law students at the time, commenced the study of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws. Finney observed that Blackstone’s Commentaries not only provided the laws, it also provided the Biblical concepts on which those laws were based. Finney explained that in the process of studying Blackstone, he read so much of the Bible that he became a Christian and received his call to the ministry. Finney’s life story clearly identified a major source of Blackstone’s ideas for law.

So, while 34% of the Founders’ quotes came directly out of the Bible, many of their quotes were taken from men – like Blackstone – who had used the Bible to arrive at their own conclusions.”

This doesn’t even include Supreme Court decisions, Congressional records, speeches, inaugurations, etc. all of which include sources of Biblical content and concepts. I can produce those as well, if need be ,as well as what was taught in American schools for the first 175 years.

Bear in mind, the above is not some made up opinion, it is well documented, irrefutable research into actual quotes from the Founders.


Sources:

David Barton, Original Intent, 1997

Donald Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism 1988

“The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thought” American Political Science Review


It is made up.

Barton and Lutz are pseudo-historians. I'm not trying to be mean, they have been proven to whip up quotes out of thin air and they are part of a strong revisionist movement... there work is fiction, and their facts are false or dressed up opinions.

Here are a few sources to verify that I am indeed correct:

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=22481

http://connection.ebscohost.com/content/article/1027400469.html

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Dissecting+the+religious+right's+favorite+Bible+Cu rriculum.(Church+&...-a0170729742

Kade
03-11-2008, 09:57 AM
I don't care either. But I'll be damned if I'm going to stand by and let these fools who refuse to crack open a history book revise history.

Has anyone read 1984? I had to read it in high school 200 years ago.....anyway.....the job of the main character, Winston, was to rewrite history to fit the agenda of big brother. If atheists and the like keep parroting the lies regarding the founders and their documents, sooner or later, most of the media-mall zombies are going to believe it as the truth much like they already do about the lie of 'Separation of Church and State'.

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

I find this sheer irony.

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

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

familydog
03-11-2008, 01:02 PM
MicahNelson later in this thread makes a good point about the two sides we come from... I'm tempered in my response because of it...

I find this sheer irony.

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

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

Speaking as a historian (as defined by one who has a history degree), it's impossible for a historian to check all his or her biases at the door. And some historians like Howard Zinn, actually argue for history to be more than just stating the facts, but a history that promotes social change.

Tdcci
03-11-2008, 01:03 PM
You know you can argue both sides of this forever and neither side will be convinced.

You're right, because one side uses logic and one uses dogma.

Kade
03-11-2008, 01:06 PM
Speaking as a historian (as defined by one who has a history degree), it's impossible for a historian to check all his or her biases at the door. And some historians like Howard Zinn, actually argue for history to be more than just stating the facts, but a history that promotes social change.

Agreed.

Zinn is right down the street actually. I'm fairly well read on Zinn and I reject his emotional appeal to Marxism as an answer to the abuses perpetuated by this country. I don't believe that history should be revised to further a certain perspective. I also don't support the 9-11 truth conspiracy, on the grounds that the Bush Administration is too inept.

I'll say it here, I think anyone who thinks the founders of this country intended a Christian Nation are fooling themselves...

...and, even if they were correct, and a Christian Nation were intended, it would be our job as modern day patriots to fight the Church Statehood, in our own time.

So, if a Christian Nation were intended at all, it would be necessary to rebel and topple any spiritual aristocracy.

IcyPeaceMaker
03-11-2008, 01:53 PM
I believe the point made, was that the framers specifically eliminated any chance for theocracy, and limited government to a non-interventionist policy, though that hasn't worked out so well.

The second point was that the framers were indeed Christian types, and they made reference to this government being maintained by a moral people. That hasn't worked out well either.

familydog
03-11-2008, 01:53 PM
Agreed.

Zinn is right down the street actually. I'm fairly well read on Zinn and I reject his emotional appeal to Marxism as an answer to the abuses perpetuated by this country. I don't believe that history should be revised to further a certain perspective. I also don't support the 9-11 truth conspiracy, on the grounds that the Bush Administration is too inept.

I'll say it here, I think anyone who thinks the founders of this country intended a Christian Nation are fooling themselves...

...and, even if they were correct, and a Christian Nation were intended, it would be our job as modern day patriots to fight the Church Statehood, in our own time.

So, if a Christian Nation were intended at all, it would be necessary to rebel and topple any spiritual aristocracy.

I generally don't agree with Zinn's very left wing views, but I respect him highly for his contributions to the profession.

It's wrong to suggest (if anyone has) that the Founders wanted a Christian state. There words do not support it, and it goes against what they stood for. A Christian nation is different though. A nation, moreover, nation-building can only be done by culture. If the culture is predominately Christian, then they will in affect have a Christian nation.
Our founders created a republican form of government. In that form, the legislature is where the will of the people is brought out. Of course, legislative decisions should, in this system, rely mostly at the local and state level. So if local and state citizens wanted to ban gambling for instance (as was the case in PA up until recently) on the grounds that gambling is immoral etc, then they can. The support for this decision relies on the immorality argument which stems from the culture, which shapes the nation.

The point is, whether the Founder wanted a Christian nation or not, they got one and they could do nothing about it (and they shouldn't have if they truely believed in republicanism). Do I think they wanted a Christian nation? I can't say for sure, but one can make an argument that founding principles of equality, liberty, individualism can be found in Christianity. Toqueville saw it in his book Democracy in America (well he was stricly speaking of Catholicism), and I believe him to be right.

My notion of a nation is taken from Ernst Renan's lecture "What is a Nation?"

Kade
03-11-2008, 02:07 PM
I generally don't agree with Zinn's very left wing views, but I respect him highly for his contributions to the profession.

It's wrong to suggest (if anyone has) that the Founders wanted a Christian state. There words do not support it, and it goes against what they stood for. A Christian nation is different though. A nation, moreover, nation-building can only be done by culture. If the culture is predominately Christian, then they will in affect have a Christian nation.
Our founders created a republican form of government. In that form, the legislature is where the will of the people is brought out. Of course, legislative decisions should, in this system, rely mostly at the local and state level. So if local and state citizens wanted to ban gambling for instance (as was the case in PA up until recently) on the grounds that gambling is immoral etc, then they can. The support for this decision relies on the immorality argument which stems from the culture, which shapes the nation.

The point is, whether the Founder wanted a Christian nation or not, they got one and they could do nothing about it (and they shouldn't have if they truely believed in republicanism). Do I think they wanted a Christian nation? I can't say for sure, but one can make an argument that founding principles of equality, liberty, individualism can be found in Christianity. Toqueville saw it in his book Democracy in America (well he was stricly speaking of Catholicism), and I believe him to be right.

My notion of a nation is taken from Ernst Renan's lecture "What is a Nation?"


My fear and outright rejection of the "Christian Nation" concept comes from Gary North and Rousas John Rushdoony's view of a America, as a Spiritual Aristocracy.

You will find this advocated by some on these boards, notably, Theocrat.

rodent
03-11-2008, 02:18 PM
The following thread prompted this one:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=125338&page=38

I reject the obvious desire to revise history on this matter. It is as though our heritage is something that should be feared and reviled, and so it must be denied. An Orwellian trait to be sure.


Sweet. I will get slaves and if my wife ever cheats on me, you bet I will stone her ass to death. Mmmmmmm...delish... Judeo-Christian values.

Mesogen
03-11-2008, 05:11 PM
Another nit-picker who would just as soon deny Christianity ever existed. Gita and Plato can't take credit for Christ's message of love and forgiveness.

Some say Jesus visited India and got a lot of his ideas from Hinduism and Buddhism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgiveness#Hinduism


O Lord, forgive three sins that are due to my human limitations:
Thou art everywhere, but I worship you here;
Thou art without form, but I worship you in these forms;
Thou needest no praise, yet I offer you these prayers and salutations,
Lord, forgive three sins that are due to my human limitations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mett?


The object of mett meditation is to cultivate loving kindness (love without attachment, non-exclusive love) towards all sentient beings. The practice usually begins with the meditator cultivating loving kindness towards themselves (though this is not specifically recommended by the Buddha himself in the relevant suttas/sutras), then their loved ones, friends, teachers, strangers and finally their enemies.

Love your enemies? Hmm, where have I heard that one?

Remember Buddhism pre-dates Christianity by about 300-400 years.

familydog
03-11-2008, 07:04 PM
My fear and outright rejection of the "Christian Nation" concept comes from Gary North and Rousas John Rushdoony's view of a America, as a Spiritual Aristocracy.

You will find this advocated by some on these boards, notably, Theocrat.

I'm a devout Catholic. I don't want a theocracy or a state sanctioned religion. That said, I understand some do, and luckily that won't happen anytime soon. But my point was there is a difference between a "Christian nation" and a "Christian state." The founders didn't want a Christian state, and as far as I know they were silent on the concept of a Christian nation. The nation (that is, the people) were mostly WASP at the founding (and by many accounts still are--at least some form of Christian), thus America was founded as a Christian nation-state.

Knowing what I do of the Catholic faith and again, going by Toqueville, I will state once more that Christianity has the same principles of republicanism (equality, individualism, rule of law, vigilance, etc). That said, I would argue that yes, indeed, the US was founded on Christian principles. Did the Founders conciously think that while creating the country? I don't know, I can't get inside their heads. Their writings suggest a more secular approach, but there is room for both sides.

Don't fear Calvinists and Gary North. They have no power.

Patriot123
03-11-2008, 07:44 PM
So what you're saying is, the research done by the University of Houston which I presented in my OP and which is based on 15,000 writings and their origins, is just bunk because you said so??? Sorry but you're going to have to do a much better job of disproving the research.

As far as your claim that the founders were atheists, deists, etc. blah, blah, blah.
Debunk the following then, and do it with the research of reputable sources otherwise please stop wasting my time and everyone else's who would like to have an intellectually honest debate about this.

Religious Affiliation of the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, including the Signers of the Constitution of the United States of America.

There were 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 at which the U.S. Constitution was drafted and signed. All participated in the proceedings which resulted in the Constitution, but only 39 of these delegates were actually signers of the document.

From: Robert G. Ferris (editor), Signers of the Constitution: Historic Places Commemorating the Signing of the Constitution, published by the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service: Washington, D.C. (revised edition 1976), page 138:

Most of the [signers of the Constitution] married and fathered children. Sherman sired the largest family, numbering 15 by two wives... Three (Baldwin, Gilman, and Jenifer) were lifetime bachelors. In terms of religious affiliation, the men mirrored the overwhelmingly Protestant character of American religious life at the time and were members of various denominations. Only two, Carroll and Fitzsimons, were Roman Catholics.

Religious Affiliation # of delegates % of delegates

Episcopalian/Anglican 31 56.4%
Presbyterian 16 29.1%
Congregationalist 8 14.5%
Quaker 3 5.5%
Catholic 2 3.6%
Methodist 2 3.6%
Lutheran 2 3.6%
Dutch Reformed 2 3.6%

TOTAL 55 100%


Name of Signer State Religious Affiliation

Daniel Carroll Maryland Catholic
Thomas Fitzsimons Pennsylvania Catholic
Roger Sherman Connecticut Congregationalist
Nathaniel Gorham Massachusetts Congregationalist
John Langdon New Hampshire Congregationalist
Nicholas Gilman New Hampshire Congregationalist
Abraham Baldwin Georgia Congregationalist; Episcopalian
William Samuel Johnson Connecticut Episcopalian; Presbyterian
James Madison Jr. Virginia Episcopalian
George Read - Delaware Episcopalian
Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer Maryland Episcopalian
David Brearly New Jersey Episcopalian
Richard Dobbs Spaight, Sr. North Carolina Episcopalian
Robert Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian
Gouverneur Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian
John Rutledge South Carolina Episcopalian
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney South Carolina Episcopalian
Charles Pinckney South Carolina Episcopalian
Pierce Butler South Carolina Episcopalian
George Washington Virginia Episcopalian
Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Episcopalian (Deist)
William Blount North Carolina Episcopalian; Presbyterian
James Wilson Pennsylvania Episcopalian; Presbyteran
Rufus King Massachusetts Episcopalian; Congregationalist
Jacob Broom Delaware Lutheran
William Few Georgia Methodist
Richard Bassett Delaware Methodist
Gunning Bedford Jr. Delaware Presbyterian
James McHenry Maryland Presbyterian
William Livingston New Jersey Presbyterian
William Paterson New Jersey Presbyterian
Hugh Williamson North Carolina Presbyterian
Jared Ingersoll Pennsylvania Presbyterian
Alexander Hamilton New York Huguenot; Presbyterian; Episcopalian
Jonathan Dayton New Jersey Presbyterian; Episcopalian
John Blair Virginia Presbyterian; Episcopalian
John Dickinson Delaware Quaker; Episcopalian
George Clymer Pennsylvania Quaker; Episcopalian
Thomas Mifflin Pennsylvania Quaker; Lutheran


Name of Non-Signing Delegate State Religious Affiliation
Oliver Ellsworth Connecticut Congregationalist
Caleb Strong Massachusetts Congregationalist
John Lansing, Jr. New York Dutch Reformed
Robert Yates New York Dutch Reformed
William Houstoun Georgia Episcopalian
William Leigh Pierce Georgia Episcopalian
Luther Martin Maryland Episcopalian
John F. Mercer Maryland Episcopalian
Elbridge Gerry Massachusetts Episcopalian
George Mason Virginia Episcopalian
Edmund J. Randolph Virginia Episcopalian
George Wythe Virginia Episcopalian
James McClurg Virginia Presbyterian
William C. Houston New Jersey Presbyterian
William R. Davie North Carolina Presbyterian
Alexander Martin North Carolina Presbyterian


Source: http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

"The signers were those individuals who happened to be Delegates to Congress at the time... The signers possessed many basic similarities. Most were American-born and of Anglo-Saxon origin. The eight foreign-born... were all natives of the British Isles. Except for Charles Carroll, a Roman Catholic, and a few Deists, every one subscribed to Protestantism. For the most part basically political nonextremists, many at first had hesitated at separation let alone rebellion."

Your source just invalidated itself. Its charts directly contradict its own text. Let's define "few," shall we?


–adjective
1. not many but more than one: Few artists live luxuriously.
–noun
2. (used with a plural verb) a small number or amount: Send me a few.
3. the few, a special, limited number; the minority: That music appeals to the few.
–pronoun
4. (used with a plural verb) a small number of persons or things: A dozen people volunteered, but few have shown up.
—Idioms
5. few and far between, at widely separated intervals; infrequent: In Nevada the towns are few and far between.
6. quite a few, a fairly large number; many: There were quite a few interesting things to do.
[Origin: bef. 900; ME fewe, OE féawe; c. Goth fawai; akin to L paucus few, paulus little, pauper poor, Gk paûros little, few]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

If you refer to this quote in your source, and refer to the chart supplied, there are no Deists on the chart. This leads me to believe the following:
1) The work done for this website is careless.
2) The work done is not credible whatsoever, in addition to careless.
3) The author(s) had a strong opinion before doing this research towards your own side.

Either way, your source is not credible. Any respected website will admit that there were at least a few Deists amongst our founders, but what they will not admit is that Christianity had a significant role in the founding of our nation. "But Patriot123, I never said it was a significant role, I meant that it was a minor role." If it played a minor role, then it didn't play a significant role, in which case amounts to nothing in the founding of this nation.

Furthermore, I acknowledge the fact that many of our founders were Christians. However, the influential and major founders were Deists, or held the Deist beliefs closely.


As far as your claim that the founders were atheists, deists, etc. blah, blah, blah.
I'm sorry, I thought you wanted to have an intelligent debate. Not one between a babbling four year old (being you) and myself, eleven years older than that of your stated age in the previous sentence.

Furthermore:


"Strongly guarded. . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States."

In addition, if you actually were to read the Constitution, which I trust you have at least a couple dozen times over, like any true American would, you would also know that it does not mention the term, "God" once. Not once.


Now what I'm surprised about is the fact that you haven't brought up my point about the Treaty of Tripoli. Allow me to quote it once more:

""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 tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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."

Feel free to give a rebuttal this time around for this one, and not just a "blah, blah, blah" statement ;)

Patriot123
03-11-2008, 07:48 PM
There is a good reason for the ommission of any jewish words, there were no jews on our shores until well after the documents were written, jews didn't show up until the early 1800s, prolly around 1830 or so, nearly 50 years after the constitutional convention was over. But now we have a judeo-christian country? You attack christianity, just as Benjamin Freedman said you would, and demand that you are the one with any light to shine?!?! Israel awaits you sir.

My G-d, you are unbelievably Anit-Semetic. Just leave the topic... Please. You completely just twisted what I said, and you know what? I'm not even going to tell you what I meant, just because I'm so amazed how you got that out of what I said. And don't try to stereotype me as a foreigner just because I'm Jewish, either, buddy. Please. Because I'll tell you, I'm a hell of a lot more American than you are right now for your comment. You're simply a conspiracy theorist who has no proof to back any of your statements. And as for your comment in whole, Vatican City awaits you, sir.

Patriot123
03-11-2008, 08:02 PM
Who said it was?



Who said Christians are Jews? How did you deduce that from I said? As far as Christ being a rabbi? Mathew 26:49 and there's one other reference in the book of Mark, I think. (I'll have to look it up). And here is a link that covers research into this: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/rabbi.html

But then, you've already said that you don't like my sources. LOL!





You don't like the look of the website so that automatically renders it not credible?? Did you even look at their sourcing? Obviously not.



Uhh ..... what are you talking about? This cannot be attributed to me.


You clearly have waaaay too much emotion attached to this issue and it is affecting the way you interpret my argument. I'm not interested in debating someone who attempts to discredit sources before even reading them and who attributes quotes to me that I did not make.

My apologies, gave a rebuttal to the wrong post. Please feel free to give one to what I said, though. Actually, please do so. I'll expect two rebuttals from you in your next post.

1)

Uh….hello to you? Christianity was born out of the Jewish religion. Christ was a practicing Jew, a Rabbi, his followers were Jews. The Old Testament comes directly from the Torah.
You specifically implied that Christians were Jews, or were Jews at one point, which they are not and were not. His followers were not Jews because they believed in a false profit and the false Messiah, that is assuming he even existed. Christ was not a practicing Jew, as he declared himself the Messiah unjustly, and believed in a Cult religion which was a shoot off of Judaism at the time that the Romans occupied Israel.

2)

But then, you've already said that you don't like my sources. LOL!
Try quoting me on that. No, really. Go ahead and try to find where I said that. Because I didn't. I said I didn't like the one source you provided. Are you even reading what I post?

3) Jesus might very well have been an acting Rabbi, but he wasn't a Jew. Maybe during birth, maybe even as a child. But he was not a Jew as he grew up, again, assuming he even lived.

4)

You clearly have waaaay too much emotion attached to this issue and it is affecting the way you interpret my argument. I'm not interested in debating someone who attempts to discredit sources before even reading them and who attributes quotes to me that I did not make.
What are you talking about? I'm trying to have an intelligent debate with you, and whilst your accusing me of being "too emotional" on the issue, you're using text type, mocking my statements which you cannot prove wrong with such things as "blah, blah, blah" and are typing letters repeatedly in words to exaggerate them. For example, "waaaay." Please. Get type correctly, act maturely or I do not wish to continue this debate.

Also, please be sure to post a rebuttal to the Treaty of Tripoli which I posted in my previous rebuttal two posts up.

Kade
03-12-2008, 08:52 AM
There is a good reason for the ommission of any jewish words, there were no jews on our shores until well after the documents were written, jews didn't show up until the early 1800s, prolly around 1830 or so, nearly 50 years after the constitutional convention was over. But now we have a judeo-christian country? You attack christianity, just as Benjamin Freedman said you would, and demand that you are the one with any light to shine?!?! Israel awaits you sir.

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

Every year, a notable Jewish leader, sometimes even a secular Jew, like Former Ambassador Loeb, does a letter reading from George Washington to the people of Newport, Rhode Island. It was the letter he sent the Touro, the oldest surviving Synagogue in America, to ensure them that they had a place here in the new country.


This reading, to which I attend, still gives me chills. I can't express the level of out of control ignorance you have demonstrated in this sentence...but perhaps the words of Washington himself will change your mind...



Letter of George Washington to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island: (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letter_to_Touro_Synagogue)

"...the Government of the United States...gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance...May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy."


The Touro Synagogue was built in 1759. You are just simply wrong.

kimo
03-12-2008, 09:55 AM
Ed Brown (political prisoner) speaks:
JESUITS ARE IN CONTROL 2/28/08
(full clip)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=CeoLcAC9je0&feature=related

Kade
03-12-2008, 11:59 AM
Ed Brown (political prisoner) speaks:
JESUITS ARE IN CONTROL 2/28/08
(full clip)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=CeoLcAC9je0&feature=related

You mean the dentist Ed Brown? That man is a whackjob. He is divinely inspired by some sort of Hippie Jesus.

I don't like what the Feds did to him... and nothing justifies it, not even rampant insanity.

Deborah K
03-12-2008, 12:18 PM
My apologies, gave a rebuttal to the wrong post. Please feel free to give one to what I said, though. Actually, please do so. I'll expect two rebuttals from you in your next post.

1)

You specifically implied that Christians were Jews, or were Jews at one point, which they are not and were not. His followers were not Jews because they believed in a false profit and the false Messiah, that is assuming he even existed. Christ was not a practicing Jew, as he declared himself the Messiah unjustly, and believed in a Cult religion which was a shoot off of Judaism at the time that the Romans occupied Israel.

2)

Try quoting me on that. No, really. Go ahead and try to find where I said that. Because I didn't. I said I didn't like the one source you provided. Are you even reading what I post?

3) Jesus might very well have been an acting Rabbi, but he wasn't a Jew. Maybe during birth, maybe even as a child. But he was not a Jew as he grew up, again, assuming he even lived.

4)
What are you talking about? I'm trying to have an intelligent debate with you, and whilst your accusing me of being "too emotional" on the issue, you're using text type, mocking my statements which you cannot prove wrong with such things as "blah, blah, blah" and are typing letters repeatedly in words to exaggerate them. For example, "waaaay." Please. Get type correctly, act maturely or I do not wish to continue this debate.

Also, please be sure to post a rebuttal to the Treaty of Tripoli which I posted in my previous rebuttal two posts up.

As to the Treaty of Tripoli: "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 Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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."

Number One: My assertion is that America was founded on Judeo-Christian Principles, the words, "religion" and "principles" are very different.

Number Two: This treaty was necessary to get us out of a holy war. The point of article eleven was to illustrate that we have no hostility toward ANY religion.

Show me where I "specifically implied that Christians were Jews". I don't know where you get your information from, but to call his followers cultists and followers of a false prophet, etc. is going to offend Christians. Where is your evidence that Christ was not a Jew and that his followers were not Jews? It strikes me as odd that for someone who is soooo defensive of his/her own faith as you seem to be, that you would then turn around and insult Christianity with your unfounded accusations and smears, i.e. "bloody Christian fanatics". (see below)



3) Oh, please. Your source is a website that looks like it was made in a matter of minutes which has no credibility whatsoever. EVEN IF a majority of our founders were Christians, that doesn't mean our country was founded on Christian principles. It never was, and NEVER will be. There's no way in hell some bloody right winged Christian fanatics are going to try to re-write history in this country

The above shows not only your bigotry toward Christians, but one example of your dislike of my sources and here is the other:


6) Again, not even going to visit the second link. Why? Key word; disputed. What you were looking for and didn't find was a definite, "false statement."

As far as my style of writing goes, feel free not to like it, or to respond. That is your prerogative.

kimo
03-12-2008, 12:33 PM
You mean the dentist Ed Brown? That man is a whackjob. He is divinely inspired by some sort of Hippie Jesus.

I don't like what the Feds did to him... and nothing justifies it, not even rampant insanity.

Agree. Too much conspiracy in him. It´s just opinion.

Deborah K
03-12-2008, 12:42 PM
It is made up.

Barton and Lutz are pseudo-historians. I'm not trying to be mean, they have been proven to whip up quotes out of thin air and they are part of a strong revisionist movement... there work is fiction, and their facts are false or dressed up opinions.

Here are a few sources to verify that I am indeed correct:

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=22481

http://connection.ebscohost.com/content/article/1027400469.html

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Dissecting+the+religious+right's+favorite+Bible+Cu rriculum.(Church+&...-a0170729742

I read through most of the first and third links and all I got was that atheist revisionists don’t like Barton’s assertions that we were founded on Christian principles. Nothing I read gives any example of where Barton “pulls quotes out of thin air.” All they do is complain about him, but there are no refutations specifically regarding my claims in this post that pertain to Barton and Lutz as sources regarding the research that Lutz did at the University of Houston. I see nothing in your links that refutes the research. All I see is that they think Barton has taken Lutz’s work and distorted it. Again, no evidence to back it up, just useless articles with no facts to back up the argument ex: claiming Barton’s history facts are “riddled with errors” and then not providing one single example. And you have provided nothing about Lutz, unless the 2nd link had info on him. I don't have access to that book but Arlen Specter doesn't impress me much to begin with.

Their attacks on Barton remind me of someone else who is being unjustly attacked…….

Kade
03-12-2008, 12:47 PM
I read through most of the first and third links and all I got was that atheist revisionists don’t like Barton’s assertions that we were founded on Christian principles. Nothing I read gives any example of where Barton “pulls quotes out of thin air.” All they do is complain about him, but there are no refutations specifically regarding my claims in this post that pertain to Barton and Lutz as sources regarding the research that Lutz did at the University of Houston. I see nothing in your links that refutes the research. All I see is that they think Barton has taken Lutz’s work and distorted it. Again, no evidence to back it up, just useless articles with no facts to back up the argument ex: claiming Barton’s history facts are “riddled with errors” and then not providing one single example. And you have provided nothing about Lutz, unless the 2nd link had info on him. I don't have access to that book but Arlen Specter doesn't impress me much to begin with.

Their attacks on Barton remind me of someone else who is being unjustly attacked…….

Yea me. Barton is batshit.



Probably the best refutation of Barton's argument simply is to quote his own exegesis of the First Amendment: "Today," Barton says, "we would best understand the actual context of the First Amendment by saying, 'Congress shall make no law establishing one Christian denomination as the national denomination.' " In keeping with Barton's restated First Amendment, Congress could presumably make a law establishing all Christian denominations as the national religion, and each state could pass a law establishing a particular Christian church as its official religion.

All of this pseudoscholarship would hardly be worth discussing, let alone disproving, were it not for the fact that it is taken so very seriously by so many people. -Arlen Specter

This quote is from Barton's book America's Godly Heritage


On January 1,1802, Jefferson wrote to that group of Danbury Baptists, and in this letter, he assured them—he said the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, he said, but that wall is a one-directional wall. It keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government.

Now, why would David Barton so openly and blatantly lie like this, if not for an agenda? Historians are not suppose to have an agenda.


Also, since you are leaning that way, might want to join up on some information about real persecution in America, you can start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee


I would also add the final and ultimate blow to this conversation... I am much more heavily educated than Barton. Holding more degrees, holding more time in real schools...

The man received a Bachelors of ARTS in RELIGIOUS EDUCATION from Oral Roberts of all places... why this gives him any authority to make up history is beyond me...

familydog
03-12-2008, 01:16 PM
Yea me. Barton is batshit.



This quote is from Barton's book America's Godly Heritage


Now, why would David Barton so openly and blatantly lie like this, if not for an agenda? Historians are not suppose to have an agenda.


Also, since you are leaning that way, might want to join up on some information about real persecution in America, you can start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee


I would also add the final and ultimate blow to this conversation... I am much more heavily educated than Barton. Holding more degrees, holding more time in real schools...

The man received a Bachelors of ARTS in RELIGIOUS EDUCATION from Oral Roberts of all places... why this gives him any authority to make up history is beyond me...

Since you claim to be well educated, surely you know better than to take the arguments of a couple of people, refute them, and then claim that their "false" arguments are proof that United States was not founded on Judeo-Christian values when there are other interpretations and arguments about it in the world.

Why don't you refute my argument of a few posts back? I put forth the argument that we were at least indirectly founded upon Christian values.

Kade
03-12-2008, 02:00 PM
Since you claim to be well educated, surely you know better than to take the arguments of a couple of people, refute them, and then claim that their "false" arguments are proof that United States was not founded on Judeo-Christian values when there are other interpretations and arguments about it in the world.

Why don't you refute my argument of a few posts back? I put forth the argument that we were at least indirectly founded upon Christian values.

Sure, I didn't see them. There is no need to refute them however, if you turn out to be correct. I'll go read.

I was merely pointing out a known entity, David Barton. Because he so callously creates history, and other historians don't even acknowledge him, his quotes, arguments, debate points... all nonsense.

Deborah K
03-12-2008, 03:17 PM
My apologies, gave a rebuttal to the wrong post. Please feel free to give one to what I said, though. Actually, please do so. I'll expect two rebuttals from you in your next post.

1)

You specifically implied that Christians were Jews, or were Jews at one point, which they are not and were not. His followers were not Jews because they believed in a false profit and the false Messiah, that is assuming he even existed. Christ was not a practicing Jew, as he declared himself the Messiah unjustly, and believed in a Cult religion which was a shoot off of Judaism at the time that the Romans occupied Israel.

2)

Try quoting me on that. No, really. Go ahead and try to find where I said that. Because I didn't. I said I didn't like the one source you provided. Are you even reading what I post?

3) Jesus might very well have been an acting Rabbi, but he wasn't a Jew. Maybe during birth, maybe even as a child. But he was not a Jew as he grew up, again, assuming he even lived.

4)
What are you talking about? I'm trying to have an intelligent debate with you, and whilst your accusing me of being "too emotional" on the issue, you're using text type, mocking my statements which you cannot prove wrong with such things as "blah, blah, blah" and are typing letters repeatedly in words to exaggerate them. For example, "waaaay." Please. Get type correctly, act maturely or I do not wish to continue this debate.

Also, please be sure to post a rebuttal to the Treaty of Tripoli which I posted in my previous rebuttal two posts up.


It occurs to me to also add that in the text of Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, the phrase:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

not only refers to a foundation of Christian "religion" as opposed to "principles" but implies that my assertion: America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, means that "America" strictly refers to the government. To my way of thinking, that would exclude those who founded Jamestown, and the subsequent colonies who fled from religious persecution as one of their major reasons for leaving Great Britain. Keeping in mind that the orginal colonies existed long before the establishment of our government. This of course does not preclude that the authors of the founding documents were indeed influenced by Judeo-Christian principles. Denial of this changes nothing.

There should be no confusing this issue: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." To my way of thinking this is a true statement. However, America was indeed founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

1000-points-of-fright
03-12-2008, 03:50 PM
There should be no confusing this issue: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." To my way of thinking this is a true statement. However, America was indeed founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

But earlier you agreed with me that Judeo-Christian principles are simply based on the code of ethics that evolved naturally out of the experiences of early man living in multi-family social groups.

Therefore, one could easily say that America was founded on neolithic principles.

Deborah K
03-12-2008, 04:58 PM
Yea me. Barton is batshit.



This quote is from Barton's book America's Godly Heritage


Now, why would David Barton so openly and blatantly lie like this, if not for an agenda? Historians are not suppose to have an agenda.


Also, since you are leaning that way, might want to join up on some information about real persecution in America, you can start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee


I would also add the final and ultimate blow to this conversation... I am much more heavily educated than Barton. Holding more degrees, holding more time in real schools...

The man received a Bachelors of ARTS in RELIGIOUS EDUCATION from Oral Roberts of all places... why this gives him any authority to make up history is beyond me...


Kade you are writing falsehoods and disinformation!


This quote is from Barton's book America's Godly Heritage

Quote:
On January 1,1802, Jefferson wrote to that group of Danbury Baptists, and in this letter, he assured them—he said the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, he said, but that wall is a one-directional wall. It keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government.

A blatant falsity!

These words are no where to be found in the book: America's Godly Heritage. Here is the actual quote:


"Jefferson understood their concern. In his response he assured them that the free exercise of religion was indeed an unalienable right that would not be meddled with by the government. Jefferson pointed out to them that there was a "wall of separation between church and state" to insure that the government would never interfere with religious activities." America's Godly Heritage. pg. 14. copyright 1993.



Probably the best refutation of Barton's argument simply is to quote his own exegesis of the First Amendment: "Today," Barton says, "we would best understand the actual context of the First Amendment by saying, 'Congress shall make no law establishing one Christian denomination as the national denomination.' " In keeping with Barton's restated First Amendment, Congress could presumably make a law establishing all Christian denominations as the national religion, and each state could pass a law establishing a particular Christian church as its official religion.

All of this pseudoscholarship would hardly be worth discussing, let alone disproving, were it not for the fact that it is taken so very seriously by so many people. -Arlen Specter

Arlen Specter, whom you use to attempt to discredit Barton for not having a degree in history, authors a quasi history book himself with no academic background in history. At any rate, I find it laughable, assuming Barton actually quoted the above, that anyone could come to such a ridiculous conclusion as the one set forth. Congress can NEVER make a law establishing all Christian denominations as the national religion. Absolutely absurd.

And, since when does lack of a degree in history automatically disqualify a person to write about it? You seem to be confusing the issue. A 'Historian' who authors books on history should be neutral and without an agenda. (Which is one reason I think Zinn, if anyone, should be considered a pseudo-historian.) However, legions of people have studied and researched history in order to put forth a legitimate argument and be able to substantiate it with historical facts.

And lastly, Oral Roberts University is an accredited college. You are just biased against it because it is a religious school.

Deborah K
03-12-2008, 04:59 PM
duplicate

mtmedlin
03-12-2008, 09:13 PM
I'm tired of people attacking Christians. You don't like Christianity, good for you but you don't have to attack people who aren't attacking you.

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

I have nothing against christians or christianity, I have a problem with certain people claiming principles are christian and were a basis for our government when in all reality these same principles existed long before christianity in other forms. Do you not agree that the founders also studied PLato? Are christians denying that many of their principles were not also laid out in the Gita. Its not an attack on the religion, it is an attack on pseudo historians who attempt to say rewrite history without giving the appropriate notations to origin. You simply cannot claim principles as intellectual property of christianity solely without at least admitting that those principles existed long before the religion.

Its not an attack on you, its an attack on the point that the OP was attempting to make. Please dont take it personal. I dont.

mtmedlin
03-12-2008, 09:17 PM
Another nit-picker who would just as soon deny Christianity ever existed. Gita and Plato can't take credit for Christ's message of love and forgiveness.

Nit picking...I think not. To glaze over the true origins of certain principles and philosophies so that some can claim the ideas to prove their point is in no way nit picking.
The bible is no more of an influence to the founders then the Gita or the writings of Plato. Sorry, I dont give people a pass to claim the bible as anything more then what it is. It is a tomb of handed down stories that were written many years after the death of a man they called Jesus. These stories many times included principles that other religions espoused and included some political thought that is mear and dear to Plato.
I dont mind the bible having the information in there because there were no copyrights or any other legal standings that precluded it but to have someone on a forum attempt to claim those passages as christian only is simply wrong and I will point it out, even if the OP thinks its nit picking.

Kade
03-13-2008, 12:02 PM
Kade you are writing falsehoods and disinformation!



A blatant falsity!

These words are no where to be found in the book: America's Godly Heritage.



1990 version of Barton's video America's Godly Heritage. Check again.



Congress can NEVER make a law establishing all Christian denominations as the national religion. Absolutely absurd.



Yet, Barton believes it should. As does a few people you are defending on these boards.


More corroborating evidence from various sources:

A Baptist Join Committee wrote in their official findings here (http://www.bjcpa.org/resources/pubs/pub_walker_barton.htm):

In 1995 I wrote a critique of "America's Godly Heritage," a video by David Barton. At that time, Barton's views were little-known beyond his native Texas. I prepared my critique in response to occasional inquiries from friends of the BJC who rightly questioned Barton's claim that America is "a Christian nation."

Since then Barton's reputation and influence have steadily grown. He has written several books, founded an organization to advance his ideas and become a central figure in some religious circles, as well as an operative of the Republican Party. He has served as the Vice Chair of the Texas GOP and was named one of the nation's "25 Most Influential Evangelicals" by Time magazine in 2005.

While the avenues for his message have multiplied, the themes of Barton's work are the same today as they were in 1995. Barton peddles the proposition that America is a Christian nation, legally and historically. He asserts that the principle of church-state separation, while not in the Constitution, has systematically been used to rule religion out of the public arena, particularly the public school system. His presentation has just enough ring of truth to make him credible to many people. His work, however, is laced with exaggerations, half-truths and misstatements of fact.

As more individuals, congregations and elected officials are influenced by Barton's claims, the threat of his campaign becomes more real. In an effort to counter Barton's misguided mission, and still using "America's Godly Heritage" as an outline, I have updated and revised my critique of some of Barton's most prominent and problematic claims.

J. Brent Walker, Executive Director
Baptist Joint Committee
April 2005

You should read the rest of that actually, it's good.

And these:

http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/2006-09-01/feature5 (Even the backwards state of Texas chimes in)

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050425/blumenthal/2 (This is a doozy, considering the "Religious Education" degree holder soon becomes a law expert)

http://positiveliberty.com/2006/05/david-bartons-bad-legal-scholarship.html (A critique of his "law" expertise)

http://www.baylor.edu/pr/bitn/news.php?action=story&story=34559 (young independent reporter meets with Barton, another Texas lovestory)

Patriot123
03-13-2008, 08:30 PM
It occurs to me to also add that in the text of Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, the phrase:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

not only refers to a foundation of Christian "religion" as opposed to "principles" but implies that my assertion: America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, means that "America" strictly refers to the government. To my way of thinking, that would exclude those who founded Jamestown, and the subsequent colonies who fled from religious persecution as one of their major reasons for leaving Great Britain. Keeping in mind that the orginal colonies existed long before the establishment of our government. This of course does not preclude that the authors of the founding documents were indeed influenced by Judeo-Christian principles. Denial of this changes nothing.

There should be no confusing this issue: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." To my way of thinking this is a true statement. However, America was indeed founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

My G-d, it is the same, exact thing. If you found a country on the basis of another, but say that you're founding it on such and such countries principles, it's the same thing. You're running around in circles, now. It's black and white, right there. You're just trying to nitpick your way out of it. It's black and white, right there.

Theocrat
03-13-2008, 10:29 PM
My G-d, it is the same, exact thing. If you found a country on the basis of another, but say that you're founding it on such and such countries principles, it's the same thing. You're running around in circles, now. It's black and white, right there. You're just trying to nitpick your way out of it. It's black and white, right there.

If you're seeking clarity about the true meaning and intent of the Treaty of Tripoli, I would encourage you to read this expository article by David Barton, which can be found here (http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=125).

IcyPeaceMaker
03-13-2008, 10:47 PM
Judeo-Christian, what does that mean?

To my mind, it necessarily must refer to religion, since that is the only real point where those two words could be compatible.

Christians worship the same God as the Jews, with the exception of the savior. The two religions are therefore compatible.

"......one nation under God......." The same God, true believers in one universally accepted idea. That is the glue which seems to bind us.

When God becomes irrelevant, as happens when a population is educated and understands science, then the tie that binds comes apart. The unifying element disappears, and the differences become more clear.

Jews are Jews first then Americans, Christians are Americans first, last and always.

I won't go into the whys or hows the minority race divides the majority, causes friction and separates the majority, producing conflict among them. Rest assured that is what has happened to these united states.

If Ron Paul's vision for America were ever to be realized, we would no longer be or need an empire. We could begin to heal as a nation, and come together as brothers. I just don't know how to make that happen within a reasonable time frame. Whatever is the answer to our dilemma?

IcyPeaceMaker
03-14-2008, 08:19 AM
ANGLES OF JEWISH INFLUENCE
The Jewish Question exists wherever Jews appear, says Theodor Herzl, because they bring it with them. It is not their numbers that create the Question, for there is in almost every country a larger number of other aliens than of Jews. It is not their much-boasted ability, for it is now coming to be understood that, give the Jew an equal start and hold him to the rules of the game, and he is not smarter than anyone else; indeed, in one great class of Jews the zeal is quenched when opportunity for intrigue is removed.

The Jewish Question is not the number of Jews who reside here, not in the American's jealousy of the Jew's success, certainly not in any objection to the Jew's Mosaic religion; it is in something else, and that something else is the fact of Jewish influence on the life of the country where Jews dwell; in the United States it is the Jewish influence on American life.

That the Jews exert an influence, they themselves loudly proclaim. The Jews claim, indeed, that the fundamentals of the United States are Jewish and not Christian, and that the entire history of this country should be re-written to make proper acknowledgement of the prior glory due to Judah. If the question of influence rested entirely on the Jewish claim, there would be no occasion for doubt; they claim it all. But it is kindness to hold them to the facts; it is also more clearly explanatory of the conditions in our country.

If they insist that they "gave us our Bible" and "gave us our God" and "gave us our religion," as they do over and over again with nauseating superciliousness throughout all their polemic publications -- not a single one of these claims being true -- they must not grow impatient and profane while we complete the list of the real influences they have set at work in American life.

It is not the Jewish people but the Jewish idea, and the people only as vehicles of the idea, that is the point at issue. In this investigation of the Jewish Question, it is Jewish influence and the Jewish Idea that are being discovered and defined.

The Jews are propagandists. This was originally their mission. But they were to propagate the central tenet of their religion. This they failed to do. By failing in this they, according to their own Scriptures, failed everywhere They are now without a mission of blessing. Few of their leaders even claim a spiritual mission. But the mission idea is still with them in a degenerate form; it represents the grossest materialism of the day; it has become a means of sordid acquisition instead of a channel of service.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LABOR AND JEWRY
The essence of the Jewish Idea in its influence on the labor world is the same as in all other departments -- the destruction of real values in favor of fictitious values. The Jewish philosophy of money is not to "make money," but to "get money." The distinction between these two is fundamental. That explains Jews being "financiers" instead of "captains of industry." It is the difference between "getting" and "making."

The creative, constructive type of mind has an affection for the thing it is doing. The non-Jewish worker formerly chose the work he liked best. He did not change employment easily, because there was a bond between him and the kind of work he had chosen. Nothing else was so attractive to him. He would rather draw a little less money and do what he liked to do, than a little more and do what irked him. The "maker" is always thus influenced by his liking.

Not so the "getter." It doesn't matter what he does, so long as the income is satisfactory. He has no illusions, sentiments or affections on the side of work. It is the "geld" that counts. He has no attachment for the things he makes, for he doesn't make any; he deals in the things which other men make and regards them solely on the side of their money-making value. "The joy of creative labor" is nothing to him, not even an intelligible saying.

Now, previous to the advent of Jewish socialistic and subversive ideas, the predominant thought in the labor world was to "make" things and thus "make" money. There was a pride among mechanics. Men who made things were a sturdy, honest race because they dealt with ideas of skill and quality, and their very characters were formed by the satisfaction of having performed useful functions in society. They were the Makers. And society was solid so long as they were solid. Men made shoes as exhibitions of their skill. Farmers raised crops for the inherent love of crops, not with reference to far-off money-markets. Everywhere THE JOB was the main thing and the rest was incidental.

The only way to break down this strong safeguard of society -- a creative laboring class of sturdy character -- was to sow other ideas among it; and the most dangerous of all the ideas sown was that which substituted "get" for "make."

With the required manipulation of the money and food markets, enough pressure could be brought to bear on the ultimate consumers to give point to the idea of "get," and it was not long before the internal relations of American business were totally upset, with Jews at the head of the banking system, and Jews at the head of both the conservative and radical elements of the Labor Movement, and, most potent of all, the Jewish Idea sowed through the minds of workingmen. What Idea? The idea of "get" instead of "make."

The idea of "get" is a vicious, anti-social and destructive idea when held alone; but when held in company with "make" and as second in importance, it is legitimate and constructive. As soon as a man or a class is inoculated with the strictly Jewish idea of "getting" -- ("getting mine"; "getting while the getting is good"; honestly if you can, dishonestly if you must -- but get it" -- all of which are notes of this treasonable philosophy), the very cement of Duncan society loses its adhesiveness and begins to crumble. The great myth and fiction of Money has been forced into the place of real things, and the second step of the drama can thus be opened up.

Jewish influence on the thought of the working-men of the United States, as well as on the thought of business and professional men, has been bad, thoroughly bad. This is not manifested in a division between "capital" and "labor," for there are no such separate elements; there is only the executive and operating departments of American business. The real division is between the Jewish Idea of "get" and the Anglo-Saxon idea of "make," and at the present time the Jewish idea has been successful enough to have caused an upset.

All over the United States, in many branches of trade, Communist colleges are maintained, officered and taught by Jews. These so-called colleges exist in Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Rochester, Pittsburgh, New York, Philadelphia and other cities, the whole intent being to put all American labor on a "get" basis, which must prove the economic damnation of the country. That is the end sought, as in Russia.

Until Jews can show that the infiltration of foreign Jews and the Jewish Idea into the American labor movement has made for the betterment in character and estate, in citizenship and economic statesmanship, the charge of being an alien, destructive and treasonable influence will have to stand.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE CHURCHES AND JEWRY
The last place the uninstructed observer would look for traces of Jewish influence is in the Christian Church, yet if he fails to look there he will miss much. If the libraries of our theological seminaries were equipped with complete files of Jewish literary effort during recent decades, and if the theological students were required to read these Jewish utterances there would be less silly talk and fewer "easy marks" for Jewish propaganda in the American pulpit. For the next 25 years every theological seminary should support a chair for the study of Modern Jewish influence and the Protocols. The fiction, that the Jews are an Old Testament people faithful to the Mosaic Law, would then be exploded, and timid Christians would no longer superstitiously hesitate to speak the truth about them because of that sadly misinterpreted text: "I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee."

There is a mission for the pulpit to liberate the Church from what the New Testament Scriptures call "the fear of the Jews." The pulpit has also the mission of liberating the Church from the error that Judah and Israel are synonymous. The reading of the Scriptures which confuse the tribe of Judah with Israel, and which interpret every mention of Israel as signifying the Jews, is at the root of more than one-half the confusion and division traceable in Christian doctrinal statements.

The Jews are NOT "The Chosen People," though practically the entire Church has succumbed to the propaganda which declares them to be so. The Jewish tinge of thought has of late years overspread many Christian statements, and the uninstructed clergy have proved more and more amenable to Jewish suggestion.

The flaccid condition of the Church, so much deplored by spokesmen who had regard for her inner life, was brought about not by "science," not by "scholarship," not by the "increase of light and learning"-- for none of these things are antagonistic even to incomplete statements of truth -- but by Jewish-German Higher Criticism. The defenders of the faith have fought long and valiantly against the inroads made by the so-called Higher Criticism, but were sadly incapacitated in their defense, because they did not see that its origin and purpose were Jewish. It was not Christian; it was not German; it was Jewish.

It is perfectly in keeping with the Jewish World Program that this destructive influence should be sent out under Jewish auspices, and it is perfectly in keeping with non-Jewish trustfulness to accept the thing without looking at its source. The Church is now victim of a second attack against her, in the rampant Socialism and Sovietism that have been thrust upon her in the name of flabby and unmoral theories of "brotherhood" and in an appeal to her "fairness." The church has been made to believe that she is a forum for discussion and not a high place for annunciation.

Jews have actually invaded, in person and in program, hundreds of American churches, with their subversive and impossible social ideals, and at last became so cocksure of their domination of the situation that they were met with the inevitable check.

Clergymen ought to know that seven-eights of the economic mush they speak from the pulpit is prepared by Jewish professors of political economy and revolutionary leaders. They should be informed that economic thought has been so completely Judaized by means of a deliberate and masterly plan of camouflaged propaganda, that the mass-thought of the crowd (which is the thought mostly echoed in "popular" pulpits and editorials) is more Jewish than Jewry itself holds.

The Jew has got hold of the Church in doctrine, in liberalism, so-called, and in the feverish and feeble sociological diversions of many classes. If there is any place where a straight study of the Jewish Question should be made it is in the modern Church which is unconsciously giving allegiance to a mass of Jewish propaganda. It is not reaction that is counselled here; it is progress along constructive paths, the paths of our forefathers, the Anglo-Saxons, who have to this day been the World-Builders, the Makers of cities and commerce and continents; and not the Jews who have never been builders or pioneers, who have never peopled the wilderness, but who move in upon the labors of other men. They are not to be blamed for not being Builders or Pioneers, perhaps; they are to be blamed for claiming all the rights of pioneers; but even then, perhaps, their blame ought not to be so great as the blame that rests upon the sons of the Anglo-Saxons for rejecting the straightforward Building of their fathers, and taking up with the doubtful ideas of Judah.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JEWRY IN SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES
Colleges are being constantly invaded by the Jewish Idea. The sons of the Anglo-Saxons are being attacked in their very heredity. The sons of the Builders, the Makers, are being subverted to the philosophy of the destroyers. Young men in the first exhilarating months of intellectual freedom are being seized with promissory doctrines, the source and consequences of which they do not see. There is a natural rebelliousness of youth, which promises progress; there is a natural venturesomeness to play free with ancient faiths; both of which are ebullitions of the spirit and significance of dawning mental virility. It is during the periods when these adolescent expansions are in process that the youth is captured by influences which deliberately lie in wait for him at the colleges. True, in after years a large proportion come to their senses sufficiently to be able "to sit on the fence and see themselves go by," and they come back to sanity. They find that "freelove" doctrines make exhilarating club topics, but that the Family -- the old-fashioned loyalty of one man and one woman to each other and their children -- is the basis not only of society, but of all personal character and progress. They find that Revolution, while a delightful subject for fiery debates and an excellent stimulant to the feeling of superman-likeness, is nevertheless not the process of progress.

The trouble with the colleges has progressed along precisely the same lines that have been described in connection with the churches. First, Jewish higher criticism in the destruction of young men's sense of respect for the ancient foundations; second, Jewish revolutionary social doctrines. The two always go together. They cannot live apart. They are the fulfillment of the Protocol's program to split non-Jewish society by means of ideas.

It is idle to attack the "radicalism" of college student -- these are the qualities of immaturity. But it is not idle to show that social radicalism ("radicalism" being a very good word very sadly misused) comes from a Jewish source. The central group of Red philosophers in every university is a Jewish group, with often enough a "Gentile front" in the shape of a deluded professor. Some of these professors are in the pay of outside Red organizations. There are Intercollegiate Socialist Societies, swarming with Jews and Jewish influences, and toting Jewish professors around the country, addressing fraternities under the patronage of the best civic and university auspices. Student lecture courses are fine pasture for this propaganda, the purpose being to give the students the thrill of believing that they are taking part in the beginning of a new great movement, comparable to the winning of Independence.

The revolutionary forces which head up in Jewry rely very heavily on the respectability which is given their movement by the adhesion of students and a few professors. It was so in Russia -- everyone knows what the name "student" eventually came to signify in that country. The Jewish Chautauqua, which works almost exclusively in colleges and universities, together with Bolshevism in art, science, religion, economics and sociology, are driving straight through the Anglo-Saxon traditions and landmarks of our race of students. These are ably assisted by professors and clergymen whose thinking has been dislocated and poisoned by Jewish subversive influences in theology and sociology.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT?
Simply identify the source and nature of the influence which has overrun our schools and universities. Let the students know that their choice is between the Anglo-Saxons and the Tribe of Judah. Let the students decide, in making up their allegiance, whether they will follow the Builders or those who seek to tear down. It is not a case for argument. The only absolute antidote to the Jewish influence is to call college students back to a pride of race.

We often speak of the Fathers as if they were the few who happened to affix their signatures to a great document which marked a new era of liberty. The Fathers of our nation were the men of the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic race. The men who came from Europe with civilization in their blood and in their destiny. The men who crossed the Atlantic and set up civilization on a bleak and rock-bound coast; the men who drove north to Alaska and west to California; the men who opened up the tropics and subdued the arctics; the men who mastered the African veldt; the men who peopled Australia and seized the gates of the world at Suez, Gibraltar and Panama; men who have given form to every government and a livelihood to every people and an ideal to every century. They got neither their God nor their religion from Judah, nor yet their speech nor their creative genius -- they are the Ruling People. Chosen throughout the centuries to Master the world, by building it ever better and better, and not by breaking it down.

Into the camp of this race, among the sons of the rulers, comes a people that has no civilization to point to, no aspiring religion, no universal speech, no great achievement in any realm but the realm of "get," cast out of every land that gave them hospitality, and these people endeavor to tell the Sons of the Saxons what is needed to make the world what it ought to be!

If our sons follow this counsel of dark rebellion and destruction, it is because they do not know whose sons they are, of what race they are the scions. Let there be free speech to the limit in our universities and free intercourse of ideas, but let Jewish thoughts be labeled Jewish, and let our sons know the racial secret.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NAME THE ENEMY!
The warning has already gone out through the colleges. The system of Jewish procedure is already fully known. How simple it is! First, you secularize the public schools -- "secularize" is the precise word the Jews use for the process. You prepare the mind of the public school child by enforcing the rule that no mention shall ever be made to indicate that culture or patriotism is in any way connected with the deeper principles of the Anglo-Saxon religion. Keep it out, every sight and sound of it! Keep out also every word that will aid any child to identify the Jewish race. Then, when you have thus prepared the soil, you can go into the universities and colleges and enter upon the double program of pouring contempt on all the AngloSaxon landmarks, at the same time filling the void with Jewish revolutionary ideas.

The influence of the common people is driven out of the schools, where common people's influence can go; but Jewish influence is allowed to run rampant in the higher institutions where the common people's influence cannot go. Secularize the schools, and you can then Judaize the universities.

This is the "liberalism" which Jewish spokesmen so much applaud. In labor unions, in churches, in universities, it has tainted the principles of work, faith and society. The proof of it is written thickly over all Jewish activities and utterances. It is in exerting these very influences that Jewry convinces itself that it is fulfilling its "mission" to the world.

The capitalism attacked is non-Jewish capitalism; the orthodoxy attacked is Christian orthodoxy; the society attacked is the Anglo-Saxon form of society; all of which by their destruction would redound to the glory of Judaism.
The list could be extended -- the influence of the Jewish idea on Anglo-Saxon sports and pleasure, on the Anglo-Saxon idea of patriotism, on the Anglo-Saxon conception of the learned professions; the influence of the Jewish idea runs down through every department of life.

"Well," one very badly deluded American editor, wrapped up in Jewish advertising contracts, was heard to say, "if the Jews can get away with it, then they have a right to." It is a variant of the "answer" of Jewish origin, which runs thus: "How can a paltry 3 million run the 100 million of the rest of us? Nonsense!"

Yes, let it be agreed; if the Jewish idea is the stronger, if the Jewish ability is the greater, let them conquer; let Anglo-Saxon principles and power go down in ruins before the Tribe of Judah. But first let the two ideas struggle under their own banners; let it be a fair struggle.

It is not a fair fight when in the movies, in the schools, in the Judaized churches, in the universities, the Anglo-Saxon idea is kept away from the Anglo-Saxons on the plea that it is "sectarian" or "clannish" or "obsolete" or something else, say, reaction.

It is not a fair fight when Jewish ideas are offered as AngloSaxon ideas, because offered under Anglo-Saxon auspices. Let the heritage of our Anglo-Saxon fathers have free course among their Anglo-Saxon sons, and the Jewish idea can never triumph over it, in the university forum or in the marts of trade. The Jewish idea never triumphs until first the people over whom it triumphs are denied the nurture of their native culture.

Judah has begun the struggle. Judah has made the invasion. Let it come. Let no man fear it. But let every a man insist that the fight be fair. Let college students and leaders of thought know that the objective is the regnancy of the ideas and the race that have built all the civilization we see and that promises all the civilization of the future; let them also know that the attacking force is Jewish.

That is all that will be necessary. It is against this that the Jews protest. "You must not identify us," they say, "You must not use the term 'Jew'." Why? Because unless the Jewish idea can creep in under the assumption of other than Jewish origin, it is doomed. Anglo-Saxon ideas dare proclaim themselves and their origin. A proper proclamation is all that is necessary today. Compel every invading idea to run up its flag!

Deborah K
03-14-2008, 08:33 AM
IcyPeacemaker, with all due respect, I think you should start a new thread about this because you seem to be getting off topic with several of your posts.

My argument is that certain people with certain agendas are trying to re-write history as it pertains to the prinicples this country was founded upon. There is a great deal of denial about our Judeo-Christian heritage. I call it a "Judeo-Christian" heritage because Christianity was born out of Judaism. Christ was a Jew, etc. etc. I've stated this ad nauseam.

Your concern seems to revolve around Jewish control. I do not have an issue whatsoever with Jewish control. To my way of thinking, complaining about Jews controlling everything seems to imply that non-Jews are immuned to power, control, and greed. I believe your line of thinking on this matter divides us rather than unites us.

Some people on this thread may think that my argument divides us as well. That is not my intention. Again, I am trying to right a wrong here. It is ridiculous to pretend, deny, and otherwise ignore the fact that religious principles had little, or nothing whatever to do with the founding of America.

On that, I think you and I agree.

Deborah K
03-14-2008, 08:37 AM
My G-d, it is the same, exact thing. If you found a country on the basis of another, but say that you're founding it on such and such countries principles, it's the same thing. You're running around in circles, now. It's black and white, right there. You're just trying to nitpick your way out of it. It's black and white, right there.

Hehe, if you think our government being founded on the Christian religion is "the exact same thing" as our country being founded on Judeo-Christian principles, then I have nothing left to debate with you. You need a dictionary and a thesaurus, and a few history lessons.

Deborah K
03-14-2008, 08:48 AM
But earlier you agreed with me that Judeo-Christian principles are simply based on the code of ethics that evolved naturally out of the experiences of early man living in multi-family social groups.

Therefore, one could easily say that America was founded on neolithic principles.


Yes, I do agree with this, however I also believe that Judeo-Christian priniciples take your theory one step further by teaching people how to temper their drives, emotions, etc. through a relationship with the divine. If you don't believe in spirituality, you won't accept or understand this. For example, it is one thing to refrain from killing someone out of fear of reprisal, imprisonment, etc. but it is another to learn how to refrain from the anger and hatred that preceeds murder in almost all cases. Religion has been helpful in teaching people how to rise above and combat our internal, and sometimes, destructive drives. The tenant of almost all religions is love and charity. Christ also taught us that forgiveness is equally as important not only for the person being forgiven, but for our own peace.

Deborah K
03-14-2008, 08:54 AM
Nit picking...I think not. To glaze over the true origins of certain principles and philosophies so that some can claim the ideas to prove their point is in no way nit picking.
The bible is no more of an influence to the founders then the Gita or the writings of Plato. Sorry, I dont give people a pass to claim the bible as anything more then what it is. It is a tomb of handed down stories that were written many years after the death of a man they called Jesus. These stories many times included principles that other religions espoused and included some political thought that is mear and dear to Plato.
I dont mind the bible having the information in there because there were no copyrights or any other legal standings that precluded it but to have someone on a forum attempt to claim those passages as christian only is simply wrong and I will point it out, even if the OP thinks its nit picking.


No one is "glazing" over anything. Show me where the founders quoted Gita and Plato as often as they quoted the bible and I will rescind my argument.

ARealConservative
03-14-2008, 08:59 AM
No one is "glazing" over anything. Show me where the founders quoted Gita and Plato as often as they quoted the bible and I will rescind my argument.

you keep talking of the founders.

It is those that ratified the constitution that matter. They ratified a document that was void of religious reference.

From a legal standpoint, I care about the parties that signed the document, not the lawyers that wrote the blasted thing up.

Deborah K
03-14-2008, 09:04 AM
1990 version of Barton's video America's Godly Heritage. Check again.



Yet, Barton believes it should. As does a few people you are defending on these boards.


More corroborating evidence from various sources:

A Baptist Join Committee wrote in their official findings here (http://www.bjcpa.org/resources/pubs/pub_walker_barton.htm):

In 1995 I wrote a critique of "America's Godly Heritage," a video by David Barton. At that time, Barton's views were little-known beyond his native Texas. I prepared my critique in response to occasional inquiries from friends of the BJC who rightly questioned Barton's claim that America is "a Christian nation."

Since then Barton's reputation and influence have steadily grown. He has written several books, founded an organization to advance his ideas and become a central figure in some religious circles, as well as an operative of the Republican Party. He has served as the Vice Chair of the Texas GOP and was named one of the nation's "25 Most Influential Evangelicals" by Time magazine in 2005.

While the avenues for his message have multiplied, the themes of Barton's work are the same today as they were in 1995. Barton peddles the proposition that America is a Christian nation, legally and historically. He asserts that the principle of church-state separation, while not in the Constitution, has systematically been used to rule religion out of the public arena, particularly the public school system. His presentation has just enough ring of truth to make him credible to many people. His work, however, is laced with exaggerations, half-truths and misstatements of fact.

As more individuals, congregations and elected officials are influenced by Barton's claims, the threat of his campaign becomes more real. In an effort to counter Barton's misguided mission, and still using "America's Godly Heritage" as an outline, I have updated and revised my critique of some of Barton's most prominent and problematic claims.

J. Brent Walker, Executive Director
Baptist Joint Committee
April 2005

You should read the rest of that actually, it's good.

And these:

http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/2006-09-01/feature5 (Even the backwards state of Texas chimes in)

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050425/blumenthal/2 (This is a doozy, considering the "Religious Education" degree holder soon becomes a law expert)

http://positiveliberty.com/2006/05/david-bartons-bad-legal-scholarship.html (A critique of his "law" expertise)

http://www.baylor.edu/pr/bitn/news.php?action=story&story=34559 (young independent reporter meets with Barton, another Texas lovestory)

Kade, Kade, Kade...... first you claim that Barton said something, and you source it from a BOOK-that I have proven was false - and now, you change your source and say that it was from a VERSION of a video. I have researched this further. No such version of a video on "Our Godly Heritage" from 1990 exists that I can find. You will need to provide the ORIGINAL sourcing from this and not just some claim by some anti-Barton article.

As to your links and other criticisms of Barton, I didn't read them because of the lack of credible sourcing.

Also, in my OP, I substantiate my position on this with a 10 year study that was done by the political science department at the University of Houston headed up by Lutz. You and others on this thread have yet to discredit that study. I really don't want to debate about who likes or dislikes David Barton. While I quoted him regarding the study, beyond that I have no investment, ideological or otherwise, in the man or his work.

Deborah K
03-14-2008, 09:16 AM
you keep talking of the founders.

It is those that ratified the constitution that matter. They ratified a document that was void of religious reference.

From a legal standpoint, I care about the parties that signed the document, not the lawyers that wrote the blasted thing up.


The founding fathers, wrote the documents. If they don't matter, then why should those who ratified it matter? Without the documents, there would be nothing to ratify. I don't get your argument at all.

Kade
03-14-2008, 09:19 AM
Kade, Kade, Kade...... first you claim that Barton said something, and you source it from a BOOK-that I have proven was false - and now, you change your source and say that it was from a VERSION of a video. I have researched this further. No such version of a video on "Our Godly Heritage" from 1990 exists that I can find. You will need to provide the ORIGINAL sourcing from this and not just some claim by some anti-Barton article.

As to your links and other criticisms of Barton, I didn't read them because of the lack of credible sourcing.

Also, in my OP, I substantiate my position on this with a 10 year study that was done by the political science department at the University of Houston headed up by Lutz. You and others on this thread have yet to discredit that study. I really don't want to debate about who likes or dislikes David Barton. While I quoted him regarding the study, beyond that I have no investment, ideological or otherwise, in the man or his work.

The video is real. You are the historian.

The Baptist Joint Committee is not a reliable source? There are no reliable sources for you then... I gave you a mix from everything, journals, papers, committees... none of this matters.

Instead, some ranting lunatic has your attention.

ARealConservative
03-14-2008, 09:28 AM
The founding fathers, wrote the documents. If they don't matter, then why should those who ratified it matter? Without the documents, there would be nothing to ratify. I don't get your argument at all.

We the people are the ones responsible for a Constitutional Form of Government. It is the people that agreed to be bound by this social contract that matters.

The constitution was largely void of religious reference, outside of mention of a creator and that congress shall pass no law concerning religion, the legal contract ratified by the people is silent on the issue.

When courts try to rule on a breach of contract, the first thing they do is ascertain the original understanding of those that agreed to the contract. The understanding of those that wrote the contract is less important.

So why do I care about those that approved it? Because that is how the law is supposed to work.

Deborah K
03-14-2008, 09:34 AM
The video is real. You are the historian.

The Baptist Joint Committee is not a reliable source? There are no reliable sources for you then... I gave you a mix from everything, journals, papers, committees... none of this matters.

Instead, some ranting lunatic has your attention.

Don't expect anyone to take your sources and your claims seriously when you change them after they've been discredited. I never said I was a historian, this is yet another example of how you subtly distort issues and truths. I mentioned once that I am an amateur historian - huuuuge difference.

The video "Our Godly Heritage" exists. The 1990 VERSION of the video to which you claim he made the statement on, is no where to be found. Provide it.

Discredit the study by the University of Houston that I mention in my OP. Everything else is a waste of time.

Deborah K
03-14-2008, 09:41 AM
We the people are the ones responsible for a Constitutional Form of Government. It is the people that agreed to be bound by this social contract that matters.

The constitution was largely void of religious reference, outside of mention of a creator and that congress shall pass no law concerning religion, the legal contract ratified by the people is silent on the issue.

When courts try to rule on a breach of contract, the first thing they do is ascertain the original understanding of those that agreed to the contract. The understanding of those that wrote the contract is less important.

So why do I care about those that approved it? Because that is how the law is supposed to work.


How does this integrate with my original post? Show me where I claim that the constitution has religious references in it (religious freedom notwithstanding).

Kade
03-14-2008, 09:44 AM
Don't expect anyone to take your sources and your claims seriously when you change them after they've been discredited. I never said I was a historian, this is yet another example of how you subtly distort issues and truths. I mentioned once that I am an amateur historian - huuuuge difference.

The video "Our Godly Heritage" exists. The 1990 VERSION of the video to which you claim he made the statement on, is no where to be found. Provide it.

Discredit the study by the University of Houston that I mention in my OP. Everything else is a waste of time.


Here is your video. Thanks to someone else who found it for me.

http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Godly-Heritage/dp/B000E17KL2

ARealConservative
03-14-2008, 09:47 AM
How does this integrate with my original post? Show me where I claim that the constitution has religious references in it (religious freedom notwithstanding).


America was founded by the ratifiers who agreed with the constitution.

You care too much about tertiary writings from the founders.

If you and I have a signed contract, how relevant are all your other writings?

Now where did you prove that those ratifying the contract did so because of Judeo-Christian Principles? You make many assumptions.......

Kade
03-14-2008, 09:49 AM
Don't expect anyone to take your sources and your claims seriously when you change them after they've been discredited. I never said I was a historian, this is yet another example of how you subtly distort issues and truths. I mentioned once that I am an amateur historian - huuuuge difference.

The video "Our Godly Heritage" exists. The 1990 VERSION of the video to which you claim he made the statement on, is no where to be found. Provide it.

Discredit the study by the University of Houston that I mention in my OP. Everything else is a waste of time.

And here is the Public Catalog entry in the United States Copyright Office:

http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=1&ti=1,1&Search%5FArg=America%27s%20Godly%20Heritage&Search%5FCode=TALL&CNT=25&PID=15500&SEQ=20080314114642&SID=1

Kade
03-14-2008, 09:53 AM
Don't expect anyone to take your sources and your claims seriously when you change them after they've been discredited. I never said I was a historian, this is yet another example of how you subtly distort issues and truths. I mentioned once that I am an amateur historian - huuuuge difference.

The video "Our Godly Heritage" exists. The 1990 VERSION of the video to which you claim he made the statement on, is no where to be found. Provide it.

Discredit the study by the University of Houston that I mention in my OP. Everything else is a waste of time.


The article I sent you!!?

http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/2006-09-01/feature5

That article directly quotes from the video! When I get home, I'm going to make a youtube video for you... and we'll see how well you can edit your posts to backtrack.

Provide a link to the American Political Science Review article please, I'm certain their is an appropriate peer reviewed response.

Kade
03-14-2008, 09:58 AM
Don't expect anyone to take your sources and your claims seriously when you change them after they've been discredited. I never said I was a historian, this is yet another example of how you subtly distort issues and truths. I mentioned once that I am an amateur historian - huuuuge difference.

The video "Our Godly Heritage" exists. The 1990 VERSION of the video to which you claim he made the statement on, is no where to be found. Provide it.

Discredit the study by the University of Houston that I mention in my OP. Everything else is a waste of time.

Also, there was a study done, and then written to book form, a very good piece, that I think you would very much benefit from:

Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers

You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Minority-Skeptical-Founding-Fathers/dp/1566636752


Brooke Allen also wrote this piece: http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20050221&s=allen

I'll apply him as a direct counter to Barton... and wouldn't you guess it, the man is actually educated!

Deborah K
03-14-2008, 10:49 AM
The article I sent you!!?

http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/2006-09-01/feature5

That article directly quotes from the video! When I get home, I'm going to make a youtube video for you... and we'll see how well you can edit your posts to backtrack.

Click on the link, Kade. If you're a member then perhaps you can give me what it is you claim provides the quotes. I have no intention of subscribing.


Provide a link to the American Political Science Review article please, I'm certain their is an appropriate peer reviewed response.

I can't find a link but I gave you the sources for the research in my first post:

Donald Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism 1988

“The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thought” American Political Science Review


Here is your video. Thanks to someone else who found it for me.

http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Godly.../dp/B000E17KL2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The person who provided you with this is most likely the same person who PM'd me and told me that he/she remembers seeing that video in 1992 and remembers that quote.

So, for the sake of argument and assuming that many of Barton's "secondary sources" as he puts it, have been inaccurate, how does any of this refute my OP regarding the research done on the subject at hand? If you are unhappy because I quoted Barton, and you don't like him, fine. But trying to turn me into an apologist for him is a waste of time. If my argument was soley based on him as a source, I agree you would have a legitimate reason for pursuing this. However, Barton is not the one who conducted the study nor did he have anything to do with it, he simply wrote about it, and I used his quotes. l reiterate:


While I quoted him regarding the study, beyond that I have no investment, ideological or otherwise, in the man or his work.

I personally don't have a problem with using Barton's quotes on this study. I don't necessarily agree with him on other things but on this study, I completely agree with him. Perhaps Barton's problem with regard to his other stances, was in using unsubstantiated sources. I think that happens to everyone from time to time. And when you have a group or groups of people who are "out to get you", often times they are successful at turning popular opinion against you.

Ron Paul has experienced this. Did I stop supporting him when those bigoted writings in his name came out? Of course not. Like others in his position, Barton is misunderstood. But his achievments in combating the secularists when it comes to history revision is impressive.

Deborah K
03-14-2008, 11:29 AM
Here's info on Donald Lutz:

http://www.polsci.uh.edu/faculty/vita/Donald%20Lutz.htm

Here is : “The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thought” American Political Science Review

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0554(198403)78%3A1%3C189%3ATRIOEW%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9&origin=crossref

Another book written by several scholars that uses the above as a source: http://books.google.com/books?id=QkUliRcSJXwC

and here is where they use the source: http://books.google.com/books?id=QkUliRcSJXwC&pg=PA256&lpg=PA256&dq=%22the+relative+influence+of+european+writers+o n+late+eighteenth+century+american+political+thoug ht%22+american+political+science+review&source=web&ots=Kd4BNQX4Wy&sig=zq4V7jkCb6lFOw9KcEizxws9_SA&hl=en#PPA256,M1

Here is his book and an abstract of it: Donald Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism 1988
http://www.amazon.com/Origins-American-Constitutionalism-Donald-Lutz/dp/0807115061

Patriot123
03-14-2008, 02:01 PM
Hehe, if you think our government being founded on the Christian religion is "the exact same thing" as our country being founded on Judeo-Christian principles, then I have nothing left to debate with you. You need a dictionary and a thesaurus, and a few history lessons.

My friend, I'm far more educated than you are, and will ever be.

Case in point.

familydog
03-14-2008, 02:06 PM
My friend, I'm far more educated than you are, and will ever be.

Case in point.

Lmao.

Best argument I've ever heard :rolleyes:

Patriot123
03-14-2008, 02:09 PM
ANGLES OF JEWISH INFLUENCE
The Jewish Question exists wherever Jews appear, says Theodor Herzl, because they bring it with them. It is not their numbers that create the Question, for there is in almost every country a larger number of other aliens than of Jews. It is not their much-boasted ability, for it is now coming to be understood that, give the Jew an equal start and hold him to the rules of the game, and he is not smarter than anyone else; indeed, in one great class of Jews the zeal is quenched when opportunity for intrigue is removed.

The Jewish Question is not the number of Jews who reside here, not in the American's jealousy of the Jew's success, certainly not in any objection to the Jew's Mosaic religion; it is in something else, and that something else is the fact of Jewish influence on the life of the country where Jews dwell; in the United States it is the Jewish influence on American life.

That the Jews exert an influence, they themselves loudly proclaim. The Jews claim, indeed, that the fundamentals of the United States are Jewish and not Christian, and that the entire history of this country should be re-written to make proper acknowledgement of the prior glory due to Judah. If the question of influence rested entirely on the Jewish claim, there would be no occasion for doubt; they claim it all. But it is kindness to hold them to the facts; it is also more clearly explanatory of the conditions in our country.

If they insist that they "gave us our Bible" and "gave us our God" and "gave us our religion," as they do over and over again with nauseating superciliousness throughout all their polemic publications -- not a single one of these claims being true -- they must not grow impatient and profane while we complete the list of the real influences they have set at work in American life.

It is not the Jewish people but the Jewish idea, and the people only as vehicles of the idea, that is the point at issue. In this investigation of the Jewish Question, it is Jewish influence and the Jewish Idea that are being discovered and defined.

The Jews are propagandists. This was originally their mission. But they were to propagate the central tenet of their religion. This they failed to do. By failing in this they, according to their own Scriptures, failed everywhere They are now without a mission of blessing. Few of their leaders even claim a spiritual mission. But the mission idea is still with them in a degenerate form; it represents the grossest materialism of the day; it has become a means of sordid acquisition instead of a channel of service.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LABOR AND JEWRY
The essence of the Jewish Idea in its influence on the labor world is the same as in all other departments -- the destruction of real values in favor of fictitious values. The Jewish philosophy of money is not to "make money," but to "get money." The distinction between these two is fundamental. That explains Jews being "financiers" instead of "captains of industry." It is the difference between "getting" and "making."

The creative, constructive type of mind has an affection for the thing it is doing. The non-Jewish worker formerly chose the work he liked best. He did not change employment easily, because there was a bond between him and the kind of work he had chosen. Nothing else was so attractive to him. He would rather draw a little less money and do what he liked to do, than a little more and do what irked him. The "maker" is always thus influenced by his liking.

Not so the "getter." It doesn't matter what he does, so long as the income is satisfactory. He has no illusions, sentiments or affections on the side of work. It is the "geld" that counts. He has no attachment for the things he makes, for he doesn't make any; he deals in the things which other men make and regards them solely on the side of their money-making value. "The joy of creative labor" is nothing to him, not even an intelligible saying.

Now, previous to the advent of Jewish socialistic and subversive ideas, the predominant thought in the labor world was to "make" things and thus "make" money. There was a pride among mechanics. Men who made things were a sturdy, honest race because they dealt with ideas of skill and quality, and their very characters were formed by the satisfaction of having performed useful functions in society. They were the Makers. And society was solid so long as they were solid. Men made shoes as exhibitions of their skill. Farmers raised crops for the inherent love of crops, not with reference to far-off money-markets. Everywhere THE JOB was the main thing and the rest was incidental.

The only way to break down this strong safeguard of society -- a creative laboring class of sturdy character -- was to sow other ideas among it; and the most dangerous of all the ideas sown was that which substituted "get" for "make."

With the required manipulation of the money and food markets, enough pressure could be brought to bear on the ultimate consumers to give point to the idea of "get," and it was not long before the internal relations of American business were totally upset, with Jews at the head of the banking system, and Jews at the head of both the conservative and radical elements of the Labor Movement, and, most potent of all, the Jewish Idea sowed through the minds of workingmen. What Idea? The idea of "get" instead of "make."

The idea of "get" is a vicious, anti-social and destructive idea when held alone; but when held in company with "make" and as second in importance, it is legitimate and constructive. As soon as a man or a class is inoculated with the strictly Jewish idea of "getting" -- ("getting mine"; "getting while the getting is good"; honestly if you can, dishonestly if you must -- but get it" -- all of which are notes of this treasonable philosophy), the very cement of Duncan society loses its adhesiveness and begins to crumble. The great myth and fiction of Money has been forced into the place of real things, and the second step of the drama can thus be opened up.

Jewish influence on the thought of the working-men of the United States, as well as on the thought of business and professional men, has been bad, thoroughly bad. This is not manifested in a division between "capital" and "labor," for there are no such separate elements; there is only the executive and operating departments of American business. The real division is between the Jewish Idea of "get" and the Anglo-Saxon idea of "make," and at the present time the Jewish idea has been successful enough to have caused an upset.

All over the United States, in many branches of trade, Communist colleges are maintained, officered and taught by Jews. These so-called colleges exist in Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Rochester, Pittsburgh, New York, Philadelphia and other cities, the whole intent being to put all American labor on a "get" basis, which must prove the economic damnation of the country. That is the end sought, as in Russia.

Until Jews can show that the infiltration of foreign Jews and the Jewish Idea into the American labor movement has made for the betterment in character and estate, in citizenship and economic statesmanship, the charge of being an alien, destructive and treasonable influence will have to stand.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE CHURCHES AND JEWRY
The last place the uninstructed observer would look for traces of Jewish influence is in the Christian Church, yet if he fails to look there he will miss much. If the libraries of our theological seminaries were equipped with complete files of Jewish literary effort during recent decades, and if the theological students were required to read these Jewish utterances there would be less silly talk and fewer "easy marks" for Jewish propaganda in the American pulpit. For the next 25 years every theological seminary should support a chair for the study of Modern Jewish influence and the Protocols. The fiction, that the Jews are an Old Testament people faithful to the Mosaic Law, would then be exploded, and timid Christians would no longer superstitiously hesitate to speak the truth about them because of that sadly misinterpreted text: "I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee."

There is a mission for the pulpit to liberate the Church from what the New Testament Scriptures call "the fear of the Jews." The pulpit has also the mission of liberating the Church from the error that Judah and Israel are synonymous. The reading of the Scriptures which confuse the tribe of Judah with Israel, and which interpret every mention of Israel as signifying the Jews, is at the root of more than one-half the confusion and division traceable in Christian doctrinal statements.

The Jews are NOT "The Chosen People," though practically the entire Church has succumbed to the propaganda which declares them to be so. The Jewish tinge of thought has of late years overspread many Christian statements, and the uninstructed clergy have proved more and more amenable to Jewish suggestion.

The flaccid condition of the Church, so much deplored by spokesmen who had regard for her inner life, was brought about not by "science," not by "scholarship," not by the "increase of light and learning"-- for none of these things are antagonistic even to incomplete statements of truth -- but by Jewish-German Higher Criticism. The defenders of the faith have fought long and valiantly against the inroads made by the so-called Higher Criticism, but were sadly incapacitated in their defense, because they did not see that its origin and purpose were Jewish. It was not Christian; it was not German; it was Jewish.

It is perfectly in keeping with the Jewish World Program that this destructive influence should be sent out under Jewish auspices, and it is perfectly in keeping with non-Jewish trustfulness to accept the thing without looking at its source. The Church is now victim of a second attack against her, in the rampant Socialism and Sovietism that have been thrust upon her in the name of flabby and unmoral theories of "brotherhood" and in an appeal to her "fairness." The church has been made to believe that she is a forum for discussion and not a high place for annunciation.

Jews have actually invaded, in person and in program, hundreds of American churches, with their subversive and impossible social ideals, and at last became so cocksure of their domination of the situation that they were met with the inevitable check.

Clergymen ought to know that seven-eights of the economic mush they speak from the pulpit is prepared by Jewish professors of political economy and revolutionary leaders. They should be informed that economic thought has been so completely Judaized by means of a deliberate and masterly plan of camouflaged propaganda, that the mass-thought of the crowd (which is the thought mostly echoed in "popular" pulpits and editorials) is more Jewish than Jewry itself holds.

The Jew has got hold of the Church in doctrine, in liberalism, so-called, and in the feverish and feeble sociological diversions of many classes. If there is any place where a straight study of the Jewish Question should be made it is in the modern Church which is unconsciously giving allegiance to a mass of Jewish propaganda. It is not reaction that is counselled here; it is progress along constructive paths, the paths of our forefathers, the Anglo-Saxons, who have to this day been the World-Builders, the Makers of cities and commerce and continents; and not the Jews who have never been builders or pioneers, who have never peopled the wilderness, but who move in upon the labors of other men. They are not to be blamed for not being Builders or Pioneers, perhaps; they are to be blamed for claiming all the rights of pioneers; but even then, perhaps, their blame ought not to be so great as the blame that rests upon the sons of the Anglo-Saxons for rejecting the straightforward Building of their fathers, and taking up with the doubtful ideas of Judah.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JEWRY IN SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES
Colleges are being constantly invaded by the Jewish Idea. The sons of the Anglo-Saxons are being attacked in their very heredity. The sons of the Builders, the Makers, are being subverted to the philosophy of the destroyers. Young men in the first exhilarating months of intellectual freedom are being seized with promissory doctrines, the source and consequences of which they do not see. There is a natural rebelliousness of youth, which promises progress; there is a natural venturesomeness to play free with ancient faiths; both of which are ebullitions of the spirit and significance of dawning mental virility. It is during the periods when these adolescent expansions are in process that the youth is captured by influences which deliberately lie in wait for him at the colleges. True, in after years a large proportion come to their senses sufficiently to be able "to sit on the fence and see themselves go by," and they come back to sanity. They find that "freelove" doctrines make exhilarating club topics, but that the Family -- the old-fashioned loyalty of one man and one woman to each other and their children -- is the basis not only of society, but of all personal character and progress. They find that Revolution, while a delightful subject for fiery debates and an excellent stimulant to the feeling of superman-likeness, is nevertheless not the process of progress.

The trouble with the colleges has progressed along precisely the same lines that have been described in connection with the churches. First, Jewish higher criticism in the destruction of young men's sense of respect for the ancient foundations; second, Jewish revolutionary social doctrines. The two always go together. They cannot live apart. They are the fulfillment of the Protocol's program to split non-Jewish society by means of ideas.

It is idle to attack the "radicalism" of college student -- these are the qualities of immaturity. But it is not idle to show that social radicalism ("radicalism" being a very good word very sadly misused) comes from a Jewish source. The central group of Red philosophers in every university is a Jewish group, with often enough a "Gentile front" in the shape of a deluded professor. Some of these professors are in the pay of outside Red organizations. There are Intercollegiate Socialist Societies, swarming with Jews and Jewish influences, and toting Jewish professors around the country, addressing fraternities under the patronage of the best civic and university auspices. Student lecture courses are fine pasture for this propaganda, the purpose being to give the students the thrill of believing that they are taking part in the beginning of a new great movement, comparable to the winning of Independence.

The revolutionary forces which head up in Jewry rely very heavily on the respectability which is given their movement by the adhesion of students and a few professors. It was so in Russia -- everyone knows what the name "student" eventually came to signify in that country. The Jewish Chautauqua, which works almost exclusively in colleges and universities, together with Bolshevism in art, science, religion, economics and sociology, are driving straight through the Anglo-Saxon traditions and landmarks of our race of students. These are ably assisted by professors and clergymen whose thinking has been dislocated and poisoned by Jewish subversive influences in theology and sociology.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT?
Simply identify the source and nature of the influence which has overrun our schools and universities. Let the students know that their choice is between the Anglo-Saxons and the Tribe of Judah. Let the students decide, in making up their allegiance, whether they will follow the Builders or those who seek to tear down. It is not a case for argument. The only absolute antidote to the Jewish influence is to call college students back to a pride of race.

We often speak of the Fathers as if they were the few who happened to affix their signatures to a great document which marked a new era of liberty. The Fathers of our nation were the men of the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic race. The men who came from Europe with civilization in their blood and in their destiny. The men who crossed the Atlantic and set up civilization on a bleak and rock-bound coast; the men who drove north to Alaska and west to California; the men who opened up the tropics and subdued the arctics; the men who mastered the African veldt; the men who peopled Australia and seized the gates of the world at Suez, Gibraltar and Panama; men who have given form to every government and a livelihood to every people and an ideal to every century. They got neither their God nor their religion from Judah, nor yet their speech nor their creative genius -- they are the Ruling People. Chosen throughout the centuries to Master the world, by building it ever better and better, and not by breaking it down.

Into the camp of this race, among the sons of the rulers, comes a people that has no civilization to point to, no aspiring religion, no universal speech, no great achievement in any realm but the realm of "get," cast out of every land that gave them hospitality, and these people endeavor to tell the Sons of the Saxons what is needed to make the world what it ought to be!

If our sons follow this counsel of dark rebellion and destruction, it is because they do not know whose sons they are, of what race they are the scions. Let there be free speech to the limit in our universities and free intercourse of ideas, but let Jewish thoughts be labeled Jewish, and let our sons know the racial secret.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NAME THE ENEMY!
The warning has already gone out through the colleges. The system of Jewish procedure is already fully known. How simple it is! First, you secularize the public schools -- "secularize" is the precise word the Jews use for the process. You prepare the mind of the public school child by enforcing the rule that no mention shall ever be made to indicate that culture or patriotism is in any way connected with the deeper principles of the Anglo-Saxon religion. Keep it out, every sight and sound of it! Keep out also every word that will aid any child to identify the Jewish race. Then, when you have thus prepared the soil, you can go into the universities and colleges and enter upon the double program of pouring contempt on all the AngloSaxon landmarks, at the same time filling the void with Jewish revolutionary ideas.

The influence of the common people is driven out of the schools, where common people's influence can go; but Jewish influence is allowed to run rampant in the higher institutions where the common people's influence cannot go. Secularize the schools, and you can then Judaize the universities.

This is the "liberalism" which Jewish spokesmen so much applaud. In labor unions, in churches, in universities, it has tainted the principles of work, faith and society. The proof of it is written thickly over all Jewish activities and utterances. It is in exerting these very influences that Jewry convinces itself that it is fulfilling its "mission" to the world.

The capitalism attacked is non-Jewish capitalism; the orthodoxy attacked is Christian orthodoxy; the society attacked is the Anglo-Saxon form of society; all of which by their destruction would redound to the glory of Judaism.
The list could be extended -- the influence of the Jewish idea on Anglo-Saxon sports and pleasure, on the Anglo-Saxon idea of patriotism, on the Anglo-Saxon conception of the learned professions; the influence of the Jewish idea runs down through every department of life.

"Well," one very badly deluded American editor, wrapped up in Jewish advertising contracts, was heard to say, "if the Jews can get away with it, then they have a right to." It is a variant of the "answer" of Jewish origin, which runs thus: "How can a paltry 3 million run the 100 million of the rest of us? Nonsense!"

Yes, let it be agreed; if the Jewish idea is the stronger, if the Jewish ability is the greater, let them conquer; let Anglo-Saxon principles and power go down in ruins before the Tribe of Judah. But first let the two ideas struggle under their own banners; let it be a fair struggle.

It is not a fair fight when in the movies, in the schools, in the Judaized churches, in the universities, the Anglo-Saxon idea is kept away from the Anglo-Saxons on the plea that it is "sectarian" or "clannish" or "obsolete" or something else, say, reaction.

It is not a fair fight when Jewish ideas are offered as AngloSaxon ideas, because offered under Anglo-Saxon auspices. Let the heritage of our Anglo-Saxon fathers have free course among their Anglo-Saxon sons, and the Jewish idea can never triumph over it, in the university forum or in the marts of trade. The Jewish idea never triumphs until first the people over whom it triumphs are denied the nurture of their native culture.

Judah has begun the struggle. Judah has made the invasion. Let it come. Let no man fear it. But let every a man insist that the fight be fair. Let college students and leaders of thought know that the objective is the regnancy of the ideas and the race that have built all the civilization we see and that promises all the civilization of the future; let them also know that the attacking force is Jewish.

That is all that will be necessary. It is against this that the Jews protest. "You must not identify us," they say, "You must not use the term 'Jew'." Why? Because unless the Jewish idea can creep in under the assumption of other than Jewish origin, it is doomed. Anglo-Saxon ideas dare proclaim themselves and their origin. A proper proclamation is all that is necessary today. Compel every invading idea to run up its flag!

"Only speak if you are the most ablest man in the room."

Buddy, you are a nut. Really... So just because I'm Jewish, I'm the "enemy," eh? And I never knew that Judaism was being indoctrinated to our public schools :) Yeah, sure, go get me a list of all these random conspiracy sources, sure. I'll refute every single damn one. Out of my entire time on this forum, I haven't seen someone as ignorant, hateful, blatantly stupid and anti-semitic than yourself. Get a life, get educated, and stop using Judaism as this "scapegoat. Because the last time I checked, it wasn't us Jews who are screwing up America. It's the radical racist Evangelicals who are who value Vatican City more than our homeland like yourself. Get a life, and realize that at least 90% of the Jewish population stands for exactly what the bloody hell this movement stands for. My G-d. If you were actually educated, you'd realize that the entire nation of Israel, Jews in other countries and etcetera love and adore Ron Paul. My G-d. If you would just sit down for a second and actually do some research outside of your little "conspiracies," you'd see right through them.

Holy ****.

Patriot123
03-14-2008, 02:10 PM
Lmao.

Best argument I've ever heard :rolleyes:

Hey, you could say the same about the topic starters reply :p I was just returning the favor.

familydog
03-14-2008, 02:17 PM
Hey, you could say the same about the topic starters reply :p I was just returning the favor.

Nah. I tend to agree with Deborah K on this one. Big big difference between a nation state being founded by religious virtues and principles, and a nation state infusing religion into the government.

Kade
03-14-2008, 02:23 PM
We the people are the ones responsible for a Constitutional Form of Government. It is the people that agreed to be bound by this social contract that matters.

The constitution was largely void of religious reference, outside of mention of a creator and that congress shall pass no law concerning religion, the legal contract ratified by the people is silent on the issue.

When courts try to rule on a breach of contract, the first thing they do is ascertain the original understanding of those that agreed to the contract. The understanding of those that wrote the contract is less important.

So why do I care about those that approved it? Because that is how the law is supposed to work.

Wow, you have conservative in your name, but you speak like a law genius. Congratulations. You win.

Kade
03-14-2008, 02:37 PM
Alright, my entire point comes to this...

Judeo-Christian "values" are completely void of any useful original philosophical thought. Commonly, the Ten Commandments are considered part of this value system. Anything adapted from ancient Judaism into Christianity... although the word really didn't exist before the 1890s.

The motivation behind the creation of our country were mostly enlightenment principles. These were influenced by many people, not excluding Burke, Hobbes, Locke, Spinoza, Hume, Kant, Voltaire, Rousseau, and Adam Smith...etc. Our most cherished founding fathers, who wrote the MOST important documents leading up to and within the creation of this beautiful nation, were HIGHLY influenced by these Principles... these founders include:

Hamilton, Adams, Madison, Mason, Franklin, Paine, and Jefferson.

Enlightenment Principles:

Popular Sovereignty
Natural Rights
Liberty
Reductionism
Rationalism
Anti-superstition
Tolerance
Pantheism/Deism
Reason as Basis of Authority
Progressive




Now, your insistence that somehow this nation was founded on the very antithesis of the principles of this nation are absolutely ridiculous.

That you use criminally retarded individuals to further the useless point, is itself, inexcusably ignorant.

familydog
03-14-2008, 03:55 PM
Alright, my entire point comes to this...

Judeo-Christian "values" are completely void of any useful original philosophical thought. Commonly, the Ten Commandments are considered part of this value system. Anything adapted from ancient Judaism into Christianity... although the word really didn't exist before the 1890s.

The motivation behind the creation of our country were mostly enlightenment principles. These were influenced by many people, not excluding Burke, Hobbes, Locke, Spinoza, Hume, Kant, Voltaire, Rousseau, and Adam Smith...etc. Our most cherished founding fathers, who wrote the MOST important documents leading up to and within the creation of this beautiful nation, were HIGHLY influenced by these Principles... these founders include:

Hamilton, Adams, Madison, Mason, Franklin, Paine, and Jefferson.

Enlightenment Principles:

Popular Sovereignty
Natural Rights
Liberty
Reductionism
Rationalism
Anti-superstition
Tolerance
Pantheism/Deism
Reason as Basis of Authority
Progressive




Now, your insistence that somehow this nation was founded on the very antithesis of the principles of this nation are absolutely ridiculous.

That you use criminally retarded individuals to further the useless point, is itself, inexcusably ignorant.

Congratulations, you created a list comprised mostly of values within Christianity along with values associated with the Enlightenment. Again, I go back to my earlier point that Tocqueville, hardly a religious nut, recognized in his book "Democracy in America" that Christianity played a major role in the workings of the country, the founding, and the government as well as Christianity having many most of those virtues you described. That's not to say the government is a religious state, but he recongized that democracy, and a constitutional republic made room for religious values to influence the law of the land. How? Banning certain vices at the local and state level because they are immoral. The Banning of gambling in certain states (PA right up till a couple years ago) and the 19th century temperance movement are great examples of that. Both are example of laws at the begining of the country, both influenced by religion, and both were completely constitutional.

Now, that doesn't have anything to with the Constitution, but it does have to do with the fact that America's "founding" went beyond what a select few created. Our founding amounts to invovlement with all people, not just the most famous ones like Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, etc. The founding of the country was about the people, according to historian Ray Raphael in his book "Founding Myths." To make it clear, Rayphael argues that a founding is more than a document, it's the sentiment, thoughts beliefs, ideals, values, virtues of the people making up the country. With that said, every colony, prior to the Declaration of Independence had their own version of it. Those are what inspired Jefferson and a few others to write the big one. All of those Declarations had religious references, all paying tribute to the value that Christinity has in a republic and free society. The Virginia Declaration of Rights drafted by George Mason is a perfect example of this:

"That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity, towards each other."
--Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776

Also, take a look at our first national government. Made up by the articles of Confederation. The drafters of the Articles knew that Christianity and the values we associate with republicanism were one in the same.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html
Now, why do the Articles of Confederation matter since it's not the Consitution? The sentiments put in to the Articles, are the same sentiments put into the Constitution. Constitutional scholar Louis Henkin argues that because the Constitution does not rule out certain parts the first official constitution of America (the Articles), the constitution we know and love today retains those same sentiments. These sentiments were that a republic, this republic, requires Christian virtues (see your list) in order to survive.

Are these values strictly Christian? No. They can belong to many beliefs. That doesn't change the fact that our nation felt they were Christian values.

Also, I would tend to agree that Enlightenment thinkers influenced the founders greatly. Historian Bernard Bailyn's book "The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution" backs that up. But again, it doesn't change the fact that our Founders (defined not just by a few select, but the entire population which supported and fueled the Revolution) believed that Christian principles and values should be at least one basis for the founding of our American republic.

Deborah K
03-14-2008, 04:17 PM
Alright, my entire point comes to this...

Judeo-Christian "values" are completely void of any useful original philosophical thought. Commonly, the Ten Commandments are considered part of this value system. Anything adapted from ancient Judaism into Christianity... although the word really didn't exist before the 1890s.

The motivation behind the creation of our country were mostly enlightenment principles. These were influenced by many people, not excluding Burke, Hobbes, Locke, Spinoza, Hume, Kant, Voltaire, Rousseau, and Adam Smith...etc. Our most cherished founding fathers, who wrote the MOST important documents leading up to and within the creation of this beautiful nation, were HIGHLY influenced by these Principles... these founders include:

Hamilton, Adams, Madison, Mason, Franklin, Paine, and Jefferson.

Enlightenment Principles:

Popular Sovereignty
Natural Rights
Liberty
Reductionism
Rationalism
Anti-superstition
Tolerance
Pantheism/Deism
Reason as Basis of Authority
Progressive




Now, your insistence that somehow this nation was founded on the very antithesis of the principles of this nation are absolutely ridiculous.

That you use criminally retarded individuals to further the useless point, is itself, inexcusably ignorant.

I actually like what you wrote there, Kade, and I agree with most of it - except for the obvious exclusion of Judeo-Christian principles. Your complete denial of this reveals much about your own agenda as an atheist. It is the very reason I wrote this thread in the first place. And you have just proven my point.

I have put forth an argument that is substantiated by research. The fact that you have categorically ignored the research leads me to the conclusion that you have no way to refute what I'm contending other than to disparage one of my sources. You keep bringing up Barton to the exclusion of Lutz's writings and research, as well as other scholars who have cited Lutz's work in their own works. This speaks volumes as to the weakness of your argument.

Deborah K
03-14-2008, 04:20 PM
Nice job, Family Dog! You win!

Tdcci
03-14-2008, 04:28 PM
//

Deborah K
03-14-2008, 04:40 PM
Out of respect for your intention to remove your post, I have edited this one, Tdcc.

mtmedlin
03-14-2008, 05:03 PM
No one is "glazing" over anything. Show me where the founders quoted Gita and Plato as often as they quoted the bible and I will rescind my argument.
My argument is that the Bible ripped off the principles of The Gita and the Principles of a republic are definitly founded in the writings of plato. "The Republic" by Plato. To claim that it is actually the Bible is absurd. If I use the words of Reagan and his philosophy but my followers claim them as mine it is WRONG. Christians can claim that SOME of the founders believed in their religion but their religion was not the first to have these standards or ideas. Your argument is based on a false claim of ownership and that I have a problem with. I like Christians and I have no problem with their religion or practice thereof. I do have a problem with them claiming that in some way this bible that was selectivly made by the Catholic Church in any way was the initial document to use what became the foundations of our country. It is arrogance on any Christians part to attempt to claim so and I call people out on that.
The United States government was not founded on Christian Principles. Christian Principles were founded on other religions standards and practices and it is those standards and practices along with the writings of many political theorists including Plato that made the basis for our country.

kyleAF
03-14-2008, 06:38 PM
Wrapped in a flag... carrying a cross.

Watch out everyone. Watch out. It's coming.

This divisiveness and clinging to irrationality will be its way in.

Deride if you like, but it's the truth.

familydog
03-14-2008, 07:35 PM
My argument is that the Bible ripped off the principles of The Gita and the Principles of a republic are definitly founded in the writings of plato. "The Republic" by Plato. To claim that it is actually the Bible is absurd. If I use the words of Reagan and his philosophy but my followers claim them as mine it is WRONG. Christians can claim that SOME of the founders believed in their religion but their religion was not the first to have these standards or ideas. Your argument is based on a false claim of ownership and that I have a problem with. I like Christians and I have no problem with their religion or practice thereof. I do have a problem with them claiming that in some way this bible that was selectivly made by the Catholic Church in any way was the initial document to use what became the foundations of our country. It is arrogance on any Christians part to attempt to claim so and I call people out on that.
The United States government was not founded on Christian Principles. Christian Principles were founded on other religions standards and practices and it is those standards and practices along with the writings of many political theorists including Plato that made the basis for our country.

If you don't think the United States was founded on Christian principles, why don't you disprove my claims a few posts ago?

Did the writers of the Bible "rip off" the Gita and Plato? There is no evidence for that. To claim that the writers of the scripture "ripped off" anything would be to claim they knew that the principles belonged to something else, and stole them. Do those principles belong to anyone? No. Anyone can use them. I'm confused on what you're trying to argue. You accuse others of a false claim of ownership, yet you are suggesting that these principles we are all talking about belong to the Gita and Plato, because the Bible "ripped" them off.

Are you suggesting that one religion or philosophy can't have the same principles of another? By that logic, a republican form of government, which we were founded upon and still are, technically, was "ripped off" from the Gita too. That means that indeed, there was religious inspiration for the founding of the country, since the Gita is a religious, or at least spiritual document and our founding values came from that document.

I laid out a set of arguments on why the founding of the country did rely on Christian principles. Some have suggested that these principles are Christian, some have suggested they belong to secular Enlightenment thinkers, and some others (you) have suggested they came from the Gita. In my mind, all of those are true. Why can't it be true? My argument from a few posts ago was that our founders (defined as more than just a few aristocrats) believed that these set of principles were indeed Christian, and did model society after them. Again, the same argument can be said for Enlightenment values, but I wasn't arguing that in my post.

By the way, when the Bible was created, there was no "Catholic Church."

mtmedlin
03-14-2008, 07:59 PM
If you don't think the United States was founded on Christian principles, why don't you disprove my claims a few posts ago?

Did the writers of the Bible "rip off" the Gita and Plato? There is no evidence for that. To claim that the writers of the scripture "ripped off" anything would be to claim they knew that the principles belonged to something else, and stole them. Do those principles belong to anyone? No. Anyone can use them. I'm confused on what you're trying to argue. You accuse others of a false claim of ownership, yet you are suggesting that these principles we are all talking about belong to the Gita and Plato, because the Bible "ripped" them off.

Are you suggesting that one religion or philosophy can't have the same principles of another? By that logic, a republican form of government, which we were founded upon and still are, technically, was "ripped off" from the Gita too. That means that indeed, there was religious inspiration for the founding of the country, since the Gita is a religious, or at least spiritual document and our founding values came from that document.

I laid out a set of arguments on why the founding of the country did rely on Christian principles. Some have suggested that these principles are Christian, some have suggested they belong to secular Enlightenment thinkers, and some others (you) have suggested they came from the Gita. In my mind, all of those are true. Why can't it be true? My argument from a few posts ago was that our founders (defined as more than just a few aristocrats) believed that these set of principles were indeed Christian, and did model society after them. Again, the same argument can be said for Enlightenment values, but I wasn't arguing that in my post.

By the way, when the Bible was created, there was no "Catholic Church."

Ripped off is an incorrect term. I apologize. The proper argument would be that the people who wrote the Bible, were highly influenced by previouse religions and thinkers. The point being that people on this board are saying that it is the Biblical principles or Christian principles that this nation was founded on. My premise is easy. If the Bible which was put together by the Catholic Church (not written by but assembled by,do some research on this one and look up Pope Damasus the 1st) was not the first to espouse the political and theological views then it cannot claim that it was the influence to the founders. Many of the founders Including Thomas Jefferson were very learned men who would have been required to read the writings of many of the ancient greek philosophers, especially Plato. Since several of the founders also expressed Deist or Atheist points of view but did ascribe to similar philosophical points of view I am more of the opinion that it was the ancient philosophers and not Christian text that influenced them. Let us also not forget that it was ancient philosophers that were the main influence along with Islamic law that influenced English Common law. Anybody who has taken basic law courses will tell you that the majority of early Constitutional law was based on English common law.

So no ripped of was incorrect. All the rest, Is accurate, especially the part about the fabrication of the Bible. I mean really, they excluded several really good tombs. Try reading up on the Book of Mary Magdelin or the Book of Judas or how about the dead sea scrolls. All were written around the same time yet were "omitted" from the Popes choice for the Holy Book. Seems odd that we only read part of the disciples text but thats just me.

mtmedlin
03-14-2008, 08:01 PM
That means that indeed, there was religious inspiration for the founding of the country, since the Gita is a religious, or at least spiritual document and our founding values came from that document.


Yes, you would be correct but the Gita is a Budhist holy book and would support my claim that Christianity was not the foundation of our country.

familydog
03-14-2008, 08:55 PM
Yes, you would be correct but the Gita is a Budhist holy book and would support my claim that Christianity was not the foundation of our country.

So you're saying that the founders were inspired by religion, just not Christianity? You also brought in Islam, another religion. So we were founded upon Islamic and Gita principles? Both are deemed religions.

I'm still not sure exaclty what you're trying to say. Because Plato and the Gita were the first, on record, to espouse our founding principles, therefore those principles belong to them, and no other philosophy and religion can claim them as their own as well? When Ron Paul says that we should go back to what our founders believed and subscribed too, he really means we should go back to Plato and the Gita? Maybe you ought to write him and correct him on that one.

Going by Bernard Bailyn's book, I'll argue that the Jefferson, Adams, Madison, etc were more inspired by the Enlightenment as opposed to Plato. He cites numerous evidence, especially political pamphlets distrubuted in colonial America, to back up his claims.

I'm arguing that our "founders" are more than just a select few. Our "founders" are all of those that fought for the Revolution. Whether it was Washington up at the top, or a lowly camp follower. They are all founders. If it weren't for the great unwashed, there wouldn't be a revolution. That great unwashed were WASP. Using the examples I cited, the masses believed in what would become our founding principles. They believed our founding principles were not only Enlightenment ideas, like Bailyin states, but Christian ideas as well.

I'm not suggesting that Madison got the basis for the Constitution from the Bible. That is absurd. But once again, I'm going back to my previous post. The "founding" is more than one document. It is a series of laws that are put into place at the start of the republic (inspired by Christianity, since it was the majority religion), it is the primarily Christian nation that existed (notice I said Christian "nation" and not Christian "state"). Our founding is what the people believed in. Using my examples, I showed that they believed in Christianity and its principles.

To sum up, the founders of the country believed in the principles that can be ascribed to Christianity and republicanism. The founders (outside of the top few like Jefferson and Madison) believed these principles to belong to both, but used Christianity as the basis for writings and the substantive laws.

I apolgoze for repeating myself in every post, but I feel the points I am making are important and need to be addressed, which they are not being addressed.

mtmedlin
03-14-2008, 09:07 PM
So you're saying that the founders were inspired by religion, just not Christianity? You also brought in Islam, another religion. So we were founded upon Islamic and Gita principles? Both are deemed religions.

I'm still not sure exaclty what you're trying to say. Because Plato and the Gita were the first, on record, to espouse our founding principles, therefore those principles belong to them, and no other philosophy and religion can claim them as their own as well? When Ron Paul says that we should go back to what our founders believed and subscribed too, he really means we should go back to Plato and the Gita? Maybe you ought to write him and correct him on that one.

Going by Bernard Bailyn's book, I'll argue that the Jefferson, Adams, Madison, etc were more inspired by the Enlightenment as opposed to Plato. He cites numerous evidence, especially political pamphlets distrubuted in colonial America, to back up his claims.

I'm arguing that our "founders" are more than just a select few. Our "founders" are all of those that fought for the Revolution. Whether it was Washington up at the top, or a lowly camp follower. They are all founders. If it weren't for the great unwashed, there wouldn't be a revolution. That great unwashed were WASP. Using the examples I cited, the masses believed in what would become our founding principles. They believed our founding principles were not only Enlightenment ideas, like Bailyin states, but Christian ideas as well.

I'm not suggesting that Madison got the basis for the Constitution from the Bible. That is absurd. But once again, I'm going back to my previous post. The "founding" is more than one document. It is a series of laws that are put into place at the start of the republic (inspired by Christianity, since it was the majority religion), it is the primarily Christian nation that existed (notice I said Christian "nation" and not Christian "state"). Our founding is what the people believed in. Using my examples, I showed that they believed in Christianity and its principles.

To sum up, the founders of the country believed in the principles that can be ascribed to Christianity and republicanism. The founders (outside of the top few like Jefferson and Madison) believed these principles to belong to both, but used Christianity as the basis for writings and the substantive laws.

I apolgoze for repeating myself in every post, but I feel the points I am making are important and need to be addressed, which they are not being addressed.

You are making an argument far different to the thread that I am responding to.
the thread at hand states "Was America founded on Judeo-Christian Principles? Of Course it was!
I am objecting to whether or not the principles can be stated as Judeo Christian. Ron is correct about the Founders principles as it applies to us and what we should be doing. He is refering to a set of ideas. The OP in her argument attempts to state that the ideas that most influenced our countries founding were Judeo Christian. That is not accurate. The principles came from many different sources and whether or not those sources came from a religion doesnt matter because they were not from the religion that the OP originally stated. You are arguing a point that I am not attempting to make. Please re-look at my argument only in the context of what the OP stated. Your argument has some merit but doesnt apply to the OP or the argument at hand.

sophocles07
03-14-2008, 09:11 PM
Judeo-Christian "values" are completely void of any useful original philosophical thought.

As you probably/might know, I have argued as much as you on this board against Christianity/Judaism; BUT, I must take a more level headed approach here (meden agan, as the Greeks say). Jefferson repeatedly speaks of the Jesus of the Bible as presenting the most worthy moral code of anyone he had read. That being said, this has nothing to do WHATSOEVER with "supernatural" truths; he also said he had read widely and taken with him what the so-called Pagans had to offer.

He also said you should "pick and choose" what you take from Jesus' teachings. I don't actually agree that Jesus offers the "best" moral system--one can scan all over the place for things just as useful and practiceable, PLUS thinking this simple stuff out for yourself.

That's what I give to the Christian religion: you produced one good literary character that we can take lessons from. (He's also an interesting literary character--especially in Mark and John--just in terms of pure aesthetic and psychological merit.) He is not the end-all of moral teaching; a desire for such an end is purely naive and simplistic.

Literalist Christians, or even Christians who take "Faith" as a reason for anything, defame the character itself by extraordinary misinterpretation of a literary text.

familydog
03-15-2008, 08:51 AM
You are making an argument far different to the thread that I am responding to.
the thread at hand states "Was America founded on Judeo-Christian Principles? Of Course it was!
I am objecting to whether or not the principles can be stated as Judeo Christian. Ron is correct about the Founders principles as it applies to us and what we should be doing. He is refering to a set of ideas. The OP in her argument attempts to state that the ideas that most influenced our countries founding were Judeo Christian. That is not accurate. The principles came from many different sources and whether or not those sources came from a religion doesnt matter because they were not from the religion that the OP originally stated. You are arguing a point that I am not attempting to make. Please re-look at my argument only in the context of what the OP stated. Your argument has some merit but doesnt apply to the OP or the argument at hand.

I was simply saying that our founding consists of more than the Consitution and the words of Thomas Jefferson. Our founding was comprised of Christian values. Our founders saw them as Christian. That was my argument, but you said my argument was wrong and we were not founded upon Christian principles. So, since you didn't refute anything I said, I was trying to figure out what you are talking about. I'm not sure how you think, by the areguments I made, it doesn't apply to "Was American founded by Judeo-Christian principles?"

I don't care what the OP said, I am responding to the thread title that we were founded upon Christian principles. I clearly answered that and agreed with it.

Theocrat
03-15-2008, 09:25 AM
After reading many of the posts on this forum thread, I find it simply astonishing how some people can still believe that America was not founded on the religious and moral principles of Christianity, even in the face of obvious, irrefutable evidence. Since these scoffers and skeptics will not hear the truth from fellow Ron Paul supporters, I thought it would be proper to share a few of Congressman Paul's thoughts about this subject (since these forums bear his name) from his own writings dealing with the issue of America's religious founding in some way. You can click on each of the following links to read what he has to say. I hope this clears up some of the confusion and abates the foolish notions and pseudo-evidence from those who believe contrary to America having any religious founding.


"Christmas in Secular America" (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=337)
"Religious Liberty Thwarted by the Supreme Court" (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=203)
"Religious Freedom Found in Following Constitution" (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=49)

Patriot123
03-15-2008, 09:30 AM
I love how many of the right Evangelical Christians in this thread insist on any value system that involves "don't kill" or the like is automatically Christian beliefs. As a previous poster said way back (likely on page ten) these principles which our country was founded upon were commonly held, and have been around before religion even existed. For example, you don't murder a family member. "It tends to create conflict." They were not motivated by the Christian religion. They were motivated by commonly held principles.

ARealConservative
03-15-2008, 09:40 AM
After reading many of the posts on this forum thread, I find it simply astonishing how some people can still believe that America was not founded on the religious and moral principles of Christianity

Some of us find such a notion hollow and meaningless.

Man has free will, this country was founded on the acts of free men.

When you break down the motives behind pursuing this argument, you find that it is based on bigotry. It's the attitude that our predecessors were more moral because they were mostly christian and the problems with society today are from a lack of faith.

The majority of those agreeing to the original constitution were likely Christian. The majority that allowed slavery to go on for centuries were likely Christian. Today, the majority that allow income redistribution (theft) and preemptive war (murder) are mostly Christian.

So what though? They might be majority Christian, but they are all individuals with free will acting independently of one another.

Theocrat
03-15-2008, 09:41 AM
I love how many of the right Evangelical Christians in this thread insist on any value system that involves "don't kill" or the like is automatically Christian beliefs. As a previous poster said way back (likely on page ten) these principles which our country was founded upon were commonly held, and have been around before religion even existed. For example, you don't murder a family member. "It tends to create conflict." They were not motivated by the Christian religion. They were motivated by commonly held principles.

Well I can tell you one thing. Those moral values definitely do not come from the religion of secular humanism, which is what many "atheists" and agnostics on this thread would have us believe was the religious conviction of our Founders.

ronpaulhawaii
03-15-2008, 10:09 AM
Yes, you would be correct but the Gita is a Budhist holy book and would support my claim that Christianity was not the foundation of our country.

Actually, the gita is a Hindu sacred text...

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

sophocles07
03-15-2008, 10:40 AM
Those moral values definitely do not come from the religion of secular humanism

Is this a blanket statement? So you think no secular thought influenced American ideals at all? Have you Christ-orgasmed the 1700s out of your brain completely?

mtmedlin
03-15-2008, 10:49 AM
Actually, the gita is a Hindu sacred text...

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

I actually knew that and when I read what I had written I laughed but thanks for pointing it out. Late night posts are not my best.

I have read the Gita several times and have found many uses for it. I get a little more from it each time I read. I have also read the bible cover to cover 7 times and most of the Quran.

ronpaulhawaii
03-15-2008, 11:31 AM
I actually knew that and when I read what I had written I laughed but thanks for pointing it out. Late night posts are not my best.

I have read the Gita several times and have found many uses for it. I get a little more from it each time I read. I have also read the bible cover to cover 7 times and most of the Quran.


I went through a phase where I read as many "ancient" texts as possible. Unless one can find a copy of the reptilian codice of atlantis:rolleyes::p:), we must start with the epic of gilgamish, move into the vedas and so forth...

However, all of these issues fail to disprove the OP premise of the christian bible's profound influence on modern western society. I find the denial of this to be downright silly.

familydog
03-15-2008, 01:12 PM
I love how many of the right Evangelical Christians in this thread insist on any value system that involves "don't kill" or the like is automatically Christian beliefs. As a previous poster said way back (likely on page ten) these principles which our country was founded upon were commonly held, and have been around before religion even existed. For example, you don't murder a family member. "It tends to create conflict." They were not motivated by the Christian religion. They were motivated by commonly held principles.

Please. Please stop the stereotyping. I am defending the notion that we were founded upon Christian principles, but yet I am not "the right Evangelical Christians" you speak of. Study up on Ron Paul and maybe you will learn not to categorize people and actually treat them as individuals, especially since you don't know me. If you weren't talking about me, all the more reason to keep that collectivist crap out of here.

If commonly held principles are seen as Christian principles, as I pointed out the founders of the country did, then of course those commonly held founding principles are "Christian." Don't we talk about sticking to the original meaning of the constitution and not try to rewrite it? Maybe we should stick to what the common people of the time viewed as Christian principles, and go with that. Or would that conflict with your ideology?

My anaylsis is based on clear and concise research. I also am willing to admit that there were other influences besides Christianity on the founders as well. I pointed that out several times.

Kade
03-15-2008, 03:49 PM
As you probably/might know, I have argued as much as you on this board against Christianity/Judaism; BUT, I must take a more level headed approach here (meden agan, as the Greeks say). Jefferson repeatedly speaks of the Jesus of the Bible as presenting the most worthy moral code of anyone he had read. That being said, this has nothing to do WHATSOEVER with "supernatural" truths; he also said he had read widely and taken with him what the so-called Pagans had to offer.

He also said you should "pick and choose" what you take from Jesus' teachings. I don't actually agree that Jesus offers the "best" moral system--one can scan all over the place for things just as useful and practiceable, PLUS thinking this simple stuff out for yourself.

That's what I give to the Christian religion: you produced one good literary character that we can take lessons from. (He's also an interesting literary character--especially in Mark and John--just in terms of pure aesthetic and psychological merit.) He is not the end-all of moral teaching; a desire for such an end is purely naive and simplistic.

Literalist Christians, or even Christians who take "Faith" as a reason for anything, defame the character itself by extraordinary misinterpretation of a literary text.

True. I would still argue against it as original.

Patriot123
03-15-2008, 07:46 PM
Please. Please stop the stereotyping. I am defending the notion that we were founded upon Christian principles, but yet I am not "the right Evangelical Christians" you speak of. Study up on Ron Paul and maybe you will learn not to categorize people and actually treat them as individuals, especially since you don't know me. If you weren't talking about me, all the more reason to keep that collectivist crap out of here.

If commonly held principles are seen as Christian principles, as I pointed out the founders of the country did, then of course those commonly held founding principles are "Christian." Don't we talk about sticking to the original meaning of the constitution and not try to rewrite it? Maybe we should stick to what the common people of the time viewed as Christian principles, and go with that. Or would that conflict with your ideology?

My anaylsis is based on clear and concise research. I also am willing to admit that there were other influences besides Christianity on the founders as well. I pointed that out several times.

First and foremost, I'm not a racist, which you seem to be implying. I'm just simply stating that many of the Christians in this thread persist on calling America a Christian nation, which it is absolutely not. The one reason why I love this country is for the fact that it was founded neutrally, with peace and liberty and mind. And is just so happens that a large majority. if not all of the people who are doing this are Evangelical Christians. And I'm not trying to "re-write the constitution." There's nothing in the damn thing which says we're affiliated with any religion. We were founded neutrally in terms of religious beliefs, and saying that just because our society believes murder and rape are wrong that we're automatically a Christian nation is hypocrisy and you know it. Christianity did not have any affect on this nations founding. The only thing that did was the pursuit of freedom, liberty and happiness. If our founders had Christianity in mind, they would have at least had some references to Christianity or the bible in our constitution. And there is none. If there is, please point it out to me, because there quite simply is no refference.

Better yet, here. The founders were pretty intelligent men, right? We can agree on that, right? Good. The founders knew well enough what they wanted, which was freedom. Agreed? Good. So if the founders were intelligent, and wanted freedom, then they would have been intelligent enough to make some sort of refference to Christianity if their intent was to found it upon Christian principles. Christianity, Jesus, or anything of the like is not mentioned. As such, we're not a Christian nation, and were not founded upon Christian principles, but rather commonly held principles which did not belong to any religion.

Theocrat
03-15-2008, 09:46 PM
Is this a blanket statement? So you think no secular thought influenced American ideals at all? Have you Christ-orgasmed the 1700s out of your brain completely?

Yes, I am saying that there is nothing in the religion of secular humanism which would set the bedrock for a nation having a constitution nor a separation of powers (which are present in American system of jurisprudence) because these ideas presuppose that mankind is fallen and imperfect due to his sinful nature, which is distinctly a Christian doctrine and understanding of man. Thus, man needs governments to protect him from other sinful creatures who would violate his God-given rights to life, liberty, and property, and each of these governments themselves (being made up of other sinful creatures) need restraints and limits to their power and jurisdictions so that God-given rights are protected and preserved. Thus, constitutions and separation of powers make sense in the Christian paradigm, and this is exactly what our Founders used as the foundation of their political thought and theory to form a republican, Constitutional form of government, derived from the Bible.

Secular humanism, on the other hand, assumes that men are basically good in nature and will continue to be good as they "evolve", and thus, it teaches that men able to make the right decisions without the law or morality of external institutions or governments. In secular humanism, men are naturally autonomous and possess the will and ability to govern themselves "freely" without coercion or instruction. Thus, in secular humanism, a constitution or separation of powers would be ridiculous because men inherently are virtuous enough to govern rightly through their use of reason and science in order to make any society a success. Of course, the French Revolution proved the philosophy of secularism to be totally false and a shameful failure.

There is no way a secular humanist living in the 1700s could have even surmised any of the tenets of a constitutional republic that has become the landmark of historic American jurisprudence because his materialistic presumptions about human nature do not comport with nor necessitate the need for men to have God-given rights protected through contractual administrations with a body of government. Once again, constitutions and separation of powers only make sense from a Christian perspective of law, government, and human nature, and one only needs to read the writings of such Founding Fathers as George Washington, John Adams, John Witherspoon, Elias Boudinot, Noah Webster, Daniel Webster, Benjamin Rush, and many others to understand this.

mtmedlin
03-15-2008, 09:51 PM
I went through a phase where I read as many "ancient" texts as possible. Unless one can find a copy of the reptilian codice of atlantis:rolleyes::p:), we must start with the epic of gilgamish, move into the vedas and so forth...

However, all of these issues fail to disprove the OP premise of the christian bible's profound influence on modern western society. I find the denial of this to be downright silly.

I would disagree because the OP blindly states that the influence is Christian in nature and assumes that the founders did not find the same information elswhere. I took courses in the History of education and during the 1700s it was common practice for all students to read the writings of Plato. For the OP to make a point that it was the bible and ignore the other possible influences is typical christian arrogance. Silly, I think not.

sophocles07
03-16-2008, 06:41 AM
Yes, I am saying that there is nothing in the religion of secular humanism which would set the bedrock for a nation having a constitution nor a separation of powers (which are present in American system of jurisprudence) because these ideas presuppose that mankind is fallen and imperfect due to his sinful nature, which is distinctly a Christian doctrine and understanding of man.

I’m not asking about all of this. I’m saying: no secular humanism influenced the founding of the nation? If you say no, you are a fucking idiot. Which I assume you will prove with your reply.

Theocrat
03-16-2008, 05:53 PM
I’m not asking about all of this. I’m saying: no secular humanism influenced the founding of the nation? If you say no, you are a fucking idiot. Which I assume you will prove with your reply.

From my studies and understanding of the original writings and intent of the Founding Fathers, I would say that there is no trace of them ever relying upon the precepts of secular humanism to found our nation, not even from Thomas Jefferson nor Benjamin Franklin. My studies haven't been exhaustive, I readily admit, so if you have any evidence that would conclusively prove that secular humanism influenced any aspect of forming our constitutional republic, then I welcome you to do so.

By the way, I have to say that your personal attacks and insults against me and others on these forums who do not share your views are really immature and repulsive. How do you expect to convince anyone of your arguments when you post flagrant insults at them ere the slightest notion of indifference to your position? You've called me a "fucking idiot" for not agreeing with your unfounded claims about our Founding Fathers being secular humanists, yet who's the true idiot: the idiot, or the person who continues to argue with the idiot?

sophocles07
03-16-2008, 06:00 PM
From my studies and understanding of the original writings and intent of the Founding Fathers, I would say that there is no trace of them ever relying upon the precepts of secular humanism to found our nation, not even from Thomas Jefferson nor Benjamin Franklin.

Then you haven’t really studied. Take Adams and Jefferson alone, read their letters. They pulled from everywhere in their reading, relying not on one book (the Bible) but on everything they could get their hands on—to take the best of all past philosophies and societies and apply it to the American system.


My studies haven't been exhaustive, I readily admit, so if you have any evidence that would conclusively prove that secular humanism influenced any aspect of forming our constitutional republic, then I welcome you to do so.

See above (Adams and Jefferson letters). Plus, Jefferson’s notes on a Virginian university, where he includes all of the current scientific bases as points of study. Jefferson was well read in every area of study, and called for everyone to be educated in every way they could be. He by no means relied strictly on the Bible as an instrument of knowledge (though he liked the ethical standards of Christ). I find it hard to believe you haven’t seen the influence of the French enlightenment (to take the most obvious example) on the revolution.


By the way, I have to say that your personal attacks and insults against me and others on these forums who do not share your views are really immature and repulsive.

I’m aware you think this and don’t care.


How do you expect to convince anyone of your arguments when you post flagrant insults at them ere the slightest notion of indifference to your position? You've called me a "fucking idiot" for not agreeing with your unfounded claims about our Founding Fathers being secular humanists, yet who's the true idiot: the idiot, or the person who continues to argue with the idiot?

I really could care less about “convincing” people of things that are BLATANTLY SO. ANYONE on here (I’m assuming about 99.999999% would already know that secular humanism, and many other worldviews, influenced the founding fathers) can find this out for themselves.

Tdcci
03-16-2008, 06:14 PM
Yes, I am saying that there is nothing in the religion of secular humanism

Secular humanism is not a religion, it is a philosophy.

Theocrat
03-16-2008, 06:19 PM
I really could care less about “convincing” people of things that are BLATANTLY SO. ANYONE on here (I’m assuming about 99.999999% would already know that secular humanism, and many other worldviews, influenced the founding fathers) can find this out for themselves.

Hmmm, I wonder if that "99.999999%" knew anything about this (http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html).

sophocles07
03-16-2008, 06:38 PM
Knew about what? That our FOUNDING FATHERS were not completely devoid of LEARNING?

Tdcci
03-16-2008, 06:39 PM
Knew that they couldn't have both religious and secular influences ;)

Theocrat
03-16-2008, 06:55 PM
Knew about what? That our FOUNDING FATHERS were not completely devoid of LEARNING?

Yeah, that's just your opinion, sophocles07. What documents do you have to show any trace of secular humanism being inculcated in America's early days of jurisprudence from the Founders? You still haven't done that. I don't want your own opinion of the subject; just give me a link or some historic source of reference from the Founders to substantiate your claim of their influence by secular humanism. Thank you.

sophocles07
03-16-2008, 07:02 PM
Knew that they couldn't have both religious and secular influences

Let's take from Jefferson an example of his open mindedness regarding rational thought (empiricism) and religious morality:

"The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. 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. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors."
-letter to Adams, 11 April 1823

"But enough of criticism: let me turn to your puzzling letter of May 12. on matter, spirit, motion etc. It's croud of scepticisms kept me from sleep. I read it, and laid it down: read it, and laid it down, again and again: and to give rest to my mind, I was obliged to recur ultimately to my habitual anodyne, 'I feel: therefore I exist.' I feel bodies which are not myself: there are other existences then. I call them matter. I feel them changing place. This gives me motion. Where there is an absence of matter, I call it void, or nothing, or immaterial space. On the basis of sensation, of matter and motion, we may erect the fabric of all the certainties we can have or need. I can conceive thought to be an action of a particular organisation of matter, formed for that purpose by it's creator, as well as that attraction in an action of matter, or magnetism of loadstone. When he who denies to the Creator the power of endowing matter with the mode of action called thinking shall shew how he could endow the Sun with the mode of action called attraction, which reins the planets in the tract of their orbits, or how an absence of matter can have a will, and, by that will, putt matter into motion, then the materialist may be lawfully required to explain the process by which matter exercises the faculty of thinking. When once we quit the basis of sensation, all is in the wind. To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But a heresy it certainly is. Jesus taught nothing of it. He told us indeed that ‘God is a spirit,’ but he has not defined what a spirit is, nor said that it is not matter. And the antient fathers generally, if not universally, held it to be matter: light and thin indeed, an etherial gas; but still matter. Origin says ‘Deus reapse corporalis est; sed graviorum tantum corporum ratione, incorporeus.’ Tertullian ‘quid enim deus nisi corpus?’ and again ‘quis negabit deum esse corpus? Etsi deus spiritus, spiritus etiam corpus est, sui generis, in sua effigie.’ St. Justin Martyr ‘to theion phamen einai asomaton, ouk hoti asomaton, --epeide de to me krateisthai hupo tinos, tou krateisthai timioteron esti, dia touto kaloumen auton asomaton.’ And St. Macarius, speaking of angels says ‘quamvis enim subtilia sint, tamen in substantia, forma et figura, secundum tenuitatem naturae eorum, corpora sunt tenuia.’ And St. Austin, St. Basil, Lactantius, Tatian, Athenagoras and others, with whose writings I pretend not a familiarity, are said by those who are, to deliver the same doctrine. Turn to your Ocellus d’Argens 97.105. and to his Timaeus 17. for these quotations. In England these Immaterialists might have been burnt until the 29. Car. 2. when the writ de haeretico comburendo was abolished: and here until the revolution, that statute not having extended to us. All heresies being now done away with us, these schismatists are merely atheists, differing from the material Atheist only in their belief that ‘nothing made something,’ and from the material deist who believes that matter alone can operate on matter.
Rejecting all organs of information but my senses, I rid myself of the Pyrrhonisms with which an indulgence in speculations hyperphysical and antiphysical so uselessly occupy and disquiet the mind. A single sense may indeed by sometimes deceived, but rarely: and never all our senses together, with their faculty of reasoning. They evidence realities; and there are enough of these for all the purposes of life, without plunging into the fathomless abyss of dreams and phantoms. I am satisfied, and sufficiently occupied with the things which are, without tormenting or troubling myself about those which may indeed be, but of which I have no evidence.” –letter to Adams, 15 August 1820, his italics

I could go on; but that’s a lot of typing already. You should read this for yourself. Suffice to say: Jefferson (and Adams and other Founders) was buried deep in a wide variety of non-Christian philosophies, and our country was founded with a complex of many, not just “Judaism/Christian” principles.

Theocrat
03-16-2008, 07:18 PM
Let's take from Jefferson an example of his open mindedness regarding rational thought (empiricism) and religious morality:

"The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. 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. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors."
-letter to Adams, 11 April 1823

"But enough of criticism: let me turn to your puzzling letter of May 12. on matter, spirit, motion etc. It's croud of scepticisms kept me from sleep. I read it, and laid it down: read it, and laid it down, again and again: and to give rest to my mind, I was obliged to recur ultimately to my habitual anodyne, 'I feel: therefore I exist.' I feel bodies which are not myself: there are other existences then. I call them matter. I feel them changing place. This gives me motion. Where there is an absence of matter, I call it void, or nothing, or immaterial space. On the basis of sensation, of matter and motion, we may erect the fabric of all the certainties we can have or need. I can conceive thought to be an action of a particular organisation of matter, formed for that purpose by it's creator, as well as that attraction in an action of matter, or magnetism of loadstone. When he who denies to the Creator the power of endowing matter with the mode of action called thinking shall shew how he could endow the Sun with the mode of action called attraction, which reins the planets in the tract of their orbits, or how an absence of matter can have a will, and, by that will, putt matter into motion, then the materialist may be lawfully required to explain the process by which matter exercises the faculty of thinking. When once we quit the basis of sensation, all is in the wind. To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But a heresy it certainly is. Jesus taught nothing of it. He told us indeed that ‘God is a spirit,’ but he has not defined what a spirit is, nor said that it is not matter. And the antient fathers generally, if not universally, held it to be matter: light and thin indeed, an etherial gas; but still matter. Origin says ‘Deus reapse corporalis est; sed graviorum tantum corporum ratione, incorporeus.’ Tertullian ‘quid enim deus nisi corpus?’ and again ‘quis negabit deum esse corpus? Etsi deus spiritus, spiritus etiam corpus est, sui generis, in sua effigie.’ St. Justin Martyr ‘to theion phamen einai asomaton, ouk hoti asomaton, --epeide de to me krateisthai hupo tinos, tou krateisthai timioteron esti, dia touto kaloumen auton asomaton.’ And St. Macarius, speaking of angels says ‘quamvis enim subtilia sint, tamen in substantia, forma et figura, secundum tenuitatem naturae eorum, corpora sunt tenuia.’ And St. Austin, St. Basil, Lactantius, Tatian, Athenagoras and others, with whose writings I pretend not a familiarity, are said by those who are, to deliver the same doctrine. Turn to your Ocellus d’Argens 97.105. and to his Timaeus 17. for these quotations. In England these Immaterialists might have been burnt until the 29. Car. 2. when the writ de haeretico comburendo was abolished: and here until the revolution, that statute not having extended to us. All heresies being now done away with us, these schismatists are merely atheists, differing from the material Atheist only in their belief that ‘nothing made something,’ and from the material deist who believes that matter alone can operate on matter.
Rejecting all organs of information but my senses, I rid myself of the Pyrrhonisms with which an indulgence in speculations hyperphysical and antiphysical so uselessly occupy and disquiet the mind. A single sense may indeed by sometimes deceived, but rarely: and never all our senses together, with their faculty of reasoning. They evidence realities; and there are enough of these for all the purposes of life, without plunging into the fathomless abyss of dreams and phantoms. I am satisfied, and sufficiently occupied with the things which are, without tormenting or troubling myself about those which may indeed be, but of which I have no evidence.” –letter to Adams, 15 August 1820, his italics

I could go on; but that’s a lot of typing already. You should read this for yourself. Suffice to say: Jefferson (and Adams and other Founders) was buried deep in a wide variety of non-Christian philosophies, and our country was founded with a complex of many, not just “Judaism/Christian” principles.

This is just autobiography. It proves nothing about how Thomas Jefferson inculcated secular humanism into any part of early American jurisprudence. Besides, you don't even have the full text of the letters, so I don't even know if you're quoting Jefferson in proper context. Where is the rest of his letter to John Adams? Do try harder, sophocles07.

sophocles07
03-16-2008, 07:37 PM
This is just autobiography. It proves nothing about how Thomas Jefferson inculcated secular humanism into any part of early American jurisprudence. Besides, you don't even have the full text of the letters, so I don't even know if you're quoting Jefferson in proper context. Where is the rest of his letter to John Adams? Do try harder, sophocles07.

I just typed out the relevant part of a very long letter. I gave the source of the letter...so you could go read the whole thing if you wanted. You might also want to read 9 April 1803 to Dr. Joseph Priestley (from Jefferson), and 21 April 1803 to Dr. Benjamin Rush (from Jefferson). Both deal directly with Jesus and morality. Are you really calling for me to type out 5 pages of small printed letters instead of you doing your own work and picking up said book? (I’m typing this from a copy of the Works of Jefferson, not copying from the internet, so I didn’t purposely omit the letter; I would have linked you had I a link.) I’m not sure what you mean by “just autobiography”...Take a look at Query XVII from Jefferson’s “Notes on the State of Virginia” subtitled “The different religions received into that state?”—the topic being Religious Freedom. I’m not exactly sure what you’re wanting here; it is clear that the thought of the Founders, and particularly Jefferson, determined the way in which the laws and rights were set up in the nation, including prominently, as Jefferson puts it, their take on “religious slavery” to which point he states: “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” (Query XVII).

By the way, I love how you chide me for not “trying hard” enough when you have evidently not even attempted to read the writings of the Founders (or those which do not appear on Christian websites). I admit both Christian and secular/pagan/other sources of the country; you apparently do not; you claim it all for your own narrow sect...which is blatantly not the case.

WarDog
03-16-2008, 08:05 PM
Age of Reason
THOMAS PAINE

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/index.htm

familydog
03-16-2008, 08:33 PM
First and foremost, I'm not a racist, which you seem to be implying. I'm just simply stating that many of the Christians in this thread persist on calling America a Christian nation, which it is absolutely not. The one reason why I love this country is for the fact that it was founded neutrally, with peace and liberty and mind. And is just so happens that a large majority. if not all of the people who are doing this are Evangelical Christians. And I'm not trying to "re-write the constitution." There's nothing in the damn thing which says we're affiliated with any religion. We were founded neutrally in terms of religious beliefs, and saying that just because our society believes murder and rape are wrong that we're automatically a Christian nation is hypocrisy and you know it. Christianity did not have any affect on this nations founding. The only thing that did was the pursuit of freedom, liberty and happiness. If our founders had Christianity in mind, they would have at least had some references to Christianity or the bible in our constitution. And there is none. If there is, please point it out to me, because there quite simply is no refference.

Better yet, here. The founders were pretty intelligent men, right? We can agree on that, right? Good. The founders knew well enough what they wanted, which was freedom. Agreed? Good. So if the founders were intelligent, and wanted freedom, then they would have been intelligent enough to make some sort of refference to Christianity if their intent was to found it upon Christian principles. Christianity, Jesus, or anything of the like is not mentioned. As such, we're not a Christian nation, and were not founded upon Christian principles, but rather commonly held principles which did not belong to any religion.

First of all, I didn't call you or anyone racist. Nor did I imply anyone being racist. I didn't even mention the word race or make reference to race anywhere so I have no idea what you're talking about there.

Second of all, you seem to be confusing a Christian nation with a Christian state. Read Ernest Renan's lecture "What is a nation?" and you still see what I mean when I say this is a Christian nation.
http://www.tamilnation.org/selfdetermination/nation/renan.htm
If you can find a better explanation of a nation, and explain why this is not a Christian nation based on that explanation, I'd like to hear it. I'm open to other interpretations.

Third, you don't even address any of the points I made earlier on why I think we were founded on Christian principles, among other non religious principles. Do you want me to type it all over again? Or should I copy and paste, the ball is in your court.

Kade
03-16-2008, 08:47 PM
This is just autobiography. It proves nothing about how Thomas Jefferson inculcated secular humanism into any part of early American jurisprudence. Besides, you don't even have the full text of the letters, so I don't even know if you're quoting Jefferson in proper context. Where is the rest of his letter to John Adams? Do try harder, sophocles07.


http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_adams.html

ronpaulhawaii
03-16-2008, 09:13 PM
I would disagree because the OP blindly states that the influence is Christian in nature and assumes that the founders did not find the same information elswhere. I took courses in the History of education and during the 1700s it was common practice for all students to read the writings of Plato. For the OP to make a point that it was the bible and ignore the other possible influences is typical christian arrogance. Silly, I think not.

This is why I keep using the Atlantean reference. One could go in circles for the rest of time and still not prove anything one way or the other with some of the arguments I am seeing presented. The fact remains that the christian bible is the most quoted source in the writings of the FF, by a large margin.


Surprisingly, the researchers discovered that the founders quoted directly out of the bible 4 times more than they quoted Montesquieu, 4 times more often than they quoted Blackstone, and 12 times more often than they quoted John Locke. Thirty four percent of the Founders’ quotes came directly out of the bible.


The OP did not state that the bible was the only source. She is arguing that the country was founded on judeo-christian principals, primarily ; that the christian bible played a large part in the philosophical musings of the FFs. That is a no brainer to me and I am amazed at the lengths people seem to go to deny the obvious. Since we emerged from the dark ages, the bible has been the primary influence in the western world, including the colonists and FFs. While there were certainly other philosophies that would have influenced any serious thinker of the time, the counter arguments presented here have done nothing to address the overwhemling evidence backing up the OPs premise. IMO

IcyPeaceMaker
03-17-2008, 06:15 AM
The Christians in the early Colonies saw firsthand the attempts of King George (a government) to dictate religion and it backfired in the face of King George.

I have had to address that matter many times and it is a subject that I am well versed on and well read.

Most Americans do not know what actually started the Revolutionary War. Due to how they teach history in our schools as History Lite, most think it has something to do with a Boston Tea Party but that was miniscule compared to what lit the fire of freedom in our Nation.

Between the years 1700 to 1776 people moved to the Colonies from all over Europe to escape religious persecution at the hands of the European monarchies that fashioned themselves gods or God's spokesman on Earth. There were Mennonites and Amish from Germany and Switzerland, Heugonots from France, Presbyterians and Episcopalians from England that separated from the Church of England, etc. There were many Scottish people who differed with the Church of England and came to America as there were Irish for the same basic reasons. Many Lutherans left Germany due to growing clashes and wars between Catholicism and Lutheranism.

Most Americans do not realize that there was no unified Germany prior to 1871. Prior to that time it was an endless clash between Prussia and the German states and even the Hapsburgs of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Many got tired of the wars and left, including my great grandfather when yet another Prussian * German war loomed on the horizon.

Before becoming an Ecumenical Christian, I started off in life as a Lutheran.

The Puritans derived their name because they wanted to purify the Anglican Church of England as being corrupted by the royals of England. The Quakers has huge clashes with the Church of England prompting them to move to the Colonies to seek religious freedom.

King George, much like our George Bush, was an arrogant man who was quite out of touch with his subjects, especially those in the American Colonies.

He took it upon himself to issue a string of edicts as his self-proclaimed role as God's spokesman of the British Empire and those edicts were Church of England directives to the Colonists. The Colonists were ordered that the only religion they could practice was the Anglican doctrine of the Church of England as proscribed by King George.

His pronouncements were a non-event in the Colonies and that hacked off King George. He had a George Bush temper tantrum. For over 70 years of religious independence and a growing revivalism of Christianity on our shores, that spark started a forest fire that propelled Americans to complete independence.

They must not have had polls or demographics between the years of 1700 to 1776 because what happened over time was there were many people in the Colonies that had escaped other kings and tyrants, had never been a subject of the British Crown and when King George uttered his pronouncements they could not care less what he thought or had to say. They were not going to let King George (the government) infringe on their right of religious freedom.

The mood of America between 1700 to 1776 steadily grew into the hearts and minds of the Colonists that the values of the British monarchs had nothing to do with the values of those who came to America. If that strikes a chord in you as being relevant to the current times and debacles we find America in that is a good thing.

They had never been subjects of British royalty, had never answered to them and had no intentions of doing so while living in the Colonies.

They called the movement, period, phenomenon The Great Awakening and it was a period of time when religious persecution had driven millions from Europe to the Colonies. Millions were tortured and killed in Europe for having independent minds on religious matters. Once here, they intended to never be subjugated by religious tyranny ever again. Once these people were in America, they focused on religion and freedom in ways many of them had never known and that included building their churches and revivalism of Christianity.

In short, it was the Christians that drew the line in the sand that caused the formation of the United States of America and the primary issue was religious freedom.

Theocrat
03-17-2008, 10:01 AM
I just typed out the relevant part of a very long letter. I gave the source of the letter...so you could go read the whole thing if you wanted. You might also want to read 9 April 1803 to Dr. Joseph Priestley (from Jefferson), and 21 April 1803 to Dr. Benjamin Rush (from Jefferson). Both deal directly with Jesus and morality. Are you really calling for me to type out 5 pages of small printed letters instead of you doing your own work and picking up said book? (I’m typing this from a copy of the Works of Jefferson, not copying from the internet, so I didn’t purposely omit the letter; I would have linked you had I a link.) I’m not sure what you mean by “just autobiography”...Take a look at Query XVII from Jefferson’s “Notes on the State of Virginia” subtitled “The different religions received into that state?”—the topic being Religious Freedom. I’m not exactly sure what you’re wanting here; it is clear that the thought of the Founders, and particularly Jefferson, determined the way in which the laws and rights were set up in the nation, including prominently, as Jefferson puts it, their take on “religious slavery” to which point he states: “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” (Query XVII).

By the way, I love how you chide me for not “trying hard” enough when you have evidently not even attempted to read the writings of the Founders (or those which do not appear on Christian websites). I admit both Christian and secular/pagan/other sources of the country; you apparently do not; you claim it all for your own narrow sect...which is blatantly not the case.

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

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


DEAR SIR,

In some of the delightful conversations with you in the evenings of 1798-99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you that one day or other I would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other. At the short interval since these conversations, when I could justifiably abstract my mind from public affairs, the subject has been under my contemplation. But the more I considered it, the more it expanded beyond the measure of either my time or information. In the moment of my late departure from Monticello, I received from Dr. Priestley his little treatise of "Socrates and Jesus Compared." This being a section of the general view I had taken of the field, it became a subject of reflection while on the road and unoccupied otherwise. The result was, to arrange in my mind a syllabus or outline of such an estimate of the comparative merits of Christianity as I wished to see executed by someone of more leisure and information for the task than myself. This I now send you as the only discharge of my promise I can probably ever execute. And in confiding it to you, I know it will not be exposed to the malignant perversions of those who make every word from me a text for new misrepresentations and calumnies. I am moreover averse to the communication of my religious tenets to the public, because it would countenance the presumption of those who have endeavored to draw them before that tribunal, and to seduce public opinion to erect itself into that inquisition over the rights of conscience which the laws have so justly proscribed. It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own. It behooves him, too, in his own case, to give no example of concession, betraying the common right of independent opinion, by answering questions of faith which the laws have left between God and himself. Accept my affectionate salutations.

Th: Jefferson (emphasis mine)

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

Kade
03-17-2008, 11:45 AM
I've read the letters you've mentioned, and I still find nothing in them which would give conclusive evidence that Thomas Jefferson was a secular humanist. His main issue with the Christian Church of his time was basically his disagreements with the nature of the spiritual realm and miracles. Agreeably, Jefferson was a materialist. These beliefs of his put him outside the teachings of mainstream Christendom of America, but nonetheless, Jefferson was no fool. He still believed in a God that was active in the creation of the world, unlike the god of the deists. Just read his Declaration of Independence (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/declare.htm), and you'll see this. Jefferson also drafted his own version of the Bible, and he even considered himself a Christian, not a secular humanist.

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

(emphasis mine)

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

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

Theocrat
03-17-2008, 01:13 PM
Cool, are you saying you can be a Christian and not believe in the divinity of Christ?

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

Kade
03-17-2008, 01:35 PM
No, you cannot be a Christian while denying both the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ. Thomas Jefferson was deceived and confused in thinking he was a Christian by his denial of Christ's divinity, all the while stealing religious and moral precepts from Christ's teachings by means of the Bible. My point is that Jefferson himself never claimed to be a secular humanist in any of his writings, which is what many on this forum thread would have us all believe.

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

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

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

I'll have good company in your hell.

familydog
03-17-2008, 04:08 PM
I never said he was a humanist. Although some of humanism ideals come from Jefferson's writing.

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

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

I'll have good company in your hell.

So what?

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

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

Kade
03-17-2008, 04:18 PM
So what?

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

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

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

sophocles07
03-17-2008, 04:25 PM
I've read the letters you've mentioned, and I still find nothing in them which would give conclusive evidence that Thomas Jefferson was a secular humanist. His main issue with the Christian Church of his time was basically his disagreements with the nature of the spiritual realm and miracles. Agreeably, Jefferson was a materialist. These beliefs of his put him outside the teachings of mainstream Christendom of America, but nonetheless, Jefferson was no fool. He still believed in a God that was active in the creation of the world, unlike the god of the deists. Just read his Declaration of Independence, and you'll see this. Jefferson also drafted his own version of the Bible, and he even considered himself a Christian, not a secular humanist.

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

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


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

I just recommended you read this letter.


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

familydog
03-17-2008, 06:32 PM
In the last 200 years, name five significant achievements by Christians.

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

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

Theocrat
03-17-2008, 06:44 PM
Jefferson was not a Christian in any recognizable terms, as I’ve said. He parsed it down to essential ethics, and did not believe in any of the tenets put forth by orthodoxy, or even near-orthodoxy. By the standards of the Nicene Creed, he would have been considered a heretic. His views on the godhead were not anywhere near the immaterial, Platonist version offered up by Christianity—including yourself.

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System. I could therefore safely say, consistently with all my then and present Information, that I believed they would never make Discoveries in contradiction to these general Principles. In favour of these general Principles in Phylosophy, Religion and Government, I could fill Sheets of quotations from Frederick of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Reausseau and Voltaire, as well as Neuton and Locke: not to mention thousands of Divines and Philosophers of inferiour Fame. (Source: The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams, edited by Lester J. Cappon,
1988, the University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC, pp. 338-340.)

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


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

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

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


Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?

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


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

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


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

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

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

sophocles07
03-17-2008, 07:38 PM
With the exception of your suggestion about a Platonic influence of immaterialism upon the Christian understanding of the Godhead in the Nicene Creed, I would have to say that I agree with you about Jefferson not being a Christian.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?

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


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

(emphasis mine)

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

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

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


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

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


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

Not true. I am not neutral.


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

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


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

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


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

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

adara7537
03-17-2008, 07:50 PM
I am sooooo sick of this argument, if the damn founding fathers wanted this to be a Christian nation they would have designed it as such.

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

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

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

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

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