Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Christianity and the founding

0 views

Skip to first unread message

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Mar 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/14/99

>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|
>:|>> Gard...@pitnet.net wrote:
>:|>>
>:|>>I do appreciate the time and effort you put into your refutation. I think
>:|>>you and I have a lot in common. I look forward to an ongoing dialogue.
>:|
>:|>I have no idea on what you are basing your comment that we have a lot in
>:|>common. Interest in history perhaps, but beyond that I suspect we probably
>:|>don't have much in common.
>:|
>:|I am basing my comment on the fact that I believe you are a person of
>:|integrity and goodwill, and the fact that you are fair and interested in
>:|historical truths. I wish that you might believe that I, too, am such a
>:|person. I may indeed be won over to your position. I don't see the necessity
>:|of denying one another the courtesy of respect. I trust that you will at least
>:|admit that was one thing the founders championed...the right of liberty of
>:|conscience, the acknowledgement that men of goodwill who disagree still retain
>:|their dignity as persons created with inalienable rights. Please give me a chance.
>:|
>:|>>>>1) Neither Jefferson nor Paine were part of the assembly of founders
>:|>>>>who wrote the U.S. Constitution in 1787.
>:|>>>
>:|>>> This is true, So, what is your point?
>:|>>
>:|>>My point is only that which you stated later in your response; this is what
>:|>>you said: "Quote the framers, and not just famous early Americans: If you want
>:|>>to prove something about what the framers of the constitution believed, you
>:|>>have to quote the framers themselves, and not just famous Americans that lived
>:|>>around the turn of the 19th century." My point is that Jefferson and Paine fit
>:|>>into the category of "famous Americans" rather than framers. You and I
>:|>>apparently see eye to eye on the wrongness of using them.
>:|
>:|>No, we don't see eye to eye on that at all. Couple points here. I posted
>:|>what you quoted from above in regards to a list of men you had included in
>:|>your original post.
>:|
>:|> YOU SAID:
>:|>
>:|> 3) The following "key founders" were strongly Christian, and by
>:|>that, I mean traditional orthodox believers in the trinity:
>:|>
>:|> Patrick Henry (give me liberty)
>:|> Samuel Adams (boston tea party)
>:|> Roger Sherman (member of the Dec of Ind committee)
>:|> James Otis (taxation w/o rep)
>:|> James Madison (father of the constitution)
>:|> John Hancock (first signer of the Dec.)
>:|> William Churchill Houston (secretary of the 2nd cont cong)
>:|> George Wythe (Jefferson's Mentor)
>:|> John Witherspoon
>:|> Charles Pinckney
>:|>
>:|> It was in response to this list of yours that I posted the quoting
>:|> information. Probably half of the men on the list above did not play a
>:|> role or a role of any importance in framing the Constitution, BOR's etc.
>:|
>:|That does not mean that they were not founders. Jim,

You are spending so much time on these silly word games. I wonder why?

What role as "founders" of the U S A did Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams,
John Hancock, William Houston, George Wythe, John Witherspoon play?

> you so often speak from
>:|both sides of your mouth.

After saying I was a person or integrity and goodwill. How interesting.

>I am totally in agreement with you. Those who were
>:|not at the constitutional convention should not be used as "framers."

I doubt that we agree on much of anything.

Here I will make it real easy for you

This is how I use the various words:

Framer = someone who we can document as having taken an active role in the
debates that produced the wording that constitutes the wording of the
unamended constitution of 1787 and/or the debates that produced the wording
of the ten (now eleven) amendments that were ratified by the several states
and added to the Constitution on Dec 15, 1791

Founder = These men who played a role in the ratification of the unamended
constitution via the ratifying conventions of the several states, and or
played a major role via writings, speeches, etc in the same. In addition,
the same role for those who played a role in the ratification of the
amendments in 1789-1791.

In addition those men who sat in Congress, on the Supreme Court, Presidents
and cabinet members for the first few formative sessions of actually
applying the words of that grand document to actual real life situations.

How far one wants to go how many Presidents, how many cabinets, how many
sessions of Congress, How many sessions of the Supreme court can be argued
till the cows come home, but as least some of the first of each qualify.

>That
>:|rule seems to only apply to my list, however. You seem to insist upon arguing
>:|that Paine and Jefferson belong in the list of "framers."

Would you kindly quote where I said either Paine or Jefferson belonged to
any list of framers. Produce my words that say that or move on from this
silly word game.

(BTW, just for fun, I think that enough evidence can be presented via
letters written by Jefferson to Madison prior to Madison presenting his
proposed amendments to Congress to say that Jefferson might very well have
played a role in formulating the wording of the what is now the second
Amendment. Jefferson did play a role in helping to change Madison's mind
about amendments, and suggested some amendments. but I don't want to
confuse the issue.

I don't have a problem with Jefferson's role in history or Paine's either
for that matter.

>Notice that I headed
>:|the list above with the word "founders" not "framers." I am perplexed by your
>:|unwillingness to concede the fact that you only want to apply your rule where
>:|and when you want to apply it. Jefferson was not a framer. He was a founder,
>:|though.

Notice that this is your issue, not my issue. This is the third post that
you have devoted a large percentage of time space and effort talking about
Jefferson and to some degree Paine.

Again where are my words saying what you are saying I said?

>:|The men above mostly fit in that same category. Now look at how you
>:|defend Paine as a founder--
>:|
>:|> Most historians consider Paine having played an important role in the
>:|> struggle for independence [he even had a minor position in the government
>:|> briefly] but to me Paine is not a major subject of this discussion.
>:|
>:|Now let's examine my list in the same way. Jefferson said that Patrick Henry
>:|was the force which impelled Virginians to join the New Englanders in the
>:|Revolution, without which there would have been no united states. Thomas
>:|Jefferson wrote that Sam Adams was "the fountainhead" in the struggle for
>:|independence. Roger Sherman joined Adams, Franklin, RH Lee, and Jefferson on
>:|the committee to draft the Declaration. Otis was the voice which sparked the
>:|Stamp Act crisis, without which there would have been no Lexington & Concord,
>:|2nd Continental Cong., etc. Madison needs no argument. George III considered
>:|Hancock and Sam Adams the two who single-handedly incited the rebellion. I
>:|trust that you acknowledge the importance of the 2nd Continental Congress, and
>:|by implication, it's officers. Wythe's importance was heralded, again, by
>:|Thomas Jefferson, who would never cease to credit Wythe with being the most
>:|significant influence upon his political development. Witherspoon's role at
>:|Princeton and at the Second Continental Congress is hard to overestimate. His
>:|speech just prior to the vote upon the Declaration has been acknowledged by
>:|several founders to have been pivotal. His mentoring of Madison has been shown
>:|to be crucial in the formation of the constitution. Pickney was a framer.
>:|

The above is wonderful and seems to be very crucial to your whole case. The
problem is, all that pertained to the time period prior to 1787 and the
Constitutional convention.

One more time:

I will produce the normal accepted guidelines for such things as a thesis
or a dissertation etc. These were written by Dr. Tom Peters, as associate
professor at the University of Louisville, for his web page. *Separation of
Church and State Home Page*

It was written to primarily address the use of quotes and quotations, but
much of it applies to this as well.

**********************************************************************************

As students of the separation debate quickly discover, the
"quotation war" between accomodationists and separationists tends to
produce a lot more heat than light. There are at least two reasons for
this. First, most quotations are ripped out of the context of the documents
from which they are quoted, which leads to misinterpretation and
misrepresentation. Second, it's easy to read too much into a quotation,
especially if the quotation does not directly address the claim one is
attempting to prove. The best historical studies on church/state separation
take these issues into account when drawing conclusions from quotations; we
hope we have done the same in this webpage.

Having said this, we want to argue that there are some systematic problems
with way many accomodationists use quotations. In particular, we believe
that many of their quotations are not sufficient to establish their primary
claim that the framers intended the Constitution to favor either
Christianity or theism, or provide aid to religion. In what
follows, we present some guidelines accomodationists should follow if they
want to successfully use quotations to prove their points.

Quote the framers, and not just famous early Americans:
If you want to prove something about what the framers of the constitution
believed, you have to quote the framers themselves, and not just famous
Americans that lived around the turn of the 19th century. Many
accomodationists, for example, are fond of quoting the famous lawyer and
statesman Daniel Webster, who was a staunch proponent of Christian
influence in government, but Webster played no role whatsoever in the
formation of the Constitution (he did not even begin to
practice law until 1805, 14 years after the ratification of the Bill of
Rights). Webster's opinions may have been well-articulated, but they are
not the same as the views of the framers.

Quote supporters of the Constitution, not detractors:
If you want to find out how the Constitution was understood in 1787, quote
people that supported the Constitution, and not those who thought the
Constitution was evil. Patrick Henry, for example, made a number of
statements suggesting that our nation was founded on belief in God, and
that it was important to acknowledge God in civic affairs, but Henry lost
the battle to put religion in the Constitution. More to the point, Henry
was an anti-federalist, and vigorously opposed the Constitution when
Virginia discussed ratification. [In addition, Henry very much favored
establishments of religion, he butted heads with James Madison on this
issue and LOST] Quoting Henry to prove things about the constitution is
like quoting the chairman of the Republican National Committee to prove
things about the platform of the Democratic party.

Recognize that being sympathetic to religion is not the
same as being sympathetic to accomodationism: While many of the framers
were devoutly religious men, not all devoutly religious men were
accomodationists. It is not sufficient to quote a framer saying that
religion is good, or even that religion is important to government; one can
believe these things and at the same time believe that the government has
no business supporting religion. Jefferson, for example, believed that a
generalized belief in a future state of rewards and punishments was
important to maintain public morality, but he was staunchly opposed to
government support of religion. If the sum of your case in favor of
accomodationism is that the framers were religious people, you have no case
in favor of accomodationism.

States are not federal government: Accomodationists are
fond of quoting state constitutions, state laws, and state practices in
their efforts to support their claims about the federal government. But the
First Amendment originally limited only Congress, not the states. State
practices, in other words, tell us nothing about what is legal for the
federal government. Jefferson, for example, made official declarations of
days of prayer as Governor of Virginia, but refused to do the same as
President on the grounds that the First Amendment limited him in ways that
the Virginia State Constitution did not.

Make sure you have the right time frame: Between 1781
and 1789 the United States operated under the Articles of Confederation,
which contained no provisions for religious liberty. During this time
Congress acted in a variety of ways that might well have violated the First
Amendment. But since the First Amendment was not ratified until 1791, these
actions cannot be used to prove anything about that Amendment, or about the
meaning of the Constitution, which was ratified in 1788 (the first Congress
did not convene under the Constitution until 1789).

So what would a good accomodationist quote look like? Simply
put, it would be an authentic quote from someone who was a framer of the
Constitution, or someone who was qualified to express a learned opinion
about the Constitution, that directly addresses the issue of federal power
over religion under the Constitution and the First Amendment.

We think it's interesting that there are plenty of good
quotations on the separationist side of this issue. Many framers were
adamant that (in the words of Richard Dobbs Spaight of North Carolina),
"(n)o power is given to the general government to interfere with it
[religion] at all. Any act of Congress on this subject would be an
usurpation."
Conversely, there is almost nothing that meet our standards
on the accomodationist side. We think this discrepancy is both significant
and telling.
TOM PETERS, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
*******************************************************************************

>:|The men on my list were not just "famous men." They were founders. That is the
>:|received view. Arguing otherwise simply exposes an apparent desire to distort
>:|and manipulate facts to suit your agenda.
>:|

You can stretch things all over the place. you can travel back as far as
you want, and start claiming people were founders as far back as you care
to travel, and you can go forward the same way.

My use of the word framers and founders pertain to the actual creation of
this country under its present system of government.

There was all sorts of events that took place prior to 1774, and then there
was the events of 1774-1776, and the events of 1776-1783, and the events of
1783 to 1787.

Did they found this country, oh yes there was a connection. Every event has
a formula that leads to it, alter any event and you alter all after it.

Problem is, many of those on your list and many of those you mention played
major roles in events prior to the actual direct founding of this nation
under its present system.
The Patrick Henrys and John Hancocks played their major roles on the stage
of 1774 to 1783 or so, and far less or no roles at all in the events of the
summer of 1787 and beyond on the national scene.

Some of those still remained and played important roles in their respective
states, but little on the national level.

>:|> Jefferson, however, is a totally different matter. Jefferson qualifies as a
>:|> bona fide founder, not just a famous person. Being out of the country from
>:|> approx 1784 to 1789, he did not play as large a hands on role as others,
>:|> such as Madison did. (and as I pointed out to you in my replies, Madison
>:|> does not qualify as a member of your "strongly Christian" list) but he
>:|> played a role via letters. Patrick Henry incorrectly used him in an attempt
>:|> to defeat the ratification of the Constitution. He also played a important
>:|> role in changing Madison's mind about amendments.
>:|
>:|I totally agree that Jefferson was a founder. All I ever argued from the get
>:|go is that he was not one of the framers of the constitution. I stand by that.
>:|Jefferson stood by that!

And I agreed with that long ago, so what is the point.

>:|
>:|> His thoughts about religion and government, government in general, etc
>:|> worked their way into things via Madison. Madison and Jefferson exchanged
>:|> letters frequently and often and both shared much the same thoughts on
>:|> those matters.
>:|>
>:|> So, I find your use of Paine as unimportant, and your use of Jefferson
>:|> incorrect.
>:|
>:|I am not the one who has been "using" Paine or Jefferson. My main thrust has
>:|been to delineate the prevalency of orthodox Christianity during the founding.
>:|I am acknowledging that Paine and Jefferson were not orthodox.
>:|

Hey I take my thrust from you.

This was your first post on this subject:

>:| Six facts, I hope you will have the integrity to admit are indisputable:
>:|
>:| 1) Neither Jefferson nor Paine were part of the assembly of founders
>:|who wrote the U.S. Constitution in 1787.

>:|
>:| 2) Paine was a first generation immigrant to the U.S. at the behest of
>:|Benjamin Franklin, and although his book, COMMON SENSE, was a best seller as a
>:|political tract, his views on religion led him to be labelled an infidel by
>:|the majority of the key founders. As an immigrant it is not fair to say that
>:|Paine's perspective was the product of six generations of life in the American
>:|Colonies.

It must have been important to you to cast these two people into some sort
of lessened role or importance. You seem to dance around a lot, you point
out that neither of the above were present in Philly but so what, half or
more of your list of men weren't either.

we keep bouncing from the 1770's and before to late 1780's. which time
period are we going to work at. The period of independence or the period of
founding this nation under its present system?

Let me put it in real simple terms. Those that "founded" that very loose
confederation of independent states that existed from 1775-76 to 1788 did
not produce a real nation, and what they produced didn't last. Now, some of
those men and other newcomers did come together in 1787 did found a nation
that has lasted for over 200 years now. I consider the framers and
"founders" to be primarily those people.

>:|> >> > 2) Paine was a first generation immigrant to the U.S. at the behest of
>:|> >> > Benjamin Franklin, and although his book, COMMON SENSE, was a best seller as a
>:|> >> > political tract, his views on religion led him to be labelled an infidel by
>:|> >> > the majority of the key founders. As an immigrant it is not fair to say that
>:|> >> > Paine's perspective was the product of six generations of life in the American
>:|> >> > Colonies.
>:|> >
>:|> >> This is irrelevant
>:|> >
>:|> >This point is most relevant. The thesis of the book I am promoting is that
>:|> >Christianity provided the socio-political and socio-cultural milieu from which
>:|> >the nation was birthed (see http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html). If it is
>:|> >true that Paine's religious perspective was a minority opinion, than the
>:|> >thesis of the book is not impuned by the popularity of Paine or Common Sense.

This is talking about James Madison:

MADISON'S MOTHER, STILL ALIVE AT MONTPELIER during these adventures
of her son, and for many years thereafter, was a devout Anglican. Madison
himself acknowledged all his life, in extravagant terms, his debt to the
Anglican clergymen who were his most important tutors. Madison had gone to
college, as we have seen, to the institution founded by the New Side
Presbyterians primarily to train pastors, of which college Jonathan Edwards
had been very briefly president, and whose president when Madison went
there, as we have seen, was the formidable Scotch Presbyterian pastor and
teacher the Reverend John Witherspoon, "the good Doctor," as Madison and
his friend Billey Bradford called him. Madison stayed on after graduation
for some months of study with Witherspoon; his studies included "divinity."
He had many friends from his Princeton days who were Presbyterian pastors;
he himself briefly entertained the idea of going into "Divinity" himself,
or at least commented on the worthiness of those who do, in his
correspondence with Billey Bradford. He acquired, from the learned clergy
who were his teachers, a sufficient knowledge of the church fathers and the
Christian intellectual tradition to be able in his retirement to make a
competent list of books on those subjects for the University of Virginia
library. A historian editing the Madison Papers called him (by perhaps a
not very exacting standard) "probably America's most theologically
knowledgeable president." He had been baptized in the Church of England; he
and Dolly were married (to the consternation of her Quaker relatives) by an
Episcopal priest in an Episcopalian ceremony; he was buried, this Father of
our American Constitution, in 1836, according to the Book of Common Prayer.
We may add that during his political career he became a particular hero to
the Baptists and other Dissenters in the Virginia fight over religious
liberty But, for all that, it is a little hard to say just what his mature
religious views were.
One can certainly say that in his maturity politics and government,
rather than religion proper, became his primary interest. And that the
"religious" issue that stirred him most deeply was that of freedom--of
religious liberty, freedom of conscience.
He did not write sentences like those of his friend Jefferson,
exclaiming against the irrationality of the doctrine of the Trinity or the
teachings of St. Paul. He was a product of the Enlightenment, but not of
its sharply antireligious phase; he was a product of Christian teaching,
but not of its insistent, explicit, evangelical phase. In his maturity he
rather kept his mouth shut on these issues. And the great issue he cared
most about was liberty. In this combination he was not unlike some others
of the great founders, with their different mixtures: **Benjamin Franklin,
warning Tom Paine, with whom he essentially agreed on doctrinal matters,
not to carry on so explicit an attack on orthodoxy in public;** [emphasis
added] John Adams, who despite his Puritan background and religious
interests saw his church become Unitarian and pretty much agreed with
Jefferson on doctrine in the correspondence of their old age; George
Washington, cagey enough that both popular disputants and scholars argue to
this day about his religious views; and Jefferson himself, who though more
explicit and antiorthodox than other Americans, did not go as far as his
European counterparts in the worldwide fraternity of the Enlightened.
When it came time for the framers to draw a fundamental law for the
new nation it contained mixtures and silences and freedoms and perhaps an
implied background not unlike that of James Madison and other great
founders.
In the body of the Federal Constitution, as it was hammered out by
James Madison and the others in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787, we
discover that the topic of religion is treated primarily although not quite
entirely, by negation, silence, exclusion, and inference. There is in this
Constitution, in contradiction to claims made by pious citizens of a later
time, no formal commitment to Christianity or to belief in God, or to any
religious belief whatsoever.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Business of May next James Madison & the
Founding. William Lee Miller. University Press of Virginia.(1992) p 105-06)

Note the part I emphasized.

The information I posted above doesn't totally agree with you, but the
question becomes, so what?

This nation wasn't founded on any religion or religious beliefs as such.
The framers.founders produced a secular document which formed a secular
government.

Many individuals were religious, many were not so religious, or not
religious in any orthodox way. But the nation formed was secular.

>:|
>:|> There is no evidence that he had any impact or influence on the process of
>:|> separation of church and state in this country, either on any state level
>:|> or the national level. That is why I say it is irrelevant.
>:|
>:|Right on!
>:|
>:|> >Insofar as theism v. atheism is concerned, the framers...every one, without
>:|> >exception...believed that atheism was pure foolishness.
>:|>
>:|> Not true. Absolute statements are seldom, if ever true. Now, had you said
>:|> some did, even most did, you would be far more correct. But when you said
>:|> every one, without exception, you became incorrect.
>:|>
>:|> Jefferson, I know you have dismissed him as a founder, but that doesn't
>:|> make him any less a founder, commented as follows in regards to the passage
>:|> of his Statute for Religious Freedom in Virginia:
>:|>
>:|> "The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had,
>:|> to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude
>:|> of reason and right. It still met with opposition; but, with some
>:|> mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular
>:|> proposition proved that it's protection of the opinion was meant to be
>:|> universal. Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from
>:|> the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by
>:|> inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "a departure
>:|> from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion"; the
>:|> insertion was rejected by great majority, in a proof that they meant to
>:|> comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile,
>:|> the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every
>:|> denomination."
>:|
>:|Did you read that, Jim? Jefferson nowhere includes atheists! True,
>:|non-christians were considered "infidels" which I suppose etymologically
>:|refers to those who do no believe, but in context the word infidel does not
>:|mean atheist, it means one who does not believe in Christianity. It was the
>:|observation of the founders that all people who have their reason cannot
>:|escape acknowledging a deity of one sort or another.
>:|

Oh brother.

Now we are going to play another word game.

First of all, you made an absolute statement, in fact went out of your way
to make it absolute. Because you made the statement, the burden of proof
rest with you to prove it. But you can't. It is impossible to prove.
Your credibility suffers because of that statement.

Then when offered a quote you begin to try and make this big production
over the use of the word infidel, which you readily concede means
non-believer, but you argue it is not the same as atheist.

Whoopie.

Actually infidel was a word with many meanings and could mean non-believer
in the "true Religion" [true religion usually meant the religion of the one
using the term] Christianity, Protestant Christianity, the in fallacy of
the Bible, the Bible being the word of God, Jesus being divine, God in
general future state of rewards or punishments, eternal life, etc.

Jefferson was called an infidel by some and an atheist by others.

You are nit picking to salvage something you can't prove.

>:|> Truth of the matter is, some of the founders were as biased narrow minded
>:|> as some people of today are. Facts are that Catholics Unitarians, Deists,
>:|> Jews, Quakers were viewed by many as non believers, Dissenting groups such
>:|> as the Baptist and others were viewed by some in the same manner.
>:|
>:|Again, "non-believer"="non-believer...in Christianity" not Atheist.

Here is what you said, here is what you are responsible to prove:

>:|> >Insofar as theism v. atheism is concerned, the framers...every one, without
>:|> >exception...believed that atheism was pure foolishness.

You have to prove [which is going to be totally impossible] that any and
all of those who can be shown to have participated in the framing of the
Constitution in 1787 and those who participated in the framing of the
amendments that were ratified by the several states in 1789-91 believed
that atheism was pure foolishness.

We are talking about over 100 men.

You also have to provide some sort of documentary evidence that proves that
infidel and atheist were defined totally differently. No interchanging in
usage

Ok where is your evidence?

I can think off hand of one quote that probably would somewhat agree with
you, but I don't recall anyone else agreeing with the speaker, no other
mention of it, nor do I offhand recall any other such quotes.

>:|> >Many of them, e.g., Washington, Franklin, Adams,
>:|> >(regardless of their own views) believed that religion was necessary to
>:|> >undergird public morality.
>:|>
>:|> Washington and Adams were politicians. Good political speeches, etc contain
>:|> a nugget for everyone. How strong this so called belief that religion was
>:|> so necessary for public morality is a bit hard to calculate in this day and
>:|> age.
>:|
>:|Again when you make these "they-were-just-kidding" sort of claims,

No, they were serious, it was good politics.

>you open
>:|yourself, in all fairness, to the accusation that when Jefferson criticized
>:|Calvin, etc., "he was just providing a nugget" for the "free-will" contingent
>:|in Virginia.

Nope, not quite, his rantings against Calvinists, etc., were in private
letters, not written or intended for public consumption.

>:| I won't allege that, because I believe Jefferson meant what he
>:|said; but I also believe that Washington meant what he said and was not simply
>:|hoodwinking the masses when he alleged that religion is necessary for the
>:|success of the republic.

As pointed out in the piece I posted above Washington was the grand
politician. He was so good that to this day, everyone claims him as one of
their own regarding religion.

I have run across many statements that say none of the first six President
were orthodox Christians. Well, I would say that none of the first four
were. I don't know that much about James Monroe, and I think the evidence
pretty much supports John Q Adams as being very orthodox religion wise.

I can provide you with letters written by Alexander Hamilton urging that
President Adams use religion for political purposes. Why would you think
these men were all that different from men of today?

But speaking of Washington:

OCTOBER 1789

To the Ministers and Ruling Elders delegated to represent the churches in
Massachusetts and New Hampshire, which compose the First Presbytery of the
Eastward.

The tribute of thanksgiving which you offer to the gracious Father of
lights, for his inspiration of our public councils with wisdom and firmness
to complete the national Constitution, is worthy of men who, devoted to the
pious purposes of religion, desire their accomplishment by such means as
advance the temporal happiness of mankind. And here, I am persuaded, you
will permit me to observe, that the path of true piety is so plain as to
require but little Political attention. To this consideration we ought to
ascribe the absence of any regulation respecting religion from the Magna
Charta of our country.

To the guidance of the ministers of the gospel this important object is,
perhaps, more properly committed. It will be your care to instruct tile
ignorant, to reclaim the devious; and in the progress of morality and
science, to which our government will give every furtherance, we may expect
confidently, the advancement of true religion and the completion of
happiness. I pray the munificent rewarder of every virtue, that your agency
in this good work may receive its compensation here and hereafter.
GEORGE WASHINGTON.

(Unless otherwise indicated originals or original copies of all the George
Washington letters can be found in THE PAPERS OF GEORGE WASHINGTON,
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, with the proper volume and page number following each
excerpted letter: i.e. Papers, CCCXXXIV, 80.) (Excerpt from a letter
written by G. Washington, October, 1789. GEORGE WASHINGTON & RELIGION, By
Paul F. Boller, JR. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, 1962, pp
180- 181)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok the above was a letter written by Washington in answer in part as to why
there was no mention of God, Jesus, Christianity, etc in the Constitution,
why no regulations or protections regarding religion.

Oh, how interesting.

>:|> >The fact is, WITHOUT THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS, THERE NEVER WOULD HAVE
>:|> >BEEN A BILL OF RIGHTS!! (viz., the First Amendment!)
>:|>
>:|> That may or may not be true. However, that was not the parameter of the
>:|> material from Tom Peters web page. The discussion was not centered on the
>:|> politics between the feds and anti-feds.
>:|
>:|The problem is that you want to exclude anti-federalists as founders. Their
>:|views however were extremely important to the ultimate outcome of the Nation.
>:|One cannot understand the constitutional compromises without understanding the
>:|opinions of men like Henry, S. Adams, and Jefferson, who were each leary of a
>:|Federal Government

None of the above were in Philadelphia. The men who were in Philadelphia
were protected from backlash because of the secrecy agreement.

Henry, who seems to be one of your cherished people only wanted a altered
Articles of Confederation. He wanted his state of Virginia to remain a
independent nation.

>:|
>:|> >Additionally, many of the
>:|> >compromises in the Constitution which make it such an excellent
>:|> >document were a result of attempting to concede various points to the states'
>:|> >rights proponents.
>:|>
>:|> Irrelevant to the subject of this discussion, and might very well be quite
>:|> debatable how correct your comment is.
>:|
>:|It's what every 11th grade student is taught about the organization and
>:|formation of the U.S. Constitution. Every garden variety textbook will
>:|indicate this. Are you alleging that the received view in the mainstream is
>:|awry? Are you advocating a left-field understanding of the constitution?

Organization and formation of the U S Constitution?

What are you talking about.

if you want to label those who were in Philly, I bet you would find the
majority were Federalists. Compromises were made for a variety of reasons.
I bet you would find that the so called war between the fed and anti fed or
as Gerry would later call them the rats and anti-rats began after the
Constitution was written and made public.

What does any of this have to do with your premises of these posts anyways?

>:|
>:|> In addressing that comment, a very large and powerful segment of the
>:|> anti-feds wanted to defeat ratification of the Constitution so that they
>:|> could get a second Constitutional convention called. Reason, to produce a
>:|> constitution more in line with the Articles of Confederation i.e. with a
>:|> much weaker central government.
>:|
>:|Yes. But what they got instead was the Bill of Rights....a relatively
>:|significant part of the constitution.

not at that time it wasn't

>:|
>:|> That was the point of the Patrick Henry reference. Patrick Henry would not
>:|> be a person to ask about the Constitution if you wanted an unbiased opinion
>:|> since he was anti that Constitution.
>:|
>:|But by his dissent, Patrick Henry's views were forced into the constitution in
>:|a number of ways. One cannot adequately understand the upshot of the
>:|constitution without first understanding the fed/antifed conflict. To only
>:|read federalist authors is to be entirely misleading regarding a full
>:|understanding of how the U.S. was founded.

What views did he "force" in?

The Constitution was written before Henry began to espouse his views.

What does any of this have to do with your basic premise about this country
and Christianity, anyhow?

>:|
>:|> >Furthermore, whose words ("wall of separation") are quoted most often by
>:|> >separationists as the appropriate interpretation of the first amendment??
>:|> >Answer: an ANTI-FEDERALIST and a person who was not one of the framers. I
>:|> >would gladly concede and never mention Patrick Henry again in regards to the
>:|> >constitution, if the separationists would stop using Jefferson's "separation"
>:|> >of church and state as the authoritative interpretation of the first
>:|> >amendment. Please please please begin to heed your own rhetoric.
>:|>
>:|> I'm sorry, but the above makes no sense at all.
>:|>
>:|> Who is this anti-federalist you speak of?
>:|
>:|Jefferson. By the time he became president the antifederalist party had
>:|evolved into the democratic republican party.

Anti-federalists were never a party per se.

History has attributed the first political parties as arising over the
split between Hamilton and Jefferson.

The federalist or rats (those in favor of ratifying the Constitution)
wanted a stronger central government. They included most of the major
players of the time, Madison, Jefferson,. Washington, Hamilton, etc etc.

The anti-federalits or anti-rats (those wanting to defeat ratification of
the Constitution) did not wanted a central government much stronger then
had existed under the Articles.

The Federalists and Democratic-Republican parties that did come into being
over the Hamilton Jefferson conflict did not automatically reflect the line
up of the rats anti-rats of the past.

>:|Again, I refer you to a garden
>:|variety 11th grade textbook.
>:|

Maybe you should get a new garden book

>:|> Why do you have such a hard time with Jefferson's letter to the Danbury
>:|> Baptists?
>:|
>:|I do not have a hard time with it at all. As a matter of fact, I agree with
>:|Jefferson's ultimate point contained therein. All I am saying is, in accord
>:|with your admonition not to use "non-framers" as authorities on the
>:|constitution, there is a glaring contradiction when you take Jefferson, a
>:|non-framer as the central authority on the constitution.
>:|

Just to play the devils advocate here, you are aware that the "framers" of
the Constitution [which by the way was not when the amendments were
written] did not feel that they -THE FRAMERS- were the ones to give
meanings to the Constitution. In fact they had agreed to a 35 or so year
secrecy regarding the debates etc that took place. Some framers didn't even
attend their own states ratifying conventions because they didn feel they
had a right to influence those there.

But moving on,

Oh, I see, so you are saying that nothing Jefferson ever uttered should
ever be considered because he was in France.

Hmmmmm

Well, personally I prefer Madison over Jefferson for defining such things

>:|>your list of men, many of whom were not founders.
>:|
>:|Which ones weren't founders?
>:|
>:|> Patrick Henry played a very small role in the founding of this nation. He
>:|> played a rather large role in the founding of the nation of Virginia. But
>:|> he played next to no role in the founding of the United States of America.
>:|
>:|I wish they would tell that to all the public school history teachers. I see
>:|that you indeed are interested in promoting a relatively radical revisionism.

You are a trip.

What role did Henry really play in the founding of the United States under
the present system, and please do supply valid evidence.

Did Henry attend the Constitution Convention in Philly?
NO, he was invited but refused, he said he smelled a rat.

He did attend the virginia ratifying convention and was totally demolished
by James Madison in fact to face debates

Did he ever hold any national office?

No, he was asked to but refused.

Did he take part in the debates for amendments? No,
and in fact tried to prevent the amendments from being ratified once they
were offered to the states.

So exactly what did he do? His power and influence had passed by the time
this nation was truly being founded.

>:|
>:|> >To quote you, "So, what's your point?" Is this response supposed to nullify
>:|> >that the Puritan influence was not present during the founding?
>:|>
>:|> It was of minor or no importance outside of the New England region.
>:|
>:|New England was half of the nation!!
>:|

Where did you get that crazy idea?

Have you looked at a U S map lately?

But lets look at the facts:
Representation First Federal Congress First Session
Conn. 2 Senators 5 Rep
Mass. 2 senators 8 Rep
New Hampshire 2 Senators 3 Rep
Rhode Island No Senators no Rep [had they been in the Union they would
have had 2 Senator and 1 Rep

Total for New England 16 Rep. 17 counting RI

Virginia 2 Senators 10 Rep
New York 2 Senators 6 Rep
Penna 2 Senators 8 Rep
New Jersey 2 Senators 4 Rep
Del 2 Senators 1 Rep
Georgia 2 Senators 3Rep
Maryland 2 Senators 6 Rep
North Carolina no Senators no Rep but if had been in the union would
have had 5 Rep
South Carolina 2 Senators 5 Rep

Total of representation based on population for rest of the nation
38 Rep, 43 if you count NC

It takes some strange math to make 17 turn out to be half of 60
17 + 43 = 60

>:|> That Diabolical Hell conceived principle of persecution rages among and to
>:|> their eternal Infamy the Clergy can furnish their quota of Imps for such
>:|> business. This vexes me the most of any thing whatever. There are at this
>:|> [time?] in the adjacent County not less than 5 or 6 well meaning men in
>:|> close Goal [in jail] for publishing their religious Sentiments which in the
>:|> main are very orthodox. I have neither patience to hear talk or think any
>:|> thing relative to this matter, for I have squabbled and scolded abused and
>:|> ridiculed so long about it, [to so lit]tle purpose that I am without common
>:|> patience. So I [leave you] to pity me and pray for Liberty of Conscience
>:|> [to revive among us.].
>:|
>:|Excellent quote from Madison. Isn't it interesting how many separationists
>:|want to shut up Christians today in "close Goal" for their political stands on
>:|x, y, or z.
>:|

I have no idea what you are talking about but your agenda is peeking
through

>:|>
>:|> >> >And as is stated on the section I posted on quotations, it really doesn't
>:|> >> >matter how religious or non religious a person was. The founders separated
>:|> >> >religion and government.
>:|> >
>:|> >You need to look closer. The founders separated government and doctrine, or
>:|> >government and denominationalism, but they believed that the divinely given
>:|> >rights of the human were the bedrock upon which a social contract is
>:|> >established. Jefferson says the fact that all men are created equal is a
>:|> >"self-evident" truth. Implied in that statement is that it is a self-evident
>:|> >truth that there is a creator. No creator, no rights. No rights, no
>:|> >government. That's Jefferson's logic. You cannot say that the founders
>:|> >separated theism and government. You're just demonstrably wrong. You have
>:|> >Jefferson to blame for that.
>:|>
>:|> I don't have Jefferson to blame for anything.
>:|>
>:|> We have a nation that was founded with one of its constitutional principles
>:|> being a separation of religion and government.
>:|
>:|Even Jefferson would not have made that claim. He made a distinction between
>:|"church" and "religion." The Declaration includes the claim that Government
>:|has grounds in human rights guaranteed through religion.

The declaration did not found this country and the declaration was not
totally Jefferson's writings. Congress added a few choice items.

The declaration had a totally different purpose, was written for that
purpose at that time.

BTW where in the declaration does it say rights are guaranteed through
religion?

>:|
>:|> The founders had a variety of religious beliefs, some would be right at
>:|> home within the Christian Coalition of today.
>:|
>:|I would hope not.

Oh yes, there were some that would feel right at home with that crowd.

>:|
>:|> Opposed to having government open on Sundays? Hmmmm, interesting. post
>:|> offices were open on Sundays, mail was delivered on Sundays. Even Congress,
>:|> on occasion met in session on Sundays.
>:|
>:|That sounds interesting. Tell me more. That really does strike at the heart of
>:|my thesis. I trust that these actions on Sunday were not considered "works of
>:|necessity" cf. Blackstone.
>:|

Works of necessity? LOL

Hardly.

You are asking me to tell you more. yet you have claimed to have written a
book about this time period, and yet you seem to be lacking in a great deal
of knowledge about this time period.

You know nothing about Sunday mail?

I would suggest you go back and do some more research.

You might begin with some of the following:

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/ref1.htm
here are actually a series of ten articles in this series

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madlib.htm
This one will shake your basic premise as well

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/backfire.htm
What to read about the wedding between religion and politics, this one
backfired

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madvetos.htm
At least one Sunday when Congress was in session is mentioned in this
section

>:|> >I guess you think that the founders in unison all rejected their intellectual
>:|> >and spiritual formation which they received as young men? Upbringing has
>:|> >nothing to do with your socio-cultural and socio-political values?? Please
>:|> >take a course in sociology.
>:|>
>:|> Intellectual and Spiritual formations? LOL Are you one of these that view
>:|> the founders as saints? They weren't. Some were downright dishonest.
>:|> Drunkenness, womanizing, corruption, fighting, even in Congress, was
>:|> fairly common traits of the day, even among some of the founders. Would
>:|> that be called rejecting intellectual and spiritual formations? I think it
>:|> would be called humans being human, I think it would be going along with
>:|> the Biblical phrase about nothing new under the sun.
>:|
>:|You describe the founders having the characteristics of St. Peter, St. Paul,
>:|or St. Augustine, foul corrupt lusty, etc.
>:|

Human with the same negatives and positives most humans. Many did not honor
that so called intellectual and spiritual formation you mentioned.

>:|> >Right on. When one is steeped in Protestant theology, one learns, with Luther
>:|> >and Locke, that God requires voluntary commitment. Thus religious liberty is
>:|> >the only way to foster true religion. That was Jefferson's view.
>:|>
>:|> I have read a good deal of Jefferson's writings on the subject of religion.
>:|> [Have read more of Madison's] I don't see a whole lot of these things you
>:|> are attributing to Jefferson present in his writings.
>:|
>:|Good, then you will know that it is the view of the MEMORIAL AND REMONSTRANCE.

Huh?

What is the view of the M&R? Who do you think wrote the M&R and what do
you think it was about?

What was it's purpose?

Oh? Hmmmmmm, why enter into a discussion if you can't complete it.

>:|Again, thanks for educating me. It's great to discover new information. I
>:|still wish you would grant that I am a person of goodwill interested in
>:|getting at the truth.
>:|

I don't know who or what you are.

**********************************************

jal...@pilot.infi.net & sba...@infi.net
Web masters of
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE PAGE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."

Page is a member of the following web rings:

The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring

Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring

Legal Research Ring
**********************************************

Harold Leahy

unread,

Mar 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/14/99

>This is how I use the various words:
>
>Framer = someone who we can document as having taken an active role in the
>debates that produced the wording that constitutes the wording of the
>unamended constitution of 1787

>Founder = These men who played a role in the ratification of the unamended
>constitution .... In addition, the same role for those who played a role

in the >ratification of the amendments in 1789-1791.

Although you are entitled to use words anyway you want ("it depends on what
the definition of is is") you are not using the standard definition of
Founder.

A Founding Father by the standard definition is anyone who played a
significant role in the Revolution and/or the Revolution itself. This is the
with Paine. Since you do not use the standard definition of Founder, he can
be ignored. It also partially explains the problem with Jefferson. Since he
wrote the Declaration of Independence and other several key documents, he is
definitely a Founder. Since you do not start your definition of Founder
until the Constitution he can be ignored also. I am glad you posted your
definitions, since they are not the standard ones used by historians or the
general public. The United States was not founded by the Constitution. It
was declared to exist and founded in the Declaration of Independence. The
people that brought that document about and fought the war are the Founders
of this country.

Your definition of Framer is the standard one. Although most histories speak
of the Framers of the Constitution and the Framers of the Bill of Rights.
Madison is one of the few who fit both. The framers of the Constitution were
the Federalists. The Framers of the BoR were the anti-Federalists. Both
sides won in their time and place and we ended up with a better Constitution
for the efforts of both.

>In addition those men who sat in Congress, on the Supreme Court, Presidents
>and cabinet members for the first few formative sessions of actually
>applying the words of that grand document to actual real life situations.

By this statement, it is hard to see TJ can be eliminated as a Framer. He
was Secretary of State under Washington, Vice President under Adams and the
Third President of the US . He fits the definition.

> Quote supporters of the Constitution, not detractors:
>If you want to find out how the Constitution was understood in 1787, quote
>people that supported the Constitution, and not those who thought the
>Constitution was evil.

It was a two-sided debate. The side that lost on the adoption of the
Constitution, forced the Bill of Rights. Their opinion on the Constitution
is a valid as the Federalists because their opinions explain the nature,
intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights. The Federalists won on the
Constitution but the anti-Federalists won on the Bill of Rights, which
limits that Constitution.

Gardiner

unread,

Mar 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/14/99

Mr. Leahy,

Thank you for your level-headed response regarding definitions. Be careful,
however, Mr. Alison is sure to call you a Christian fundamentalist for saying
that the men involved in the American Revolution were founders.

You may be interested to know, from Mr. Alison, that the public schools have
it all wrong: when they teach that this nation was birthed in 1776, they are
deceiving the children. According to Mr. Alison, the nation conceived in 1776
was not a "real nation:"

> Let me put it in real simple terms. Those that "founded" that very loose
> confederation of independent states that existed from 1775-76 to 1788 did
> not produce a real nation, and what they produced didn't last.

I'm at a loss to respond.

As I see it the conflict is this: Mr. Alison maintains that our nation was
founded in 1787:

> The period of independence or the period of
> founding this nation under its present system?

While you (with the rest of us) believe the nation was founded in 1776, and
has evolved in a number of directions in the 223 years since:

Harold Leahy wrote:
> I am glad you posted your
> definitions, since they are not the standard ones used by historians or the
> general public. The United States was not founded by the Constitution. It
> was declared to exist and founded in the Declaration of Independence. The
> people that brought that document about and fought the war are the Founders
> of this country.

If we always attach the words "its present system" to the founding of this
nation, then we would have to say that the nation was founded anew every time
a new amendment to the constitution was added. Theoretically the entire
constitution could be amended in 1999, under the provisions of Article 5. If
that were the case, would we say that the U.S. was founded in 1999?

Again, I just really appreciate your sensibilities about this matter. I was
worried, for a moment, that perhaps I was misled by my belief that July 4,
1776 really meant something to the nation as we know it.

God Bless,
Rick

Harold Leahy wrote:
>
> >This is how I use the various words:
> >
> >Framer = someone who we can document as having taken an active role in the
> >debates that produced the wording that constitutes the wording of the
> >unamended constitution of 1787
>

> >Founder = These men who played a role in the ratification of the unamended

> >constitution .... In addition, the same role for those who played a role

> in the >ratification of the amendments in 1789-1791.
>

> Although you are entitled to use words anyway you want ("it depends on what
> the definition of is is") you are not using the standard definition of
> Founder.
>
> A Founding Father by the standard definition is anyone who played a

> significant role in the Revolution and/or the Revolution itself. This is the case

> with Paine. Since you do not use the standard definition of Founder, he can
> be ignored. It also partially explains the problem with Jefferson. Since he
> wrote the Declaration of Independence and other several key documents, he is
> definitely a Founder. Since you do not start your definition of Founder
> until the Constitution he can be ignored also. I am glad you posted your
> definitions, since they are not the standard ones used by historians or the
> general public. The United States was not founded by the Constitution. It
> was declared to exist and founded in the Declaration of Independence. The
> people that brought that document about and fought the war are the Founders
> of this country.
>
> Your definition of Framer is the standard one. Although most histories speak
> of the Framers of the Constitution and the Framers of the Bill of Rights.
> Madison is one of the few who fit both. The framers of the Constitution were
> the Federalists. The Framers of the BoR were the anti-Federalists. Both
> sides won in their time and place and we ended up with a better Constitution
> for the efforts of both.
>

> >In addition those men who sat in Congress, on the Supreme Court, Presidents
> >and cabinet members for the first few formative sessions of actually
> >applying the words of that grand document to actual real life situations.
>

> By this statement, it is hard to see TJ can be eliminated as a Framer. He
> was Secretary of State under Washington, Vice President under Adams and the
> Third President of the US . He fits the definition.
>

> > Quote supporters of the Constitution, not detractors:
> >If you want to find out how the Constitution was understood in 1787, quote
> >people that supported the Constitution, and not those who thought the
> >Constitution was evil.
>

> It was a two-sided debate. The side that lost on the adoption of the
> Constitution, forced the Bill of Rights. Their opinion on the Constitution
> is a valid as the Federalists because their opinions explain the nature,
> intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights. The Federalists won on the
> Constitution but the anti-Federalists won on the Bill of Rights, which

> limits that Constitution..

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Mar 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/15/99

On Sat, 13 Mar 1999 16:48:29 -0600, you wrote:

>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >The Library of Congress has been exhibiting a similar claim
>:|> >(see http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html) Does that mean that
>:|> >all of the curators at the Library of Congress must be fundamentalist Christians?
>:|>
>:|> I have seen the online presentation of the library of Congress, I also have
>:|> a copy of the companion book that goes with that exhibit and I can say that
>:|> it is extremely one sided and biased. The book and apparently the research
>:|> and planning of the of the exhibit was primarily under the head of James H.
>:|> Huston and from what I have seen thus far and read thus far I would say he
>:|> did or does have an agenda that is not neutral.
>:|
>:|Well, I guess that about sums it up. I'm not going to take on the unnecessary
>:|task of trying to prove to you that the Federal Government of the U.S. is not
>:|run by right wing fundamentalist Christians.

(1) Have you bothered to read the book *Religion and the founding of the
American Republic,* by James H. Huston?
(2) Have you bothered to look at the exhibit, either on line, or in person?
(3) Have you read any of the interviews done by Huston?

I have done all the above.

I am knowledgable enough to know what that vast amounts of material was not
included. In short, it is a very one sided. Why was it so one sided? There
are at least two sides to every story. One side of any story is biased and
not accurate. It can contain truth, but it is not the truth.

It provides some quotes by John Adams. but only quotes that support the
story they are telling. I know that John Adams wrote and said things that
would greatly disagree with parts of their story. Why none of that
included?

A great amount of space went into trying to recreate Jefferson. Why? Why
did they feel they had to create Jefferson? What is wrong with the
historical jefferson that really does exist? Well, that Jefferson would not
help their story all that much.

In short the exhibit didn't't just present the facts, the evidence, they
presented and selected the evidence that would tell the tale they wanted
told. and left out most if not all he evidence that would not support that
tale.

>I also have a hard time believing
>:|that there were not a team of historians working on this project, and that one
>:|man (Huston) would not be kept in check by his professional colleagues if he
>:|had a fundamentalist agenda.

Things have themes. What is hard about understanding that. What is the
theme of this exhibit? Religion and the founding of the American Republic.

Imagine, if you will, the that everything is made up of three things:
0, 1, 2. (almost like computer language, except the 2 is included as well)

The above is very true in the area of the founding of this nation. 0 is
evidence that supports your ideas, 1 is things that support the other side
of the issue, and 2 which doesn't support either side

Reality is like this, you will find things that support what you believe or
want to believe, you will find things that counter what you believe or want
to believe and you will find things that does not support either side yet
is part of the whole.

You select all the 0's you can find to present your case, others will
present all the 1's they can find to counter you, and everyone will pretty
much ignore the 2's

In looking at those material I see a hell of a lot 0's no 2's and next to
no 1's Yet I know that there are as many 1's or more 1's then there are 0's
and 2's

Are you going to try and tell me that you would include some, or lots of
information in your arguments, or writings, etc that do not support your
theme or story?

>:|
>:|> They are short articles but gives you an alternative viewpoint, not that I
>:|> think you really want one.
>:|

>:|Jim, why do you assume the worst of intentions among your adversaries?

Did you bother to read the articles? If you did, how do you address what
they said? If you didn't, why didn't you?

My experience in these debates has been that most people who have a belief
already established do not want to be confronted with evidence that
counters that belief, threatens that belief, or shows that belief to be
wrong.

>For
>:|someone who has read as many of the founders as you have apparently read, I am
>:|puzzled by the fact that you fail to heed their continuous and repeated
>:|appeals that adversaries in political opinions ought to be civil, modest, and
>:|gracious (even in a gun duel there was a great deal of decorum). Do you need
>:|me to provide you with the citations for those admonitions?

LOL, you are funny.

Drop your pious attitude. Who was it that called Robert L. Johnson's
integrity into question if he should be so bold as to dispute any of your
conclusions? Hint, you.

Who was it that told someone they didn't know from Adam, they were
uninformed and should study some history? Hint, you

Who was it that implied on several times that someone might actually learn
something about history if they bothered to read an 11th grade history
book? Hint, you

Who was it that listed three or four people, questioning their goodwill and
integrity, because they dared to disagree with you. Hint, you

I suspect you know the meaning of the word integrity, and I suspect you
picked your words, didn't just accidently type that word.

it appears to me you have done more than your share tossing out personal
attacks of various forms. So drop your phony pious self-rightous front.
It's pretty transparent.

>:|
>:|I appeal to you to consider me a person of good-will;

I don't, see above.

>I am desirous of
>:|gleaning important information from you. I have read, word-for-word, every
>:|response you have posted and every citation you have given me. It has been
>:|very meaningful. Why do you insist that I "don't want an alternative viewpoint"?

See above, go back over your references to others intelligence, integrity,
etc, who do not accept as a matter of course what you say, and actually
give you alternate viewpoints and evidence.You seem to alternate back and
forth between being angry [and lashing out at them] because you, your
information and your conclusions are not accepted as totally factual and
the entire truth and thanking someone for educating you on things you
didn't know about.

Very strange.

What did he have to say about questioning others knowledge, intelligence
and integrity? Did you happen to bother to read that part?

>:|> >I think the following critics are simply not willing to face the facts of
>:|> >history. Their aversion to Christianity has caused them to deny historical
>:|> >data which is overwhelmingly evident.
>:|>
>:|> I don't think you know a thing about any of us. You are making some
>:|> judgments based on your dislike of the fact that we don't seem to want to
>:|> buy into your presentation, that we question some parts of it, even show
>:|> some parts to be incorrect.
>:|
>:|In the above quote, I made an observation about the wrongheadedness of what
>:|appear to be agenda-driven historians, but I have not resorted to calling
>:|anyone an ass or a troll.
>:|

Your posts scattered as they are through many news groups, especially the
Deist news groups, your style of commenting:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Bob,

I perceive you are a committed deist, and I don't want to quarrel
with you about the merits of your religion, but your assertions about
American history are wrong-headed and unsupportable.

Six facts, I hope you will have the integrity to admit are
indisputable:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't understand why the fact that I have made the argument that
Christianity permeated the founding of the U.S. (see
http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html) means I must be a Christian
fundamentalist. The Library of Congress has been exhibiting a similar claim
(see http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html) Does that mean
that all of the curators at the Library of Congress must be fundamentalist
Christians?

I think the following critics are simply not willing to face the facts of
history. Their aversion to Christianity has caused them to deny historical
data which is overwhelmingly evident.

b...@deism.com wrote:
>
> Dear Rick,
>
> By your lack of reason on very key issues of your bloated message you
> appear to be a christian fundamentalist.

spirite...@oogeocities.com wrote:
>
> You are also not willing to accept what the founding fathers wrote and
> won't admit that they knew in their own hearts how destructive the
> Christian religion was or it would have been more of a part of this
> country.
>
> Spirit Explorer

jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>
>Gard...@pitnet.net wrote:
> >[Never Before In History] argues that the socio-cultural and socio-political context of the
> >founding was saturated with Christianity, and as such, the Christian
> >suppositions that the founders inherited by osmosis worked their way into
> >the substance of those founding documents.
>
> Yes, I am aware of your position, and it was that position I was responding
> to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, just in case you don't know. The above is very much like the types of
tactics and style those who usually gets labeled as a troll employ.

>:|Additionally, I have not seen you or anyone disprove the fundamental thesis
>:|that I, or the Library of Congress, have set forth, viz., that the founding
>:|era was replete with Christianity.

If your fundamental thesis was and is that most of those who became
founders of this country and/or were the framers of the documents that
created this nation had a background in some form of the Christian beliefs,
you are correct.

If your fundamental thesis was and is that most of those men who became
founders of this country and/or were the framers of the documents that
created this nation had some sort of belief in some form of Christianity,
you are correct.

If your fundamental thesis was and is that most of those men who became
founders of this country and/or were the framers of the documents that
created this nation were all orthodox evangelical, fundamentalist type
Christians, you are not all that correct.

If you are trying to make a case that this government or nation was based
on the Christian religion, or the Bible, etc, you are not correct.

If you are trying to say that religion played a varying role in influencing
various people prior to and during the formation of this country,
government, nation, you are correct. It is also correct to say that it
played little role in influencing others.

The impression I am getting from all your arguments is that you are
claiming far more for the Christian religion then was the case.

That can be just as misleading as claiming too little.

>:|
>:|You seem to be arguing against a straw horse. I am not challenging your
>:|passionate plea to keep the government out of the churches' business and out
>:|of the business of binding consciences. I fully agree with Madison and
>:|Jefferson on that principle (which they inherited largely from Locke's Letters
>:|on Toleration, which he formed from the Puritan John Milton's sentiments on
>:|the same subject, which Milton drew from the fathers of the Protestant
>:|Reformation, viz., Luther).

This is cute. I note you say, "to keep the government out of the churches'
business and out of the business of binding consciousness," but not a word
about the opposite of that, that is the church out of the government.

It was a two way street. You seem to forget that.

Also such great lengths to try and establish a Christian pedigree for this
whole idea. Yes

Jefferson and Madison were both very well read.
Both read much more then those whom you want to point out

Madison in particular went beyond Locke in his thinking and meaning.

>:|
>:|My argument has been only that the socio-cultural milieu in which the founders
>:|were socialized was permeated with Christianity. If we are in dispute, it is
>:|about that thesis. I have not attempted to argue otherwise.

Kewl, you can say that in two sentences as you have above. What is your
book about and what is all these posts about if that is all you wanted to
say?

>:|
>:|Now you have given me a fabulous cite from a handful of Jefferson's letters in
>:|which he questioned whether Exodus was interpolated into the Code of Alfred,
>:|and subsequently whether the whole history of Christianity's place in the
>:|common law is simply a snowballing of earlier frauds. That was a very
>:|informative cite.
>:|
>:|> >I found
>:|> >the 1814 letter of Jefferson to be wonderful, and quite enlightening; perhaps
>:|> >I really need to modify my former sense about Jefferson's apprehension of
>:|> >Common Law. I wonder what it was that induced Jefferson to write the letter
>:|> >about the pious fraud of the Code of Alfred. Do you know?
>:|>
>:|> Why ask me, you don't think I know anything about history, remember?
>:|>
>:|> Why not try this? He was a lawyer, people tend to forget that fact, and
>:|> from all accounts a very good lawyer. He also spent a good deal of time
>:|> researching English law because he had the task of revising Virginia law
>:|> bringing it into line with a free and independent republic rather then an
>:|> English colony
>:|>
>:|> He also did not believe that Christianity was the foundation or basis of
>:|> English Law.
>:|>
>:|> I think in the three letters he explains his findings and position quite
>:|> well.
>:|>
>:|> He could have equaled Blackstone in knowledge on the subject.
>:|
>:|I do not question Jefferson's legal erudition whatsoever.
>:|

Yes you do. What do you call the next three paragraphs?

>:|But let's be clear about what he did and didn't say in the three letters.
>:|Jefferson does admit that the scholars of the common law, between Alfred and
>:|Blackstone, explicitly claim in various terms that Christianity is part and
>:|parcel of the common law. Coke and Blackstone mince no words about this, and
>:|Jefferson knew it. What Jefferson does, however, is allege that they were
>:|somehow defrauded into stating those assertions, through an interpolation of a
>:|pious scribe in the time of Alfred and through a misinterpretation of Prisot
>:|several centuries later. In other words, Jefferson does not deny that the
>:|common understanding of the common law is that it is intimately intertwined
>:|with Judeo-Christian principles, he simply alleges that it only became so
>:|through a series of perpetuated mistakes made by the great scholars of the
>:|common law.
>:|
>:|In other words, Jefferson is doing that which many fundamentalists do today:
>:|they see that the present understanding the first amendment mandates a "wall
>:|of separation"...then they attempt to show how this interpretation arose out
>:|of a series of snowballing legal mistakes. I am not saying that these
>:|fundamentalists are right.

Hmmmmmm, a series of legal mistakes?

Two ways to look at that.

(1) something actually did come about because of misunderstanding or error

(2) something actually did come about because it was the correct meaning,
progression etc of something.

What you have is a man, a trained lawyer, who spent a great deal of time in
intensive study of English Law, Common law etc. His reasons were to be able
to revise the laws of Virginia.

His studies complete he formed some conclusions.

He explained this conclusions, in detail. Including the chain of events,
documented them.

Is he right? You seem to think he isn't. kewl, that's your opinion. You
have a stake in him being wrong. Him being correct would be a blow to your
theories, etc.

>:|
>:|What I am saying is

What you are saying is a lot of spinning trying to make it all look good.

That is kewl

>that they would certainly be wrong to say that the present
>:|common understanding of the first amendment is that it does not imply
>:|"separation of church and state." Likewise, Jefferson would be wrong if he
>:|were to have written that it was not the common understanding in his day that
>:|the common law was intertwined with Judeo-Christianity.

Nice use of words. Intertwined? Nice, I believe the actual claim was a bit
more involved then that.
Judeo-Christianity? That word didn't exist in that time frame. Do you have
any idea how insulting that "created-invented" word is to many members of
the various Jewish faiths?

As much as the Jews have suffered at the hands of "Christians" that is
really quite a joke.

>Of course, being a
>:|reasonable man, he did not say that. And since my thesis primarily deals with
>:|the "common understanding" i.e., "cultural context," what Jefferson argued was
>:|really an esoteric matter of little consequence to whether the colonists by
>:|and large viewed the common law as a Christian institution, which I continue
>:|to maintain that they did!

Oh yes, how nice. You have solved the problem to your own satisfaction, so
you can breath easy.

>Furthermore, I can provide abundant evidence that
>:|the preponderance of U.S. jurists in the 19th century continued to understand
>:|the common law and christianity to be yoked.

Some did, some didn't. Many claim that the 1st amendment was a declaration
against English Common law.

Some state courts devalued English Common law, stating that where and when
it differed with the Constitution, the Constitution ruled.

>:|
>:|Therefore, I do not believe that Jefferson's personal views on the matter
>:|discredit the thesis.

I don't care about your thesis, nor your book. My responses are to things
you have posted in these threads, not your book not your thesis, only what
you have actually posted here.

You do plug your whatever it is a lot, I will say that.

>Your information, has, however, forced me to agree that
>:|Jefferson himself saw the common law as originally unconnected with
>:|Christianity, but rather entirely Saxon from the start, and then became
>:|corrupted with fraudulent Christian impositions upon it.
>:|

>:|> >Thanks again for
>:|> >educating me.
>:|>
>:|> If you mean that you might make a public apology for your insults and
>:|> slights you have posted in your replies to my replies to your posts.
>:|
>:|I do mean that. And I sincerely hope that I have not called into question your
>:|earnest and sincere commitment to what you believe; it seems to me that you
>:|have a passion for your studies, and that you make an effort to be careful in
>:|your research. I truly appreciate your dedication and good-will in that
>:|regard.
>:|

Yes that's why you keep slipping in the little digs etc
You just can't seem to help yourself. The devil makes you do it, right?

>:|Nonetheless, where you are wrong, you are wrong.

You haven't proven that.

I don't know that you have actually proven anything.

>Where you are refusing to
>:|acknowledge the obvious as a result of your "separationist" (I think that's
>:|what you call yourself) agenda,

I don't "call" myself anything.

My agenda? Hmmm, what is that?

>:| then I will not shrink back from calling it as
>:|I see it.

Which is pretty rude and crude at times.

>:|
>:|However, I will never resort to vulgarities or implying that you are an ass.
>:|According to the founders, that is what men do when they know their argument
>:|is weak.

Oh but you can question anothers' integrity and that is fine huh. or you
can imply others are dumb and stupid, and that is ok huh? LOL

Yea, right.

>:|
>:|By the way, I am still working on the JQ Adams quote, and I think it may be
>:|forthcoming. In that regard, though, I have found nearly a parallel quote in
>:|John Adams:
>:|
>:|"the general principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the
>:|only principles in which that beautiful assembly of young gentlemen could
>:|unite... And what were these general principles? I answer, the general
>:|principles of Christianity...."
>:|
>:|(Adams to Jefferson, 6/28/1813)
>:|
>:|Knowing that John Adams said this, I find is very easy to believe that his son
>:|may have repeated this sentiment 9 years later in very similar words.

Believe what you want, belief does not equal truth.

To prove that quote you have to locate its original source. Someone might
have said that doesn't get the job done. Someone else saying someone said
something doesn't get it done.

>:| "connected in one indissoluable bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity?"

Just out of curiosity, why is it so important to you?

How important is it to your "thesis"

John Adams and John Q Adams were miles apart in their religious views.

I have some letters here where senior Adams was chiding J Q for being so
orthodox.

The religion of John Adams was a combination of Deism/enlightenment
thinking, , Unitarianism, with some holdover from his Congregationalism
days.

>:|
>:|But I know you are a very informed about these cites, and I will not be
>:|surprised if you can present evidence that this letter from Adams has been
>:|alleged by some left-wing ideologues to be a fraud.

A bit of sarcasm here? Some bitterness?
"Alleged by some left-wing ideologies"

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Mar 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/15/99

Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:

>:|Jim,
>:|
>:|I read with great interest the articles you cited regarding the Library of
>:|Congress exhibit. One writes:
>:|
>:|> It claims that Jefferson was not really in favor of separation of state and
>:|> church!!! The exhibit claims he never thought removing affairs of church from
>:|> matters of state an essential element of our freedom!!!
>:|
>:|I have yet to see that part of the exhibit. Can you point me toward that? Or
>:|is it that this writer is imposing an interpretation upon the exhibit which is
>:|not explicit, much like you have done with my thesis and intentions.

Implicit: Contained in the nature of but not readily apparent.
Explicit: Plainly expressed

One doesn't have to be explicit to make their points particularly if those
points are meant to be subtle. Sometimes that can be the most powerful way
of making points or saying something.

Why do you ask me to direct you to something, why don't you send an e-mail
message to the author of the article and ask him?

You are asking me to enter the author's mind. Something I am not really
qualified to do.

I have already posted some of my thoughts regarding the exhibit.

You asked in one of your "posts" or attempts to troll and let me define the
term troll as it is commonly understood on use net:

*******************************************************************************

The Jargon Dictionary - http://www.netmeg.net/jargon/terms/t/troll.html

The Jargon Dictionary : Terms : The T Terms : troll

troll

troll /v.,n./ [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting
on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames. Derives from
the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream
"trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely
spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces
lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than
they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced
that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you
get to be in on it.

Some people claim that the troll is properly a narrower category than flame
bait, that a troll is categorized by containing some assertion that is
wrong but not overtly controversial.
********************************************************************************

At least one of your posts that I am aware of comes awfully close to
meeting much of the above definition.

You asked why people thought you were a fundamentalist.

The reason could be because the your arguments. You see, you don't just
seem to want to say that the Christian religion had varying degrees of
influence on some, or many or even most of the founders/framers of this
country.

There is a very real heavy duty undercurrent that says you are really
trying to say more then that. Many of your arguments are ging beyond the
above basically factual and innocent statement.

Then there is the matter of your co-author.

Regent University? I live 6 miles from Regent University. I am very aware
of Pat Robertson, The ACLJ, Christian Coalition, 700 Club, CBN, Regent
University, etc.

I suspect others are as well.

>:|
>:|Another writes
>:|
>:|> [Huston] writes that, quote: "the founders thought that virtue and morality required religion,
>:|> therefore religion was necessary." What hogwash! The naive, gullible, innocent and
>:|> historically ignorant will believe this nonsense.
>:|
>:|I think that Huston was probably referring to the Northwest Ordinance, which
>:|reads "Religion, Morality and knowledge [are] necessary to good government and
>:|the happiness of mankind..."

How odd, haven't you stated the exact same thing? Were you referring to
only
one sentence of the Northwest Ordinance? BTW, do you happen to know
anything about the history of that one sentence?

>:|
>:|Does the Northwest Ordinance not say that? Or does it say it, but it's author
>:|was a poor communicator who meant something entirely different. Or is it that
>:|it does say it, but it can only be correctly understood and interpretted by
>:|you guys who know better.

My, My another dig,

Thought you were only someone interested in the truth. You sure don't come
across that way. You come across as someone with a very solid belief and
opinion and who bristles when challenged by alternative opinions and
evidence.

There is a history to the sentence you refer to in the N.O. A history that
you either know, or have no knowledge of. if you really do know its
history then what are you doing here, trying to bait someone? If you don't
know, you are going to be very surprised if and when you ever become
exposed to it.

>:|
>:|This is an example of the utter refusal to take the historical data for what
>:|it is.

It is an example of the utter refusal to take selected historical data as
being the entire story.

shang...@my-dejanews.com

unread,

Mar 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/15/99

I'm not sure if my ISP carries this newsgroup or not, I do know I can't
subscribe to it, so I will try to answers posts to this group in this manner
"Harold Leahy" <hle...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>:|>This is how I use the various words:

>:|>
>:|>Framer = someone who we can document as having taken an active role in the
>:|>debates that produced the wording that constitutes the wording of the
>:|>unamended constitution of 1787

>:|
>:|>Founder = These men who played a role in the ratification of the unamended
>:|>constitution .... In addition, the same role for those who played a role

>:|in the >ratification of the amendments in 1789-1791.

>:|
>:|Although you are entitled to use words anyway you want ("it depends on what
>:|the definition of is is") you are not using the standard definition of

>:|Founder.
>:|
>:|A Founding Father by the standard definition is anyone who played a
>:|significant role in the Revolution and/or the Revolution itself. This is the

>:|with Paine. Since you do not use the standard definition of Founder, he can

>:|be ignored. It also partially explains the problem with Jefferson. Since he
>:|wrote the Declaration of Independence and other several key documents, he is
>:|definitely a Founder. Since you do not start your definition of Founder
>:|until the Constitution he can be ignored also. I am glad you posted your
>:|definitions, since they are not the standard ones used by historians or the
>:|general public. The United States was not founded by the Constitution. It
>:|was declared to exist and founded in the Declaration of Independence.

Couple of points:

I have run across a fair number of sources which narrow the term founder or
founding father as one of the 55 men who went off to Philly in 1787.

I believe the term has a broad application, which is why I give my
definitions.

Also it fits in with the information I supplied from Tom Peters, which has a
bearing on this whole series of replies from Gardiner.

The War of Independence did not found the United States of America as it
exists under the Constitution.

What it did establish (a definition of the word found) was 13 basically
independent nations that agreed to band together in a very weak and loose
confederation.

Something many don't know is that the many of the various states had already
issued their own Declarations of Independence beginning as early as Mid April
1776.

The Articles of Confederation bolstered that Confederation somewhat, but not
all that much. There still existed basically a loose confederation of 13
independent states or nations. I believe the name at that time IIRC was the
United States of America in Congress or something to that effect.

But it was not the country that eventually was established by the
Constitution.

The
>:|people that brought that document about and fought the war are the Founders
>:|of this country.
>:|
>:|Your definition of Framer is the standard one. Although most histories speak
>:|of the Framers of the Constitution and the Framers of the Bill of Rights.
>:|Madison is one of the few who fit both. The framers of the Constitution were
>:|the Federalists. The Framers of the BoR were the anti-Federalists.

The don't agree with your last comment there.

Most of the members of the First Federal Congress were Federalists.

It is true that ultimately the major reason Madison agreed to sponsor and
present amendments to that Congress was by and large political [to steal the
thunder from the anti-rats. (anti-feds)

Madison went over various state constitutions selecting items from many of
them, for his proposed amendments, he also selected some from the various
debates that had taken place in the several states ratification conventions,
he also looked over the list of well over 100 suggested amendments offered by
the several states.

I fail to see how that translates into the framers of the BOR's being
anti-feds

>:|Both

>:|sides won in their time and place and we ended up with a better Constitution
>:|for the efforts of both.

The BORs as we call it today was not viewed as being very important at that
time period.

>:|
>:|>In addition those men who sat in Congress, on the Supreme Court, Presidents

>:|>and cabinet members for the first few formative sessions of actually
>:|>applying the words of that grand document to actual real life situations.

>:|
>:|By this statement, it is hard to see TJ can be eliminated as a Framer. He

>:|was Secretary of State under Washington, Vice President under Adams and the
>:|Third President of the US . He fits the definition.

I wasn't eliminating Jefferson. All this was in response to the other fella
lumping Jefferson and Paine together. That and presenting a group of men who
at least half were basically primary players of the 1770's far more so then
the late 1780's and into the 1800's

Jefferson was a founder. His major contributions took place on a state level
prior to 1784 and on the national level after 1789. (there is some overlap on
both of those between state and national.)

1784-1789 his hands on influence was limited because he was in france, however
he wrote a huge amount of letters to many people during that time frame so he
still had some influence.

>:|
>:|
>:|> Quote supporters of the Constitution, not detractors:

>:|>If you want to find out how the Constitution was understood in 1787, quote
>:|>people that supported the Constitution, and not those who thought the
>:|>Constitution was evil.

>:|
>:|It was a two-sided debate. The side that lost on the adoption of the

>:|Constitution, forced the Bill of Rights. Their opinion on the Constitution
>:|is a valid as the Federalists because their opinions explain the nature,

>:|intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights. The Federalists won on the
>:|Constitution but the anti-Federalists won on the Bill of Rights, which
>:|limits that Constitution.

Many of the most powerful from the side that lost did not want a BOR's either.
Henry stalled ratification of such in Va for over a year hoping to ultimately
force a second constitutional convention in order to frame a far weaker
constitution.

These men used a lack of a so called BOR's as a weapon in their efforts to
defeat the Constitution. Madison saw this and stole their thunder by saying he
would present such for the Congress to pass or reject.

(I might add he had one hell of a time getting the Congress to debate said
amendments. Feds and anti-feds both drug their feet.

You might find the following kind of interesting:

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/founder1.htm

Its purpose is to give some sort of standard to look at various people of
those times

As time allows more will be added to the list.

**********************************************

jal...@pilot.infi.net & sba...@infi.net
Web masters of
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE PAGE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."

Page is a member of the following web rings:

The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring

Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring

Legal Research Ring
**********************************************

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Mar 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/15/99

"Harold Leahy" <hle...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>:|>This is how I use the various words:

>:|>
>:|>Framer = someone who we can document as having taken an active role in the
>:|>debates that produced the wording that constitutes the wording of the
>:|>unamended constitution of 1787

>:|
>:|>Founder = These men who played a role in the ratification of the unamended
>:|>constitution .... In addition, the same role for those who played a role

>:|in the >ratification of the amendments in 1789-1791.

Couple of points:

>:|
>:|>In addition those men who sat in Congress, on the Supreme Court, Presidents

>:|>and cabinet members for the first few formative sessions of actually
>:|>applying the words of that grand document to actual real life situations.

>:|
>:|By this statement, it is hard to see TJ can be eliminated as a Framer. He
>:|was Secretary of State under Washington, Vice President under Adams and the
>:|Third President of the US . He fits the definition.

I wasn't eliminating Jefferson. All this was in response to the other fella
lumping Jefferson and Paine together. That and presenting a group of men
who at least half were basically primary players of the 1770's far more so
then the late 1780's and into the 1800's

Jefferson was a founder. His major contributions took place on a state
level prior to 1784 and on the national level after 1789. (there is some
overlap on both of those between state and national.)

1784-1789 his hands on influence was limited because he was in france,
however he wrote a huge amount of letters to many people during that time
frame so he still had some influence.

>:|
>:|
>:|> Quote supporters of the Constitution, not detractors:

>:|>If you want to find out how the Constitution was understood in 1787, quote
>:|>people that supported the Constitution, and not those who thought the
>:|>Constitution was evil.

>:|
>:|It was a two-sided debate. The side that lost on the adoption of the
>:|Constitution, forced the Bill of Rights. Their opinion on the Constitution
>:|is a valid as the Federalists because their opinions explain the nature,
>:|intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights. The Federalists won on the
>:|Constitution but the anti-Federalists won on the Bill of Rights, which
>:|limits that Constitution.

Many of the most powerful from the side that lost did not want a BOR's
either. Henry stalled ratification of such in Va for over a year hoping to
ultimately force a second constitutional convention in order to frame a far
weaker constitution.

These men used a lack of a so called BOR's as a weapon in their efforts to
defeat the Constitution. Madison saw this and stole their thunder by saying
he would present such for the Congress to pass or reject.

(I might add he had one hell of a time getting the Congress to debate said
amendments. Feds and anti-feds both drug their feet.

**********************************************

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Mar 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/15/99

"Harold Leahy" <hle...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>:|>This is how I use the various words:

>:|>
>:|>Framer = someone who we can document as having taken an active role in the
>:|>debates that produced the wording that constitutes the wording of the
>:|>unamended constitution of 1787

>:|
>:|>Founder = These men who played a role in the ratification of the unamended
>:|>constitution .... In addition, the same role for those who played a role

>:|in the >ratification of the amendments in 1789-1791.

>:|

You might find the following kind of interesting:

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/founder1.htm

Its purpose is to give some sort of standard to look at various people of
those times

As time allows more will be added to the list.

**********************************************

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Mar 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/19/99

Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:

>:|Mr. Leahy,

>:|
>:|Thank you for your level-headed response regarding definitions. Be careful,
>:|however, Mr. Alison is sure to call you a Christian fundamentalist for saying

>:|that the men involved in the American Revolution were not founders.

>:|
>:|You may be interested to know, from Mr. Alison, that the public schools have
>:|it all wrong: when they teach that this nation was birthed in 1776, they are
>:|deceiving the children. According to Mr. Alison, the nation conceived in 1776
>:|was not a "real nation:"

>:|
>:|> Let me put it in real simple terms. Those that "founded" that very loose

>:|> confederation of independent states that existed from 1775-76 to 1788 did
>:|> not produce a real nation, and what they produced didn't last.

>:|
>:|I'm at a loss to respond.

Why?

Is the above false?

I'm going to share two things with you.

If you bother to respond, I would suggest that perhaps you respond to what
is actually said, and not to putting what is said into your own words.

I am pretty certain that you are perfectly capable of understanding what
Dr. Tom Peters actually is saying in the following two items.

The first you have already played read and decided to play games with, but
I will repeat it here, because based on your responses to it, you really
have no understood what Tom was saying.

**********************************************************************************

As students of the separation debate quickly discover, the

"quotation war" between accommodational and separatistic tends to

produce a lot more heat than light. There are at least two reasons for
this. First, most quotations are ripped out of the context of the documents
from which they are quoted, which leads to misinterpretation and
misrepresentation. Second, it's easy to read too much into a quotation,
especially if the quotation does not directly address the claim one is
attempting to prove. The best historical studies on church/state separation
take these issues into account when drawing conclusions from quotations; we
hope we have done the same in this web page.

Having said this, we want to argue that there are some systematic problems

with way many accommodational use quotations. In particular, we believe

that many of their quotations are not sufficient to establish their primary
claim that the framers intended the Constitution to favor either
Christianity or theism, or provide aid to religion. In what

follows, we present some guidelines accommodational should follow if they

want to successfully use quotations to prove their points.

accommodational for example, are fond of quoting the famous lawyer and

statesman Daniel Webster, who was a staunch proponent of Christian
influence in government, but Webster played no role whatsoever in the
formation of the Constitution (he did not even begin to
practice law until 1805, 14 years after the ratification of the Bill of
Rights). Webster's opinions may have been well-articulated, but they are
not the same as the views of the framers.

Recognize that being sympathetic to religion is not the

same as being sympathetic to accommodationism: While many of the framers

were devoutly religious men, not all devoutly religious men were

accommodationists. It is not sufficient to quote a framer saying that

religion is good, or even that religion is important to government; one can
believe these things and at the same time believe that the government has
no business supporting religion. Jefferson, for example, believed that a
generalized belief in a future state of rewards and punishments was
important to maintain public morality, but he was staunchly opposed to
government support of religion. If the sum of your case in favor of

accommodationism is that the framers were religious people, you have no

SECOND ITEM

*******************************************************************************

Who were the most important founders?

Our purpose in this article is two-fold: (1) to clarify
what we mean by a "founder" of America, and (2)
to identify those founders who most influenced
the course of the early Republic.
Created and
researched by
Jim Allison

Commentary written by Dr. Tom Peters.

Put simply, not every famous early American was a founder,
and most of the founders were relatively unimportant from the perspective
of history (who today, for example, remembers such names as David Brearley
or William Few, despite their status as attendees to the Constitutional
Convention?). Our interest, in other words, is in studying the opinion
leaders, theorists, and leading lights of the early Republic; it is in
their words and actions that we are most likely to discover the sentiments
that shaped American attitudes toward religion and the state.

Briefly, we define "founders" as any American citizen that
played some identifiable role in the governance of America from 1774 to
1820, or any citizen who helped frame the Declaration of Independence,
Constitution, or Bill of Rights. By "identifiable role in governance" we
mean serving in either state or national government as legislator,
executive, or judge, or service as an Ambassador or other appointed office
at the national level. Additionally, we divide the years 1774-1820 into two
time periods, the founding period (1774-1789, the years during which the
Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights were being
written), and the shaping period (1790-1820, when the country first began
to work out the consequences of Constitutional law for public
institutions).

To help determine which of the founders were most important,
Jim (who did the research for this article) employed a ranking system that
gave each founder points for participation in selected activities. Jim's
list of founders was taken from David Barton's Original Intent, a popular
anti-separationist book. For each activity at the state level, or for a
position as an ambassador or emissary to a foreign nation, he gave one
point.
For each activity at the national level, or participation in
the framing of our founding documents he gave two points. This system
appropriately gives greater weight to founders that played mainly in the
national arena, while still allowing important state figures to be counted.
Jim consulted a variety of sources in making determinations as to how many
points each founder earned.

Here is a detailed look at Jim's ranking system:

The founding period: 1774-1789.

1 point for being a delegate to the state constitutional convention
1 point for each year in the state legislature
1 point for each year served as a state governor
1 point for each year being chief justice of a state supreme court
1 point for each year as justice of a state supreme court
1 point for each year as ambassador or emissary to a foreign country
2 points for being an author of the DoI
2 points for signing the DoI
2 points for signing the Articles of Association
2 points for being an author of the Articles of Confederation
2 points for signing the Articles of Confederation
2 points for being an author of any and all articles in favor of the
Constitution (just about anyone who was in favor of the Constitution gets
these two points)
2 points for each year as a member of the Continental Congress
2 points for being president of Continental Congress
2 points for being a delegate to the Annapolis Convention
1 point for authoring documents that had large impact on a state
government.
2 points for attending the federal Constitutional Convention
2 points for signing the Constitution
2 points for attending a state constitution ratifying convention
2 points for voting for the Constitution in a state convention
2 points for being a member of the First Congress
2 points for being part of the Congressional debates on the BoR (not all
members of Congress were)
2 points for being part of the religion clause debates
2 points for voting for the BoR

The shaping period: 1790-1820.

1 point for each year being a chief justice of a state supreme court.
1 point for each year as justice on state supreme court
1 point for each year as an ambassador or emissary to a foreign nation
2 points for being elected President of the US
2 points for each year as President of US
2 points for being a cabinet member or Vice President of US
2 points for each year as cabinet member or Vice President of the US
2 points for being a justice on the US Supreme Court
2 points for each year as a justice on the US Supreme Court
2 points for being Chief Justice on US Supreme Court
2 points for each year as a Chief Justice on the US Supreme Court
2 points for being elected to US Congress
2 points for each year as a member of the US Congress
2 points for writing a document or documents that had a large impact on the
national government

A problem with this ranking system is that it gives each
person the same number of points for participating in an activity, even
though some founders had more influence on the outcome of these activities
than others. Accordingly, Jim awarded additional points to founders on the
basis of the importance of their contributions to selected activities.
Importance was assessed for each of the following: (1) the Constitutional
Convention, (2) state ratifying conventions for the Constitution, (3)
Congressional debates on the Bill of Rights, and (4) Congressional debates
on the religion clauses of the First Amendment. Importance was measured by
looking at the extant records of these events, counting the number of times
each person spoke, and assigning each participant a rank on the basis of
speaking frequency. These ranks were then reversed and multiplied by two to
yield the number of points awarded.

To give an example, 47 persons are recorded as speaking at
the Constitutional Convention. The most frequent speaker was Gouverneur
Morris of Pennsylvania.
Accordingly, Morris was assigned the rank of "1," and the
person that spoke least was assigned the rank of "47." These ranks were
then reversed, so that Morris was now ranked "47," and the person that
spoke least was ranked "1." These number were multiplied by two, giving
Morris 94 points for his participation at the Constitutional Convention.

Obviously, this ranking system is not perfect (since there
is no purely objective way to assess such an ambiguous concept as
"importance"), but whatever the flaws in our method, those flaws are
distributed equally among all the founders we rated. In fact, at
least a few pro-separation founders were likely shortchanged on our scale.
Thomas Jefferson, for example, surely ranks as one of the 5 most
influential men in the early Republic (he's number 19 on the list), but he
was serving as Ambassador to France during the both the Constitutional
Convention and the Congressional debates over the Bill of Rights and so
received no points for those events. Having said this, no historian
would dispute that the people that rank highly on our scale were
extraordinarily influential men. We feel comfortable in asserting that, if
our scale is not perfect, it yields results that go some distance in
shedding light on just who's opinions mattered most to the greatest number
of people.

If interested
See:

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/founder1.htm

for the list as it currently exists. (More people will be added to it in
weeks ahead. I did not have access to it to add anyone in almost a year and
half.)

*********************************************************************************

In addition, I would direct your attention to the book THE CREATION OF THE
AMERICAN REPUBLIC, 1776-1787, by Gordon S. Wood. [I saw him being
interviewed recently on the History Channel. I believe he has won the
respect of his peers to the point of being considered one of America's most
Distinguished historians]

At any rate you would find that he also makes references to the fact that
the Constitution founded, or created, if you will a totally different
animal then had existed prior to its framing in 1787. (Which has been my
point) He also points out via excerpts from many letters the fact that the
motives of many of the anti-rats was far from being all that pure.

I would direct your attention to Chapter 12 in his book in particular. I
have the 1969 version of his book. There is a new edition of it, which I
have to order.

Actually, I think you know exactly what I have been saying all along, but
for whatever reason decided to take was being said, put your own spin to
it, place it in your own words and try to play a game with it.

Ahhh, well.

**********************************************

jal...@pilot.infi.net & sba...@infi.net
Web masters of
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

James Beaven

unread,

Mar 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/19/99

Does the mindset of the writers of the Constitution matter?

If the writers of the Constitution ment that all the People had the right to own guns
or not, or how they viewed religion or not does not matter. What matters is how we
see the Constitution today. Times have changed, government has changed, war has
changed, people have changed, religion has changed from the time the Constitution was
wrote in this land. It will change with the times, adapt and be viewed in a different
light than 200 years ago. We can add to the or take away from the Constitution as we
see fit. The writers of the Constitution were not some prophets of God and the
Constitution is not written in stone by the finger of God. So it does not matter to
me if the authors were foaming at the mouth Christians or foaming at the mouth
Socialist before socialism was cool. They gave us a nice system for us to work in,
not lets run with it and adapt to the changing times.

Jamaludin

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Mar 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/19/99

James Beaven <jb...@omni.cc.purdue.edu> wrote:

>:|Does the mindset of the writers of the Constitution matter?

What you have said is quite true. But since the other side of this argument
is offering that time frame, it only makes sense that one would respond
using that time frame.

It really doesn't matter if separation of church and state as embodied in
the Constitution at that time meant no so called national church and was to
keep peace between the various Christian denominations or not, it would
still mean no national church and it would now apply equally to all
religions that exist in this country.

**********************************************

jal...@pilot.infi.net & sba...@infi.net
Web masters of
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."

Page is a member of the following web rings:

The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring

Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring

Legal Research Ring
**********************************************

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99

Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:

One's words will define one.

Other then that, the rest of the above is not worth commenting to.

>:|
>:|As I see it the conflict is this: Mr. Alison maintains that our nation was
>:|founded in 1787:

Misrepresentation of my position, and what is really amazing, you really
are intelligent enough to know exactly what I have said.

>:|
>:|> The period of independence or the period of

>:|> founding this nation under its present system?

>:|
>:|While you (with the rest of us) believe the nation was founded in 1776, and

>:|has evolved in a number of directions in the 223 years since:

Hmmmmmm, LOL
Evolved? You have never run into the concept of the *bloodless revolution*
or you have never read anything about the shock and outrage that many felt,
the betrayal that some felt at what was done in Philly?

How interesting that a history scholar would not be aware of any of that.

How interesting that a history scholar would not know that what took place
in Philly was a tad bit more then an evolution of what took place in 1776,
or 1781, or 1783, etc.

I understand that this is very important to you.

I know it is important to you because most of the men you have named at
various times were far more "active" [not the best choice of words] in the
1760's to 1785 time frame.

Some of this men also played a role in the creation of the Constitutional
form of government we operate under and have operated under since 1789.

>:|
>:|Harold Leahy wrote:
>:|> I am glad you posted your

>:|> definitions, since they are not the standard ones used by historians or the
>:|> general public. The United States was not founded by the Constitution. It

>:|> was declared to exist and founded in the Declaration of Independence. The

>:|> people that brought that document about and fought the war are the Founders
>:|> of this country.
>:|

>:|If we always attach the words "its present system" to the founding of this

>:|nation, then we would have to say that the nation was founded anew every time
>:|a new amendment to the constitution was added.

It is sad that you feel you have to adopt this form of attack.

You mean to tell me that you have never been able to understand "its
present system" would mean Constitutional system, you know, that system
that was adopted in place of the old system in Philly in 1787?

Your reasoning, or is it an attempt at humor, or perhaps sarcasm, isn't
helping you establish you are a scholar who has written a book that should
be taken and considered seriously.

>;|Theoretically the entire

>:|constitution could be amended in 1999, under the provisions of Article 5. If
>:|that were the case, would we say that the U.S. was founded in 1999?

Depends. If it produced an entire different form of government then had
existed before it was done, one could make that claim.

There are two items that you have never considered, or at least never have
mentioned

(1) The members of the Philly Convention acted without authority, went
beyond their authority to create a entire different form of government.

(2) This new form of government began operations illegally.
[illegally because those who formed it didn't have the authority and the
old form of government could not be ended unless all 13 states agreed to
it. In fact, the new form of government only required nine states to launch
it. Just some small details that sort of show this was not just a
evolution of the present system.]

>:|
>:|Again, I just really appreciate your sensibilities about this matter. I was

>:|worried, for a moment, that perhaps I was misled by my belief that July 4,
>:|1776 really meant something to the nation as we know it.

Thou do protest far too much. LOL

But just for fun:

"The American system of government springs from the work of 55 delegates
meeting in convention in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787. The
document they wrote and presented to their countrymen for approval was the
Federal Constitution. This work gave the nation a national government..."
We the People, The framing of the federal Constitution. Text by Richard B.
Morris. Produced by the Division of Publications National Park Service, U S
Department of the Interior Washington D C (1986) p inside the front cover.

"In the summer of 1787, some 55 delegates met in convention in the State
House in Philadelphia and devised a new national government, then loosely
allied in a "league of friendship" under the Articles of Confederation. The
delegates sat almost daily for four months and argued out their ideas in
long, often heated sessions behind closed doors. In mid-September they gave
to their countrymen the final document. four pages of parchment setting
forth a plan of union calculated "to secure the Blessings of
Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
This document was the Federal Constitution. It provided for a sovereign
government with clearly defined powers and responsibilities. In spare,
eloquent language, the delegates created a central government with
authority in national affairs while reserving local affairs to the States.
They steered between the equal dangers of tyranny and ineffectualness with
a system of checks and balances: a two-house legislature, one representing
the people at large and the other the States: an executive branch with a
single head; an independent judiciary; strict limitations on powers
granted; a provision for amendments; and the vesting of sovereignty in the
people themselves and not in offices and institutions. That delegates of
widely diverse interests could unite on such a system was, for George
Washington. "little short of a miracle." In London, John Adams declared the
convention "the greatest single effort of national deliberation that the
world has ever seen."
This book is a succinct account of that pioneering experiment in
self-government. The text is by Richard B. Morris. author of many works on
18 th-century American society. His story draws on long study of the
Nation's constitutional origins to take us to the heart of the issues
facing the country in 1787. "
We the People, The framing of the federal Constitution. Text by Richard B.
Morris. Produced by the Division of Publications National Park Service, U S
Department of the Interior Washington D C (1986) p 6

"...the population of the 13 States grew between the end of the American
Revolution and the establishment of the new federal Government under the
Constitution."
We the People, The framing of the federal Constitution. Text by Richard B.
Morris. Produced by the Division of Publications National Park Service, U S
Department of the Interior Washington D C (1986) p 21

Gordon S Wood's book I have already commented on in another post.

The above is exactly what I have been saying all along, and your reframing
of my comments and then continual attacks on those reframed comments shows
how much what I have really said disturbs your theories.

**********************************************

jal...@pilot.infi.net & sba...@infi.net
Web masters of
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

Mike Curtis

unread,

Mar 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/22/99

jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:

>>;|Theoretically the entire
>>:|constitution could be amended in 1999, under the provisions of Article 5. If
>>:|that were the case, would we say that the U.S. was founded in 1999?
>
>Depends. If it produced an entire different form of government then had
>existed before it was done, one could make that claim.
>
>There are two items that you have never considered, or at least never have
>mentioned
>
>(1) The members of the Philly Convention acted without authority, went
>beyond their authority to create a entire different form of government.

Exactly. It didn't bother all of them that their credentials didn't
give them leave to do what they did. Many walked out. Several didn't
sign.

>(2) This new form of government began operations illegally.
>[illegally because those who formed it didn't have the authority and the
>old form of government could not be ended unless all 13 states agreed to
>it. In fact, the new form of government only required nine states to launch
>it. Just some small details that sort of show this was not just a
>evolution of the present system.]

Well Rhode Island wasn't all that important, was it? :-)

>>:|Again, I just really appreciate your sensibilities about this matter. I was
>>:|worried, for a moment, that perhaps I was misled by my belief that July 4,
>>:|1776 really meant something to the nation as we know it.

>Thou do protest far too much. LOL

I had to leave the above in.

>Gordon S Wood's book I have already commented on in another post.

Tough going but worth the read.

Mike Curtis

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Mar 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/23/99

mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam (Mike Curtis) wrote:

>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>Gordon S Wood's book I have already commented on in another post.
>:|
>:|Tough going but worth the read.

I checked it out at ODU [Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Va]

Seeing as how I am in the process of moving, putting things on the web
page, other reading, and playing with Gardiner, I was forced to buy the
paper back version. yes, I am finding it very good. :-)

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Mar 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/23/99

mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam (Mike Curtis) wrote:

>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>Gordon S Wood's book I have already commented on in another post.
>:|
>:|Tough going but worth the read.

I checked it out at ODU [Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Va]

Seeing as how I am in the process of moving, putting things on the web
page, other reading, and playing with Gardiner, I was forced to buy the
paper back version. yes, I am finding it very good. :-)

**********************************************

Mike Curtis

unread,

Mar 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/23/99

jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:

>mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>
>>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>>:|>Gordon S Wood's book I have already commented on in another post.
>>:|
>>:|Tough going but worth the read.
>
>
>I checked it out at ODU [Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Va]
>
>Seeing as how I am in the process of moving, putting things on the web
>page, other reading, and playing with Gardiner, I was forced to buy the
>paper back version. yes, I am finding it very good. :-)
>

I also suggest using hi bibliography well. Listen to what Matt Damon
has to say about him in Good Will Hunting. He has a point. Bernard
Bailyn is another excellent historian of the period as is Jackson
Turner Main. He has a work on the confederation period that brings all
the politics into view. The centralizers were lucky that many of those
who signed the articles and the declaration were either dead or in
Europe.

Mike Curtis

0 new messages