New Book: Was America founded upon Christianity or Deism?
Gardiner
religion, found at http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
Robert L. Johnson wrote:
>
> I just visited the site and the way it looks to me is the book makes the
> claim that America owes its existence to Christianity and that
> Christianity permeates the founding of our country. If this were true
> Jesus would at least be mentioned in the Declaration of Independence or
> the Constitution. Jesus and the Bible are NOT mentioned in either one.
> The Declaration mentions God only in Deistic terms. And that's what
> Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, and many other key founders were - Deists.
>
> Bob
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:
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. His religious perspective did not represent the consensus of the
colonists. In key places such as Princeton, all students had to refute Paine
as a part of their graduation requirements.
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
4) Harvard, William & Mary, Yale, and Princeton were the institutions
where most of the founders received their intellectual formation; all of these
institutions were traditional orthodox Christian academies until the 19th century.
5) The two most often quoted sources by the founders were, first, the
Bible, and second, William Blackstone's Common Law Commentaries (See Hyneman &
Lutz). Blackstone was a full fledged believer in revealed religion (i.e., the
bible), and most of his content was rooted in medieval (Catholic) political
philosophy (e.g., the Magna Carta). What's more, the entire Common Law
tradition was rooted in orthodox Christianity.
6) The First Great Awakening was the generation in which the founders
were born and reared. The First Great Awakening was led by Jonathan Edwards,
George Whitefield, and John Wesley...their views permeated the colonies; and
they were hardly deists!
Now a quick word about the men whom I'm sure you will claim for your band:
GEORGE WASHINGTON: I am quite aware that his religious sentiments are
a great matter of controversy. You mentioned in your post your interest in
Boller's book on Washington. The most celebrated biography of Washington is
Mason Weems' THE LIFE OF GEORGE WASHINGTON, 1809; this book portrays
Washington as a committed orthodox Christian. E.C. McGuire published The
Religious Opinions and Character of Washington in 1836; it debunks the
"Washington the Deist" myth. Finally, I refer you to William J. Johnson,
GEORGE WASHINGTON THE CHRISTIAN (1919).
In a nutshell, there are an abundance of documents authored by
Washington which prevent an honest historian from classifying Washington as a
deist. One example of this is the following prayer: "O most Glorious God, in
Jesus Christ my merciful and loving Father, I acknowledge and confess the weak
and imperfectconfess my guilt, in performances of the duties of this day...for
the sacrifice of Jesus Christ offered upon the cross for me, for his sake,
ease the burden of my sin...direct me to the true object Jesus Christ, the
way, the truth, and the life...These weak petitions I humbly implore thee to
hear and accept and ans. for the sake of thy Dear Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen."
Bob, it'll take some manipulation of words to derive DEISM from that prayer!!
JOHN ADAMS: a graduate of Harvard, a place steeped in Puritanism; like
Washington, he used some deistic language, but his explicit creed (1813) was
as follows: "My religion is founded on the hope of pardon for my offenses." It
was his son, John Quincy Adams who made this bold statement in 1821: "The
highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one
indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: Of all the founders, Franklin is most deistic. I
will grant him to your cause, with Paine. But you need to be honest enough to
admit that Franklin, as an 81 year old man at the Constitutional Convention
was too feeble to provide the erudition he possessed as a younger man.
Further, you must admit that Franklin was steeped in Puritanism and
Presbyterianism...he studied for the ministry, he wrote a defense of
Predestination, and he was a huge fan of Christianity, even though he demurred
from its precepts. Although Franklin explicitly identified with the Deists
(per AUTOBIOGRAPHY), Puritanism ran through his blood. That is why Franklin is
perhaps the one individual in America most closely identified with "the
Protestant Work Ethic."
THOMAS JEFFERSON: You might think it outrageous to say that Jefferson
had a Christian view of law and rights. You will point out that Jefferson was
very clearly outside the mainstream in his views of Christ as Savior. He did
not believe Jesus was God. If he did not have an orthodox view of the
Christianity, how could he have a Christian view of law and rights?
Regardless of whatever his personal views of religion were,
Jefferson's political writings were saturated with ÒChristianÓ ideas. This is
a result of Jefferson's immersion in a Christian culture. Whether he
personally confessed Jesus as his savior is of little issue in terms of
whether his theories were Christian. Jefferson adopted, by osmosis, much of
the general Christian world-view of his mentors. Armchair historians easily
forget Jefferson's cultural context; Jefferson's educational training did not
occur in the classroom of Deists in Paris, but at the feet of clergymen in
Virginia. From the time he was nine years old until the time he was sixteen,
he was tutored by two orthodox ministers: Rev. James Maury and Rev. William
Douglas. When he studied law at William and Mary he was not the pupil of
Voltaire. His mentor was Mr. George Wythe, "a devout Christian and by no means
a deist." And although the same cannot be said of Jefferson, it is recorded
that Jefferson admired Wythe's Christian virtue. Jefferson called Wythe "my
second father, my earliest and best friend." Though Jefferson became a
Unitarian who was quite fond of the French deists, he was instilled with
orthodox Christianity in his formative years. Despite his private doubts about
the deity of Christ, as a statesman he complied with tradition, referring to
Jesus as "Our Savior" and "Lord" in the ordinary Christian sense (see the
Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom). In other words, as a son of a
Christian culture, JeffersonÕs blood was Christian. And that blood permeates
the concepts set forth in his political writings.
Critics like yourself, both Christian and non-Christian, have often
insisted that the U.S. Constitution is not "Christian" because it nowhere
refers to "our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." Over the years there have been
repeated efforts by some Christian groups to make the Constitution "Christian"
by an amendment that would change the preamble to include a reference to "our
Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." This cosmetic change would add ecclesiastical
language almost as a decoration. It would have no material effect on any of
the concepts in the document. Yet it is supposedly required in the eyes of
some to make the Constitution "Christian." The issue is one of surface versus
substance. It is the substance of the document that makes it a product of Christianity.
In the Puritan outlook, Christian jargon was not the key. The content
and the underlying concepts were the key. The fact that terms such as
"federalism" and "due process of law" had an explicit Christian heritage, and
that the entire Constitution rested on a Puritan view of the ordinary
depravity of man was the kind of evidence that was relevant to showing the
Christian impact on the Constitution.
The language of the Founders was creator-oriented because it dealt
with civil government, law, and individual rights. The Founders did not apply
redeemer-oriented language--Christian jargon--to these documents of public
law, because Calvin, Luther, and dozens of other Protestant political
theorists called it a corruption of the gospel. By using creator-oriented
language, the founders were squarely within the mainstream of the English
Common Law heritage. And they were completely in harmony with the traditional
Puritan use of legal terms and rights terms.
In the Puritan approach, concepts were very important. Some concepts
dealt with law. Others dealt with rights. By 1776, the Puritans were fully
convinced that concepts about the equality of all human beings, individual
inalienable rights, and government by the consent of the governed were fully
biblical ideas. It is not surprising in light of the Puritan impact, that
these ideas were foundational to the American colonial outlook at the time of independence.
These were not Enlightenment concepts or Deistic concepts. They were
Puritan concepts, and fully Christian. And they were more than just Puritan
concepts. They were part of that broader stream of Christian thought in which
the Puritans stood. Where the colonies were concerned, the concepts were
Puritan for the simple fact that for decades the Puritans were purveyors of
these concepts and were intellectual leaders prior to 1776. The concepts were
Christian even though they were expressed in natural terms rather than
ecclesiastical language. In the Puritan approach to the creator-redeemer
distinction, natural language was the right language to use.
To the critics, however, naturalistic language is automatically
suspect. Such language could not be "Christian" because it does not sound
religious enough. People are prone to test the founding documents not by their
concepts and content, but by whether they used Christian jargon. If redemptive
language was not used, many simply assume that the documents were not
"Christian." That is not only a foolish and narrow-minded approach to
evaluating the founders and their writings, it leads to a patently erroneous conclusion.
In summary, Bob, although deism played a peripheral role in the U.S.
founding, its influence pales in comparison to the central role of orthodox
Christianity. You can find a discounted copy of the book at http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
Thanks for your response and I'd be glad to continue this dialogue further...
Gracefully,
Rick
Spirit Explorer
wrote:
>In regards to the fascinating new book on Colonial American history and
>religion, found at http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
>
>Robert L. Johnson wrote:
>>
>> I just visited the site and the way it looks to me is the book makes the
>> claim that America owes its existence to Christianity and that
>> Christianity permeates the founding of our country. If this were true
>> Jesus would at least be mentioned in the Declaration of Independence or
>> the Constitution. Jesus and the Bible are NOT mentioned in either one.
>> The Declaration mentions God only in Deistic terms. And that's what
>> Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, and many other key founders were - Deists.
>>
>> Bob
> 1) Neither Jefferson nor Paine were part of the assembly of founders
>who wrote the U.S. Constitution in 1787.
But Jefferson did write the Declaration of Independence!!!
> 3) The following "key founders" were strongly Christian, and by that,
>I mean traditional orthodox believers in the trinity:
This is in fact a bold face lie.
>
Patrick Henry (give me liberty)...actually one can't say for sure
Samuel Adams (boston tea party) a Deist
>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 of course...he was a reverand
>Charles Pinckney
>
> 4) Harvard, William & Mary, Yale, and Princeton were the institutions
>where most of the founders received their intellectual formation; all of these
>institutions were traditional orthodox Christian academies until the 19th century.
Just because someone did go to these institutions doesn't mean that is
what they believed at all. It means that they wanted to further their
education no matter what or where they had to go is all, just as
someone would do now. Not proof at all. Please come up with something
better.
>
> 5) The two most often quoted sources by the founders were, first, the
>Bible, and second, William Blackstone's Common Law Commentaries (See Hyneman &
>Lutz). Blackstone was a full fledged believer in revealed religion (i.e., the
>bible), and most of his content was rooted in medieval (Catholic) political
>philosophy (e.g., the Magna Carta). What's more, the entire Common Law
>tradition was rooted in orthodox Christianity.
One of the reasons the bible was quoted was also because they didn't
want it being part of the laws because they were Deists after all.
Refute that.
<snipped normal Christian diatribe>
Spirit Explorer
Andrew C. Lannen
Explorer) wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Mar 1999 20:51:51 -0600, Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net>
>wrote:
>
>> 1) Neither Jefferson nor Paine were part of the assembly of founders
>>who wrote the U.S. Constitution in 1787.
>
>But Jefferson did write the Declaration of Independence!!!
Good for him. So what? It didn't contain a single law. Nor
did it contain anything inconsistent with Christianity.
>> 4) Harvard, William & Mary, Yale, and Princeton were the institutions
>>where most of the founders received their intellectual formation; all of these
>>institutions were traditional orthodox Christian academies until the 19th century.
>
>Just because someone did go to these institutions doesn't mean that is
>what they believed at all.
And just because someone signed the Declaration of Independence
doesn't make them a believer in Deism.
> It means that they wanted to further their
>education no matter what or where they had to go is all, just as
>someone would do now. Not proof at all. Please come up with something
>better.
As soon as you come up with *some* solid evidence to support your
point, we might consider it.
>> 5) The two most often quoted sources by the founders were, first, the
>>Bible, and second, William Blackstone's Common Law Commentaries (See Hyneman &
>>Lutz). Blackstone was a full fledged believer in revealed religion (i.e., the
>>bible), and most of his content was rooted in medieval (Catholic) political
>>philosophy (e.g., the Magna Carta). What's more, the entire Common Law
>>tradition was rooted in orthodox Christianity.
>
>One of the reasons the bible was quoted was also because they didn't
>want it being part of the laws because they were Deists after all.
>Refute that.
Refute what? That people quoted the bible? That some people
believed in a separation of Church and State? Separation of Church
and State was certainly not the sole province of Deists. Some of the
most devout Christian purists believed in it because they feared that
the State might pollute the Church.
Just to demolish your central piece of evidence, I would direct
you to the final full paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.
On portion of it reads "with a firm reliance on the Protection of
Divine Providence." Calling upon the almighty to intervene and
protect them directly contradicts a central tenant of Deism -- that
God does not directly interfere with the workings of the universe.
As for why the words "Jesus" or "Christ" are not in the
Declaration of Independence: In 18th century religious practice,
taking the Lord's name in vain was a breach of manners. You seldom
saw his true name used outside of works of a theological or spiritual
nature. Casually tossing his name about in something that essentially
was a political propaganda piece (the Declaration) could clearly be
seen as taking HIS name in vain.
--Andrew
-----
Andrew C. Lannen /// and...@ix.netcom.com
"Cynic: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as
they are, not as they ought to be." -- Ambrose Bierce
G.R. Gaudreau
Lannen) wrote:
> Just to demolish your central piece of evidence, I would direct
>you to the final full paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.
>On portion of it reads "with a firm reliance on the Protection of
>Divine Providence." Calling upon the almighty to intervene and
>protect them directly contradicts a central tenant of Deism -- that
>God does not directly interfere with the workings of the universe.
[grgaud]
Hello Andrew,
First: the wording is "RELYING upon the Almighty", not "CALLING upon
the Almighty," so it doesn't mean praying to the Almighty.
Second: not all Deists believe that God has "gone fishing" and has
nothing more to do with his creation. Read The Age of Reason by Thomas
Paine and you'll see that at least one of them believed that God
interacted in some way with his creation. Moreoever, Voltaire, who was
also a Deist, believed that God interacted in some way with his
creation.
Both men rejected so-called revealed religion but believed that God
revealed himself, though nature, to our reason. The quote you used
above doesn't prove anything but that its writers believed that God
was active in his creation and that they should rely on him to provide
for their basic needs. It is not about "calling", as in praying, but
simply about a reliance on God's providencial workings as far as
getting the basic needs for every day survival.
Cheers,
G. R. Gaudreau
grg...@sprint.ca
http://members.xoom.com/grgaud/
My wife complains that I don't listen to her... or soemthing like that.
Gardiner
Excellent response! The proof that is sought by the critics is found in the
book (http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html. For example, the proof that
the orthodox Christian education of the Ivy League clearly directed the
founders' path is shown beyond dispute.
Furthermore, the assertion made by our critical friend that Samuel Adams was
anything other than a Puritan is laughable.
If they knew what happened to Thomas Paine after AGE OF REASON was published,
they would realize that Deism has always been an unacceptable minority voice
in the development of this nation.
I challenge them to read the book, then refute it. I don't believe it can be done.
Rick
Andrew C. Lannen wrote:
>
> On Sun, 07 Mar 1999 03:15:20 GMT, purpl...@oozianet.com (Spirit
> Explorer) wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 04 Mar 1999 20:51:51 -0600, Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> 1) Neither Jefferson nor Paine were part of the assembly of founders
> >>who wrote the U.S. Constitution in 1787.
> >
> >But Jefferson did write the Declaration of Independence!!!
>
> Good for him. So what? It didn't contain a single law. Nor
> did it contain anything inconsistent with Christianity.
>
> >> 4) Harvard, William & Mary, Yale, and Princeton were the institutions
> >>where most of the founders received their intellectual formation; all of these
> >>institutions were traditional orthodox Christian academies until the 19th century.
> >
> >Just because someone did go to these institutions doesn't mean that is
> >what they believed at all.
>
> And just because someone signed the Declaration of Independence
> doesn't make them a believer in Deism.
>
> > It means that they wanted to further their
> >education no matter what or where they had to go is all, just as
> >someone would do now. Not proof at all. Please come up with something
> >better.
>
> As soon as you come up with *some* solid evidence to support your
> point, we might consider it.
>
> >> 5) The two most often quoted sources by the founders were, first, the
> >>Bible, and second, William Blackstone's Common Law Commentaries (See Hyneman &
> >>Lutz). Blackstone was a full fledged believer in revealed religion (i.e., the
> >>bible), and most of his content was rooted in medieval (Catholic) political
> >>philosophy (e.g., the Magna Carta). What's more, the entire Common Law
> >>tradition was rooted in orthodox Christianity.
> >
> >One of the reasons the bible was quoted was also because they didn't
> >want it being part of the laws because they were Deists after all.
> >Refute that.
>
> Refute what? That people quoted the bible? That some people
> believed in a separation of Church and State? Separation of Church
> and State was certainly not the sole province of Deists. Some of the
> most devout Christian purists believed in it because they feared that
> the State might pollute the Church.
>
> Just to demolish your central piece of evidence, I would direct
> you to the final full paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.
> On portion of it reads "with a firm reliance on the Protection of
> Divine Providence." Calling upon the almighty to intervene and
> protect them directly contradicts a central tenant of Deism -- that
> God does not directly interfere with the workings of the universe.
>
Spirit Explorer
>On Sun, 07 Mar 1999 03:15:20 GMT, purpl...@oozianet.com (Spirit
>Explorer) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 04 Mar 1999 20:51:51 -0600, Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> 1) Neither Jefferson nor Paine were part of the assembly of founders
>>>who wrote the U.S. Constitution in 1787.
>>
>>But Jefferson did write the Declaration of Independence!!!
>
> Good for him. So what? It didn't contain a single law. Nor
>did it contain anything inconsistent with Christianity.
My point exactly!!! What was said before was no proof of someone being
a Christian or not.
>
>>> 4) Harvard, William & Mary, Yale, and Princeton were the institutions
>>>where most of the founders received their intellectual formation; all of these
>>>institutions were traditional orthodox Christian academies until the 19th century.
>>
>>Just because someone did go to these institutions doesn't mean that is
>>what they believed at all.
>
> And just because someone signed the Declaration of Independence
>doesn't make them a believer in Deism.
>
Again, the same exact point. Just because someone signed the
Constitution does not make them a Christian or not.
>> It means that they wanted to further their
>>education no matter what or where they had to go is all, just as
>>someone would do now. Not proof at all. Please come up with something
>>better.
>
> As soon as you come up with *some* solid evidence to support your
>point, we might consider it.
Where is your solid evidence that all these men were Christians?
>
>>> 5) The two most often quoted sources by the founders were, first, the
>>>Bible, and second, William Blackstone's Common Law Commentaries (See Hyneman &
>>>Lutz). Blackstone was a full fledged believer in revealed religion (i.e., the
>>>bible), and most of his content was rooted in medieval (Catholic) political
>>>philosophy (e.g., the Magna Carta). What's more, the entire Common Law
>>>tradition was rooted in orthodox Christianity.
>>
>>One of the reasons the bible was quoted was also because they didn't
>>want it being part of the laws because they were Deists after all.
>>Refute that.
>
> Refute what? That people quoted the bible? That some people
>believed in a separation of Church and State? Separation of Church
>and State was certainly not the sole province of Deists. Some of the
>most devout Christian purists believed in it because they feared that
>the State might pollute the Church.
You are completely correct on this matter and I am ever so grateful of
that fact. If it was now, the Christians would have us all to go their
churches and believe what they believe or else. That is what they
want. Just ask Pat Robertson or Jerry Fallwell.
>
> Just to demolish your central piece of evidence, I would direct
>you to the final full paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.
>On portion of it reads "with a firm reliance on the Protection of
>Divine Providence." Calling upon the almighty to intervene and
>protect them directly contradicts a central tenant of Deism -- that
>God does not directly interfere with the workings of the universe.
>
> As for why the words "Jesus" or "Christ" are not in the
>Declaration of Independence: In 18th century religious practice,
>taking the Lord's name in vain was a breach of manners. You seldom
>saw his true name used outside of works of a theological or spiritual
>nature. Casually tossing his name about in something that essentially
>was a political propaganda piece (the Declaration) could clearly be
>seen as taking HIS name in vain.
>
So you are correct again. Congratulations, you can read. So what does
any of that prove anyway. I would hope that the people of today could
practice some of that restraint, but alas, it is not to be.
Spirit Explorer
knowbody
Democrat's platform because it didn't contain "...three little
letters: G.O.D." This discussion about the influence of Christianity upon
the founders of the United States reminded me of a thought I had when I
heard Bush make that comment: the United States Constitution doesn't
mention God _AT_ALL! There isn't even a reference to a "creator" or
"providence" (except to "Providence Plantation"). The closest is the
phrase "...blessings of liberty" in the preamble. The oath of office
makes no mention of God, either, although it has been traditional to end
it with the words "so help me God" since George Washington did so at his
inauguration.
I find it incredible that the founders would have intended for this to be
the constitution of a "Christian Nation", as many from the so-called
"Christian Right" claim, without making _SOME_ reference to the Deity.
Does anyone know if the constitutions of other countries with Christian
majorities are similarly lacking in such references?
Here is a page I found which has some information about the religious
beliefs of the founders of the United States:
http://freehosting.at.webjump.com/li/libertarian-webjump/front.htm
Robert L. Johnson
By your lack of reason on very key issues of your bloated message you
appear to be a christian fundamentalist. Just because christianity
relegates reason a few places beneath myth and emotion doesn't mean the
rest of society will blindly do the same.
> > 1) Neither Jefferson nor Paine were part of the assembly of founders
> > who wrote the U.S. Constitution in 1787.
Are you admitting Jefferson to be a Deist?
Have you heard that Jefferson, though not present, was very instrumental
in forming the Bill of Rights?
Have you ever heard of the Declaration of Independence? It's the first
of our national documents. It's considered by some (even christians) to
be a very important document. AND IT IS A DEISTIC DOCUMENT! It only
refers to God in a Deistic way, such as Creator, etc. NOWHERE IN THE
ENTIRE DOCUMENT IS REFERENCE MADE TO CHRISTIANITY, THE BIBLE, JESUS,
ETC.....
> 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. His religious perspective did not represent the consensus of the
> > colonists. In key places such as Princeton, all students had to refute Paine
> > as a part of their graduation requirements.
We're not saying the majority of Americans were Deists, only that many
of the key founders were Deists and that Deism is the only spiritual
philosophy that made it into the Declaration of Independence while no
religious or spiritual ideas made it into the Constitution.
Do you endorse what you say the students at Princeton had to do
regarding Paine? I know Pat Robertson wrote that he believed only
christians and Jews should be in high office in America. This ignorant
narrow view is in the same vain as the Princeton requirement against Tom
Paine of who Adams wrote, the sword of Washington would have been in
vain without the words of Paine.
>
> > 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
You need to open you history books again. Or perhaps purchase books from
other sources other than Christian Coalition Press, etc.
James Madison believed along Unitarian lines. Unitarians don't believe
Jesus is God or even the son of God. To make the huge jump that Madison
was a "traditional orthodox believer in the trinity" is foolish. He
didn't even take communion.
Patrick Henry was a strong believer in bible myth. I'm sure he was
sincere, although he was wrong. He probably knew he was wrong to believe
in christianity. Do you know that he was so angry after reading Tom
Paine's excellent book on religion and Deism, The Age of Reason, that he
wrote a book refuting Paine's book. However, after some deep thought he
threw it in the fire. He probably realized it wasn't based on God-given
reason and could never stand up to the Deist arguments of Paine.
> 4) Harvard, William & Mary, Yale, and Princeton were the institutions
> > where most of the founders received their intellectual formation; all of these
> > institutions were traditional orthodox Christian academies until the 19th century.
> >
So what? I went to a Catholic school for a time, that doesn't mean I
believe it.
>
> > 5) The two most often quoted sources by the founders were, first, the
> > Bible, and second, William Blackstone's Common Law Commentaries (See Hyneman &
> > Lutz). Blackstone was a full fledged believer in revealed religion (i.e., the
> > bible), and most of his content was rooted in medieval (Catholic) political
> > philosophy (e.g., the Magna Carta). What's more, the entire Common Law
> > tradition was rooted in orthodox Christianity.
> >
Too bad for the christian argument that none of that made it into either
the Declaration or the Constitution!
I don't see how you can think the influence of a book like the bible
that tells slaves to obey their masters was a source of freedom.
> > 6) The First Great Awakening was the generation in which the founders
> > were born and reared. The First Great Awakening was led by Jonathan Edwards,
> > George Whitefield, and John Wesley...their views permeated the colonies; and
> > they were hardly deists!
>
Again, so what?
The prayer you attribute to Washington is at best suspect. Like Madison,
Washington refused to take communion. When the preacher mentioned to him
that he set the example for many people and that he should take
communion Washington stayed home from services when he knew communion
would be a part of it.
John Adams believed along Unitarian Universalist lines. He would not be
considered an orhtodox believer in the three gods in one trinity myth.
> BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: Of all the founders, Franklin is most deistic. I
> > will grant him to your cause, with Paine. But you need to be honest enough to
> > admit that Franklin, as an 81 year old man at the Constitutional Convention
> > was too feeble to provide the erudition he possessed as a younger man.
> >
Again, the point is that our founding documents are in no way christian
documents. If Ben Franklin didn't influence the convention then perhaps
it was just general common sense that kept religion out of the
Constitution.
> Puritanism ran through his (Franklin's) blood.
How does religion run through your blood? Given Franklin's reputation as
a ladies man, I don't see the conection with the Puritans!
Regarding your comments about Jefferson, again you need to open you
history books. Jefferson was not a Unitarian. He never openly endorsed
any religion. He did however write Deistic writings and he could not by
any mythological stretch of the imagination be considered a christian!
He even cut and pasted the new testament! Ever hear of the Jefferson
bible?
Regarding your weak ideas about christianity being indirectly the basis
of our nation, how can this be? The bible teaches, as mentioned above,
slaves to obey their masters, it teaches women should keep quite and be
submissive to men, the old test teaches we should stone unruly children,
etc ....... This type of thinking has no place in a progressive society
and did nothing to promote the US Revolution. In fact the bible teaches
us to obey our rulers because they are doing God's work & by rebelling
against them we're rebelling against God. Does this sound like it could
be used to start a revolution????
>
>
I look forward to hearing from you.
Your's in Enlightenment, Bob
http://www.deism.com
Gardiner
Robert L. Johnson wrote:
>
> Dear Rick,
>
> By your lack of reason on very key issues of your bloated message you
> appear to be a christian fundamentalist.
Not at all, sir. I'm just a guy interested in an accurate interpretation of
what happened in Colonial America
>
> > > 1) Neither Jefferson nor Paine were part of the assembly of founders
> > > who wrote the U.S. Constitution in 1787.
>
> Are you admitting Jefferson to be a Deist?
Perhaps. But the reason I pointed this out is because some fellow arguing in
favor of Deism said it is not appropriate to quote men who were not "framers"
as authorities on the nature of the U.S. I am simply pointing out that under
that strict guideline, Jefferson and Paine also have to be excluded. I do not
question the historical significance of either of these men.
> Have you heard that Jefferson, though not present, was very instrumental
> in forming the Bill of Rights?
George Mason authored the Bill of Rights. Jefferson's influence was
ubiquitous, although in one of his later letters he urged a biographer not to
use him as an authority on the constitution.
> Have you ever heard of the Declaration of Independence? It's the first
> of our national documents. It's considered by some (even christians) to
> be a very important document. AND IT IS A DEISTIC DOCUMENT! It only
> refers to God in a Deistic way, such as Creator, etc. NOWHERE IN THE
> ENTIRE DOCUMENT IS REFERENCE MADE TO CHRISTIANITY, THE BIBLE, JESUS,
> ETC.....
The Declaration of Independence is not a Deist document. It is not a
"Christian" document either. It's a political document. It was not based upon
Jefferson or his religious views. Rather it was based upon the views of John
Locke (a Christian), Algernon Sydney (a Puritan), Edward Coke (a Puritan),
William Blackstone (a Christian), etc.
At least that is what Jefferson said about it...if you are willing to believe
him (See Jefferson to Henry Lee, 5/8/1825)
>
> > 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. His religious perspective did not represent the consensus of the
> > > colonists. In key places such as Princeton, all students had to refute Paine
> > > as a part of their graduation requirements.
>
> We're not saying the majority of Americans were Deists, only that many
> of the key founders were Deists and that Deism is the only spiritual
> philosophy that made it into the Declaration of Independence while no
> religious or spiritual ideas made it into the Constitution.
Again, the "spiritual philosophy," if there is such a creature, that "made it
in" to the Declaration was the coinage of Christian men: Locke, Sidney, Coke,
and Blackstone. Read their works...Jefferson plagiarized them. Every 11th
grader knows that.
> Do you endorse what you say the students at Princeton had to do
> regarding Paine? I know Pat Robertson wrote that he believed only
> christians and Jews should be in high office in America. This ignorant
> narrow view is in the same vain as the Princeton requirement against Tom
> Paine of who Adams wrote, the sword of Washington would have been in
> vain without the words of Paine.
I don't endorse it at all. I'm just saying the Paine was not a "hero" of the
American populace, or the elite, once he published AGE OF REASON. Although it
is accurate to accord COMMON SENSE a significant role in the American
Revolution, it is a mistake to say that Paine's religious views therefore
represented the consensus at the founding. On the contrary. Paine's religion
was anathematized. Just the facts. I'm not endorsing it.
> > > 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
>
> You need to open you history books again. Or perhaps purchase books from
> other sources other than Christian Coalition Press, etc.
Most of the books I read on this subject were printed in the early 1800's. I
think the majority came from Scribner's and Sons Press, Philadephia.
> James Madison believed along Unitarian lines. Unitarians don't believe
> Jesus is God or even the son of God. To make the huge jump that Madison
> was a "traditional orthodox believer in the trinity" is foolish. He
> didn't even take communion.
I'd be interested in your sources for the claim that Madison was a Unitarian.
> Patrick Henry was a strong believer in bible myth. I'm sure he was
> sincere, although he was wrong. He probably knew he was wrong to believe
> in christianity.
Bob, that's weak. I suppose I know have the warrant to say that although
Franklin, Jefferson, and Paine made deistical confessions, they probably knew
that they were wrong not to believe in Christianity. That is quite an
unscholarly approach. I suppose when you don't have any evidence, you are only
left with speculation like what you offer regarding Henry.
> > 4) Harvard, William & Mary, Yale, and Princeton were the institutions
> > > where most of the founders received their intellectual formation; all of these
> > > institutions were traditional orthodox Christian academies until the 19th century.
> > >
> So what? I went to a Catholic school for a time, that doesn't mean I
> believe it.
Do you think you represent the consensus of all students who attending
Catholic school. The argument I am making is not about any one particular
founder who went through the Ivy League; but a generic statement that
education in the formative years generally does impact one's views. Have you
ever taken a course in sociology. Are you alleging that education has no part
of the socialization and indoctrination process of an era? Are you alleging
that all the founders in unison shucked off everything they were taught in
college? weird!
For instance, I bet you wear pants and a shirt rather than a kimono... Certain
aspects of Western culture run through your veins, regardless of whether you
consciously adopted them. The founders were also subject to this phenomenon.
Their culture was saturated with Christianity. Therefore, they held to
Christian practices and Christian ideas. It was part and parcel of culture.
None of them would have advocated opening court or congress on Sunday (you
might not either), none of them would have sanctioned nakedness in public or
polygamy, even though there are religions and cultures elsewhere that do
condone these practices. Whether they confessed it explicitly or not, the
founders were victims of their socio-cultural context, and that context was
saturated with Christianity. That's all this book
(http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html) is alleging.
> > > 5) The two most often quoted sources by the founders were, first, the
> > > Bible, and second, William Blackstone's Common Law Commentaries (See Hyneman &
> > > Lutz). Blackstone was a full fledged believer in revealed religion (i.e., the
> > > bible), and most of his content was rooted in medieval (Catholic) political
> > > philosophy (e.g., the Magna Carta). What's more, the entire Common Law
> > > tradition was rooted in orthodox Christianity.
> > >
> Too bad for the christian argument that none of that made it into either
> the Declaration or the Constitution!
Are you claiming, against all scholarly information, that the Magna Carta and
the Christian political tradition that it embodied had no place in the Second
Continental Congress?? weird!!!
> I don't see how you can think the influence of a book like the bible
> that tells slaves to obey their masters was a source of freedom.
Perhaps you are right...too bad no one ever explained that to Martin Luther
King, Jr., who revolutionized civil rights for blacks under the auspices of
the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and as an ordained Baptist
minister who quoted the bible every time he gave a speech.
> > > 6) The First Great Awakening was the generation in which the founders
> > > were born and reared. The First Great Awakening was led by Jonathan Edwards,
> > > George Whitefield, and John Wesley...their views permeated the colonies; and
> > > they were hardly deists!
> >
> Again, so what?
Again, just painting a clear picture of the socio-cultural milieu in which the
nation was birthed. Are you alleging that the founders were oblivious to the
culture in which they lived?
> The prayer you attribute to Washington is at best suspect.
Granted.
> John Adams believed along Unitarian Universalist lines.
Perhaps.
> > Puritanism ran through his (Franklin's) blood.
>
> How does religion run through your blood? Given Franklin's reputation as
> a ladies man, I don't see the conection with the Puritans!
Again, I suppose you need to take a course in sociology or anthropology. Human
beings are not unaffected by the culture in which they are born and bred.
Franklin was born in a large Puritan Family, studied for the Puritan Ministry,
considered Cotton Mather his hero, wrote a defense of Calvinism, and became
the biggest proponent of the Protestant Work Ethic (poor richard) that America
has ever known. That is what I mean by "puritanism ran through his blood."
> Regarding your comments about Jefferson, again you need to open you
> history books. Jefferson was not a Unitarian. He never openly endorsed
> any religion.
You are patently wrong about this. See Jefferson's letter to William Ellery
Channing in 1822.
> Regarding your weak ideas about christianity being indirectly the basis
> of our nation, how can this be? The bible teaches, as mentioned above,
> slaves to obey their masters, it teaches women should keep quite and be
> submissive to men, the old test teaches we should stone unruly children,
> etc .......
Yes. I agree. As I said, Martin Luther King, Jr. could not have been a
Christian minister! How could he be? If he was than there could have not been
a civil rights movement.
> This type of thinking has no place in a progressive society
> and did nothing to promote the US Revolution. In fact the bible teaches
> us to obey our rulers because they are doing God's work & by rebelling
> against them we're rebelling against God. Does this sound like it could
> be used to start a revolution????
Boy is this shallow, Bob. Have you ever heard of the English Civil War... read
about it.... 1649, the Puritans in England took Charles I Stuart, who argued
for "Divine Right of Kings" and put his head on the chopping block. On what
grounds did the Puritans do this? Oh my...Puritans must not have been
Christians, they must have had no respect for the Bible!!?? On the contrary,
they, like the Hebrew prophets in the old testament, felt it was their duty to
challenge Kings when the Kings went astray; and Jefferson adopted the Puritan
motto: Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God. Yes, Puritanism ran through
Jefferson's blood as well, in spite of the fact that he made many negative
statements about John Calvin, et al.
> I look forward to hearing from you.
It has been a blessing indeed to engage in this discourse. I hope you might
begin to honor my cordial and earnest intentions in this dialogue. Where I am
wrong, I am wrong. Thanks for helping me in my search for the truth.
I also hope you might take a good look at the argument in the book, NEVER
BEFORE IN HISTORY at http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
Spirit Explorer
wrote:
>In regards to the persistent debate about the book, NEVER BEFORE IN HISTORY (http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html)
>
>Robert L. Johnson wrote:
>>
>> Dear Rick,
>>
>> By your lack of reason on very key issues of your bloated message you
>> appear to be a christian fundamentalist.
>
>Not at all, sir. I'm just a guy interested in an accurate interpretation of
>what happened in Colonial America
You DO NOT want an accurate interpretation at all because if you
honestly did, you wouldn't want this idiotic fluff to be around for
our poor students to read and possibly believe. All you want is for
everyone in this country and the world to believe the lies that the
Christian fundamentalists want to believe.
>
>>
>> > > 1) Neither Jefferson nor Paine were part of the assembly of founders
>> > > who wrote the U.S. Constitution in 1787.
>>
>> Are you admitting Jefferson to be a Deist?
>
>Perhaps. But the reason I pointed this out is because some fellow arguing in
>favor of Deism said it is not appropriate to quote men who were not "framers"
>as authorities on the nature of the U.S. I am simply pointing out that under
>that strict guideline, Jefferson and Paine also have to be excluded. I do not
>question the historical significance of either of these men.
I swear that you definitely go out of your way to get your point
across, no matter how wrong it is.
>
>> Have you heard that Jefferson, though not present, was very instrumental
>> in forming the Bill of Rights?
>
>George Mason authored the Bill of Rights. Jefferson's influence was
>ubiquitous, although in one of his later letters he urged a biographer not to
>use him as an authority on the constitution.
Oh PLEASE!!! Will you please come off of your high horse and stop
trying to change the history of this country? Will you please just let
it alone and just admit that the Christian and revisionist view is
wrong. I know that you know it deep down inside because if you weren't
at least the little bit intelligent, you wouldn't be able to come up
with such great come-backs. They just won't work with those of us who
actually have read the founding father's papers, the constitution, and
the true history of our country.
>
>> Have you ever heard of the Declaration of Independence? It's the first
>> of our national documents. It's considered by some (even christians) to
>> be a very important document. AND IT IS A DEISTIC DOCUMENT! It only
>> refers to God in a Deistic way, such as Creator, etc. NOWHERE IN THE
>> ENTIRE DOCUMENT IS REFERENCE MADE TO CHRISTIANITY, THE BIBLE, JESUS,
>> ETC.....
>
>The Declaration of Independence is not a Deist document. It is not a
>"Christian" document either. It's a political document. It was not based upon
>Jefferson or his religious views. Rather it was based upon the views of John
>Locke (a Christian), Algernon Sydney (a Puritan), Edward Coke (a Puritan),
>William Blackstone (a Christian), etc.
Please get your head out of your ass. If it wasn't a Deist document
and not a Christian document, then what ,akes you think it was one
based on the Puritan's views anyway? That showed the smallness of your
thinking here. I will accept that it was a political document, but if
it was, then you can't have it both ways. Either it was a political
document or a Puritan document; which is it? We all know it was a
political Deist document, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt
here.
>
>At least that is what Jefferson said about it...if you are willing to believe
>him (See Jefferson to Henry Lee, 5/8/1825)
Let's see what else you can take out of context.
>
>>
>> > 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. His religious perspective did not represent the consensus of the
>> > > colonists. In key places such as Princeton, all students had to refute Paine
>> > > as a part of their graduation requirements.
>>
>> We're not saying the majority of Americans were Deists, only that many
>> of the key founders were Deists and that Deism is the only spiritual
>> philosophy that made it into the Declaration of Independence while no
>> religious or spiritual ideas made it into the Constitution.
>
>Again, the "spiritual philosophy," if there is such a creature, that "made it
>in" to the Declaration was the coinage of Christian men: Locke, Sidney, Coke,
>and Blackstone. Read their works...Jefferson plagiarized them. Every 11th
>grader knows that.
You Christians will stop at no lengths to get your point across will
you? It is sickening.
Very well put. They do not want to admit that their thinking is
askewed with how they view religion and all. It is sad though, that
they can't look at history as history and want to put their religious
spin on everything.
>
>> James Madison believed along Unitarian lines. Unitarians don't believe
>> Jesus is God or even the son of God. To make the huge jump that Madison
>> was a "traditional orthodox believer in the trinity" is foolish. He
>> didn't even take communion.
>
>I'd be interested in your sources for the claim that Madison was a Unitarian.
I thought that you read true historical books based on true history.
That is not all that book is alleging at all and you know it. I will
admit and I am sure most would, that a person is going to be part of
the era that they were alive in. But the book is saying that all of
the founding fathers and all important people involved with the
beginning of our country were all Christian, which is not true and you
well know it. There were ways that they had to live just because of
the laws of the time just as is true now for all of us. Do you not
admit that this is a fact?
>
>> > > 5) The two most often quoted sources by the founders were, first, the
>> > > Bible, and second, William Blackstone's Common Law Commentaries (See Hyneman &
>> > > Lutz). Blackstone was a full fledged believer in revealed religion (i.e., the
>> > > bible), and most of his content was rooted in medieval (Catholic) political
>> > > philosophy (e.g., the Magna Carta). What's more, the entire Common Law
>> > > tradition was rooted in orthodox Christianity.
>> > >
>> Too bad for the christian argument that none of that made it into either
>> the Declaration or the Constitution!
>
>Are you claiming, against all scholarly information, that the Magna Carta and
>the Christian political tradition that it embodied had no place in the Second
>Continental Congress?? weird!!!
>
>> I don't see how you can think the influence of a book like the bible
>> that tells slaves to obey their masters was a source of freedom.
>
>Perhaps you are right...too bad no one ever explained that to Martin Luther
>King, Jr., who revolutionized civil rights for blacks under the auspices of
>the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and as an ordained Baptist
>minister who quoted the bible every time he gave a speech.
And what exactly is your point here?
>
>> > > 6) The First Great Awakening was the generation in which the founders
>> > > were born and reared. The First Great Awakening was led by Jonathan Edwards,
>> > > George Whitefield, and John Wesley...their views permeated the colonies; and
>> > > they were hardly deists!
>> >
>> Again, so what?
>
>Again, just painting a clear picture of the socio-cultural milieu in which the
>nation was birthed. Are you alleging that the founders were oblivious to the
>culture in which they lived?
>
>> The prayer you attribute to Washington is at best suspect.
>
>Granted.
>
>> John Adams believed along Unitarian Universalist lines.
>
>Perhaps.
>
>> > Puritanism ran through his (Franklin's) blood.
>>
>> How does religion run through your blood? Given Franklin's reputation as
>> a ladies man, I don't see the conection with the Puritans!
I do!!! Just look at all the so-called Christian leaders. Most of them
have been caught with their hands in the till, so to speak.
>
>Again, I suppose you need to take a course in sociology or anthropology. Human
>beings are not unaffected by the culture in which they are born and bred.
>Franklin was born in a large Puritan Family, studied for the Puritan Ministry,
>considered Cotton Mather his hero, wrote a defense of Calvinism, and became
>the biggest proponent of the Protestant Work Ethic (poor richard) that America
>has ever known. That is what I mean by "puritanism ran through his blood."
I understand what you are saying here, but I do believe "running
through his blood" is a bit over-stating it.
>
>> Regarding your comments about Jefferson, again you need to open you
>> history books. Jefferson was not a Unitarian. He never openly endorsed
>> any religion.
>
>You are patently wrong about this. See Jefferson's letter to William Ellery
>Channing in 1822.
No, you are the one who is wrong, and as you like to say, every 6th
grader even knows this.
>
>> Regarding your weak ideas about christianity being indirectly the basis
>> of our nation, how can this be? The bible teaches, as mentioned above,
>> slaves to obey their masters, it teaches women should keep quite and be
>> submissive to men, the old test teaches we should stone unruly children,
>> etc .......
>
>Yes. I agree. As I said, Martin Luther King, Jr. could not have been a
>Christian minister! How could he be? If he was than there could have not been
>a civil rights movement.
>
>> This type of thinking has no place in a progressive society
>> and did nothing to promote the US Revolution. In fact the bible teaches
>> us to obey our rulers because they are doing God's work & by rebelling
>> against them we're rebelling against God. Does this sound like it could
>> be used to start a revolution????
>
>Boy is this shallow, Bob. Have you ever heard of the English Civil War... read
>about it.... 1649, the Puritans in England took Charles I Stuart, who argued
>for "Divine Right of Kings" and put his head on the chopping block. On what
>grounds did the Puritans do this? Oh my...Puritans must not have been
>Christians, they must have had no respect for the Bible!!?? On the contrary,
>they, like the Hebrew prophets in the old testament, felt it was their duty to
>challenge Kings when the Kings went astray; and Jefferson adopted the Puritan
>motto: Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God. Yes, Puritanism ran through
>Jefferson's blood as well, in spite of the fact that he made many negative
>statements about John Calvin, et al.
I was raised a Christian by my mother and father. Yhat does not mean
that I am Christian at all, not does it mean that it is running
through my veins. In fact, I dislike the Christian religion for all of
the lies that I was told throughout my life by it. I now know, and
have known, since I was allowed to read and study books other than
what was approved by the Christian church as a whole.
Spirit Explorer
Spirit Explorer
to explain basic history to the know-it-alls here.
Spirit Explorer
HugoMo...@hotmail.com
b...@deism.com wrote:
>> > 5) The two most often quoted sources by the founders were, first,
the
>> > Bible, and second, William Blackstone's Common Law Commentaries (See
Hyneman &
>> > Lutz). Blackstone was a full fledged believer in revealed religion (i.e.,
the
>> > bible), and most of his content was rooted in medieval (Catholic) political
>> > philosophy (e.g., the Magna Carta). What's more, the entire Common Law
>> > tradition was rooted in orthodox Christianity.
>> >
>
>Too bad for the christian argument that none of that made it into either
>the Declaration or the Constitution!
>
>I don't see how you can think the influence of a book like the bible
>that tells slaves to obey their masters was a source of freedom.
>
The Bible has been a “source” of freedom, just as much as it has been a
“source” of oppression. I don’t think anyone -- not even Christians, for the
most part -- argues against the fact that the Bible was declared as a basis
for slavery, the Crusades, the Inqusition and multitude of other horrors
throughout history. But, we cannot ignore the basic message of Jesus, in
general terms, of love and fairness, and that these “Christian Principles”
have been the basis for much good in the world as well. It was Christians
that ended slavery, too; even they saw past the rationalization that people
used to Biblically support slavery. Many people in the Underground Railroad
-- both black and white -- risked death, severe physical punishment, and
imprisonment to go against a system of atrocity. Their basis for this was
the values they held close to their heart, values learned in the course and
embedded within the Christian religion.
When we say something is the “source” of atrocity, we must be careful in our
meaning. Regardless as to whether the Bible is the perfect word of God,
Christian and non-Christian alike can agree that the Bible can be taken in a
number of different ways. This being the case, this also means that it can
also be rationalized in a number of different ways as well. No being that
believes in God or Absolute Truth, I believe, would take the Bible this way
unless this is what they specifically desired; to have something to point to,
to call an “objective” source of Truth, thereby absolving themselves of any
responsibility. But, it is important to note that other Christians can look
at the same book and know that there is no such rationalization to be found,
and know that those who have claimed righteousness are “sinners” of the
truest form. (I must also say, to qualify all of this, that I think the
"good" Christian simply ignores many of the horrible things in the Bible --
such as when God "rewarded" the army of Moses by allowing them to pillage and
-rape- all of the virgin women and girls in the enemy city (Exodus,
somewhere) -- with bewilderment and disbelief, in general ignoring that which
is known to be "ungodly" instruction or passing it off to something about the
"context" of the passage that is obviously not understood.)
Is the “source” for slavery, then, the Bible or cruel human intentions? Is
the source for fighting slavery the Bible or human benevolence? I am neither
Deist nor Christian, nor do I believe in the perfection of the Bible. From
the Christian perspective, in the sense of a perfect document being left open
to a multitude of imperfect interpretations, this is where I would find fault
with the Bible -- in not being specific enough. But, of course, this is
impossible to do without specifying strict legalism such as in the Old
Testament, the removal of which is one of the major themes of the New
Testament.
To say “I am nice because the Bible tells me so” is just as legalistic as “I
keep slaves because the Bible says it’s ok”, neither having anything to do
with the spirit of humankind. Thus, the Bible, in the context of atrocity,
can only ever be used for rationalization, and not as a rulebook.
As far as goodness, as believers of a benevolence to which we are bound,
either through our own nature or the “grace” of God, it is an agreement that
Deist and Christian both can make that such is only of God, and all else is
not of God. When humans perform atrocities and horrors, it is either through
some evil intention that the Bible would have never halted or hindered even
if it’s context of benevolence towards mankind were unmistakable; or by guile
of men who have convinced those performing the atrocity that some Holy
mission is being executed. That is to say, even during the Crusades, what
can be said of the men who burned men, women, and children inside of Mosques
while singing Christian Hymms, yet truly believing the work of the Lord was
being done? When a man has been truly convinced through the evil of others
that such men, women, and children are without soul or -- even worse -- a
demon inspired and controlled by Satan Himself, can it be said that this man
has rationalized the Bible for evil purposes? (It is important to note that
most people in the Crusades had never seen a Bible, or read one, or even
heard scripture, except for snippets, in any other language than Latin.
Thus, once they formed the belief (forced upon them in early childhood) of
the perfection of the Bible and transmission of perfection to the Clergy,
their beliefs, sadly, were subject to the interpretations and motivations of
such men). The worst that can be said about such a person is that they have
been seriously misled and their major crime against humanity is that of
believing what he was told without thought, of allowing a legalistic belief
to enter within, untested, spoken by men and taken as words of God.
Unfortunately, this still persists today.
>I don't see how you can think the influence of a book like the bible
>that tells slaves to obey their masters was a source of freedom.
The context and symbol of Goodness imparted into the word “Jesus” far exceeds
the written words of the Bible. To this extent, once the written word is
removed but the essence remains, Christians and Deists are on the same Page.
>Regarding your weak ideas about christianity being indirectly the basis
>of our nation, how can this be? The bible teaches, as mentioned above,
>slaves to obey their masters, it teaches women should keep quite and be
>submissive to men, the old test teaches we should stone unruly children,
>etc ....... This type of thinking has no place in a progressive society
>and did nothing to promote the US Revolution. In fact the bible teaches
>us to obey our rulers because they are doing God's work & by rebelling
>against them we're rebelling against God. Does this sound like it could
>be used to start a revolution????
Refer to the above. Also...
There is no doubt that many of the framers of the Constitution were
Christian, some were Deist, and some declared Christianity just to be
peaceable with the Christian majority and not to suffer the sarcastic and
violent rhetoric given to Jefferson, Paine, and others who declared
themselves to be either Deist or to have no loyalty to Christianity (as
opposed to Christian Principles).
Many, if not all, non-Christians who helped form this nation went to
Christian schools, either Catholic or Protestant. In addition to the
doctrine of the Church regarding Christ and other issues that cannot be
substantiated but by believing the Bible to be the word of God, were what is
commonly known as “Christian Values”. Many people, especially Christians,
take this to mean that these values are found only in or have their complete
genesis in Christianity. In a way, they are correct. Inasmuch as Christianity
takes itself to be the totality of God, it is simply saying that such values
come from God, while simultaneously saying that God is a Christian and only a
Christian.
However, such values have been the basis for all forms of religions that
consider God as supreme (not necessarily omnipotent or omniscient, but supreme
in the sense of importance and meaning). These “God-given” values were
imparted into these children, who later became the founders of our nation, as
part of the instruction they received. Some things go beyond religion and do
not require scripture. Basic Goodness, Kindness, Love, etc. However, it is
far easier to develop these aspects into your life, along with courage,
responsibility, integrity, and so forth, when there are living examples around
you.
As errant as we may believe Christianity to be, it cannot be ignored that the
central core of Christianity, these “Christian Principles”, have been the
drive for many selfless acts throughout history and much benevolence as well
(ignoring the other side of this, for now). There are men of courage and
valour to be found beloning to any religion and non-religion. The earlier we
learn this and see examples in our lives, the more it is imparted to us as
children. Many of our founding fathers spoke of their own fathers and the
life-long lessons imparted by them; most of their fathers were Christians who
shared the same core values.
That is how Christianity can be and was the indirect basis of our nation: by
the goodness that the men who founded our country pulled from it and that it
imparted to their ancestors and those around them; the goodness, meaning, and
Spirit of it coming back at them full-force.
Hugo
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Andrew C. Lannen
Explorer) wrote:
>I was raised a Christian by my mother and father. Yhat does not mean
>that I am Christian at all, not does it mean that it is running
>through my veins. In fact, I dislike the Christian religion for all of
>the lies that I was told throughout my life by it. I now know, and
>have known, since I was allowed to read and study books other than
>what was approved by the Christian church as a whole.
So here we have the heart of the matter: You dislike
Christianity. Therefore, you believe that everyone else should
dislike it as well. And even if they don't, you'll say that they
secretly do dislike it.
If you want to understand the role of Religion and Christianity
in the years leading up to the Revolution, I would suggest you read
Patricia U. Bonomi's _Under the Cope of Heaven: Religion, Society,
and Politics in Colonial America_ (Oxford University Press, 1986). It
discusses in great depth how the American tradition of dissent from
the Anglican Church, particularly by evangelical religious sects
(Baptists, Methodists, etc.), helped fuel the fires of resistance and
eventually Revolution.
It also has comments on Thomas Jefferson's relation to
Christianity: (First acknowledging that he rejected the concept of a
Trinity) "Nonetheless Jefferson considered himself a 'real'
Christian, described the moral system of Jesus as the most 'sublime
ever preached to man,' and believed in a future state of rewards and
punishments. . . . His personal religious practices included assiduous
reading of the Bible and theology, regular churchgoing, and baptism,
marriage, and burial within the Church of England for himself and
family."
This hardly sounds like a man with the distaste for Christianity
that you hold and that you attribute to him. By his own admission,
Christian teachings positively influenced Jefferson's outlook on life.
While he might personally have leaned towards Deism, he felt that
Christian moral philosophy outlined the best way to organize society.
His problem was with church *leaders* (not with Christianity itself)
who he felt had drifted away from the true teachings of Christ. Of
course, you'll probably just dismiss Bonomi, a recent President of the
American Historical Association, as a religious nut.
Frankly, I haven't been to church in about ten years. I'm hardly
a religious fundamentalist. I am just a historian that acknowledges
the pervasive and widespread influence of Christianity in everyday
life and thought in the 18th century. That includes the generation of
the founding fathers.
Gardiner
> course, you'll probably just dismiss Bonomi, a recent President of the
> American Historical Association, as a religious nut.
>
> Frankly, I haven't been to church in about ten years. I'm hardly
> a religious fundamentalist. I am just a historian that acknowledges
> the pervasive and widespread influence of Christianity in everyday
> life and thought in the 18th century. That includes the generation of
> the founding fathers.
Thanks, Andrew. I am not a churchgoer either. It is perplexing how those who
are averse to Christianity go to such lengths to avoid the blatant truths
about America's birth. They crucify common sense.
The argument of the book, NEVER BEFORE IN HISTORY
(http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html) is simply that the socio-cultural
and socio-political context of the founding was saturated with Christianity,
and as such it was a profound influence upon the founding.
From the responses that have been posted, one would get the sense that the
founders were all able to remove themselves entirely from their socio-cultural
context and behave as if they were oblivious to their upbringing. Like it or
not, people are largely a product of their culture. Why is this so hard to grasp?
Blessings,
Rick
> On Fri, 12 Mar 1999 00:30:55 GMT, purpl...@oozianet.com (Spirit
> Explorer) wrote:
>
> >I was raised a Christian by my mother and father. Yhat does not mean
> >that I am Christian at all, not does it mean that it is running
> >through my veins. In fact, I dislike the Christian religion for all of
> >the lies that I was told throughout my life by it. I now know, and
> >have known, since I was allowed to read and study books other than
> >what was approved by the Christian church as a whole.
>
c...@teleport.com
> Thanks, Andrew. I am not a churchgoer either. It is perplexing how those who
> are averse to Christianity go to such lengths to avoid the blatant truths
> about America's birth. They crucify common sense.
>
> The argument of the book, NEVER BEFORE IN HISTORY
> (http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html) is simply that the socio-cultural
> and socio-political context of the founding was saturated with Christianity,
> and as such it was a profound influence upon the founding.
>
> From the responses that have been posted, one would get the sense that the
> founders were all able to remove themselves entirely from their socio-cultural
> context and behave as if they were oblivious to their upbringing. Like it or
> not, people are largely a product of their culture. Why is this so hard
to grasp?
It was also these people who errected the wall between church and state,
recognizing the perverse influence of religion on government. Remember,
these me were ultimately founding a government, not founding a religion or
supporting a church.
Their knowledge of religion and its history and practices were what led to
the separation of church and state.
----------------------------------
Fas Est Et Ab Hoste Doceri
----------------------------------
Andrew C. Lannen
>It was also these people who errected the wall between church and state,
>recognizing the perverse influence of religion on government. Remember,
>these me were ultimately founding a government, not founding a religion or
>supporting a church.
You are correct. They were concentrating on a government and not
on a religion. But that should not be taken to such lengths as Spirt
Explorer takes it -- implying that the founders' Christianity had no
influence whatsoever in shaping their political and social worldviews.
Make sure, too, not to confuse "church" with religion. They are
not perfect synonyms. Many founders, like Jefferson, were comfortable
with Christian teachings and thought them applicable to society, but
were leery of giving individual church *organizations* (particularly
the Anglican and Catholic establishments) influence over government.
>Their knowledge of religion and its history and practices were what led to
>the separation of church and state.
And for many others, including Baptists, Methodists,
Presbyterians, Jews, and Catholics, it was the knowlege of the state
and its history of religious persecution that led them to support the
separation. Separation was not just to protect the state from the
church, it was also to protect the church from the perverse influences
of the state.
c...@teleport.com
(Andrew C. Lannen) wrote:
> And for many others, including Baptists, Methodists,
> Presbyterians, Jews, and Catholics, it was the knowlege of the state
> and its history of religious persecution that led them to support the
> separation. Separation was not just to protect the state from the
> church, it was also to protect the church from the perverse influences
> of the state.
Exactly. Once one religion gains political ascendency over all others,
that one religion then defines heresey. The next step is for heresey
becomes equivalent to treason. Look at the inquisition for the extreem,
but not impossible even today, extention of such a policy.
Another interesting fact is that the wall of separation was promulgated at
a time when exxentially every inhabitant attended church. America was
never so religious as when the wall was established.
c...@teleport.com
> You are correct. They were concentrating on a government and not
> on a religion. But that should not be taken to such lengths as Spirt
> Explorer takes it -- implying that the founders' Christianity had no
> influence whatsoever in shaping their political and social worldviews.
I would wager that they relied more on the political philosophers (Hobbes,
Locke, Mill etc) than on their "christian" teachings, probably about ten
to one or more.
Spirit Explorer
Lannen) wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Mar 1999 00:30:55 GMT, purpl...@oozianet.com (Spirit
>Explorer) wrote:
>
>>I was raised a Christian by my mother and father. Yhat does not mean
>>that I am Christian at all, not does it mean that it is running
>>through my veins. In fact, I dislike the Christian religion for all of
>>the lies that I was told throughout my life by it. I now know, and
>>have known, since I was allowed to read and study books other than
>>what was approved by the Christian church as a whole.
>
> So here we have the heart of the matter: You dislike
>Christianity. Therefore, you believe that everyone else should
>dislike it as well. And even if they don't, you'll say that they
>secretly do dislike it.
No, I do not want everyone to dislike it at all. I just would like for
people to honestly know and understand what their religion is truly
about. What is wrong with that? Do you have something to hide or what?
I know plenty of my friends that do completely understand what
Christianity is about and the true history of it and they are quite
happy being Christians and I am happy for them and BTW, they do not
dislike it at all. Yime for you to come up with a different theory
now!!
You have your quotes showing the framers refer to God, and I KNOW
that
you have seen plenty that show the framers referring to Liberty being
the
priority. Maybe a Christian actually thought that self-righteousness
and
oppression were not the "Purpose of God". Ever think of that? You
know, that
"in their opinion" God was the only way, but that opinion could not be
forced upon those that disagree? Also, read your quote thoroughly. It
does
not say that GOD founded the Constitution and that there is only one
religion. It says it was founded on the laws of God. Which laws are
these?
The fundamental laws. You know the ones about murder and the like?
Though I
don't remember the one that says, there should only be ONE religion
and the
one that says that one MUST have religion. As much as I loathe
Christian
ideology, these fundamentals were created by man for a purpose. It is
that
purpose which Mr. Madison speaks of.
Spirit Explorer
Spirit Explorer
wrote:
>> Of
>> course, you'll probably just dismiss Bonomi, a recent President of the
>> American Historical Association, as a religious nut.
>>
>> Frankly, I haven't been to church in about ten years. I'm hardly
>> a religious fundamentalist. I am just a historian that acknowledges
>> the pervasive and widespread influence of Christianity in everyday
>> life and thought in the 18th century. That includes the generation of
>> the founding fathers.
>
>Thanks, Andrew. I am not a churchgoer either. It is perplexing how those who
>are averse to Christianity go to such lengths to avoid the blatant truths
>about America's birth. They crucify common sense.
>
>The argument of the book, NEVER BEFORE IN HISTORY
>(http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html) is simply that the socio-cultural
>and socio-political context of the founding was saturated with Christianity,
>and as such it was a profound influence upon the founding.
>
>From the responses that have been posted, one would get the sense that the
>founders were all able to remove themselves entirely from their socio-cultural
>context and behave as if they were oblivious to their upbringing. Like it or
>not, people are largely a product of their culture. Why is this so hard to grasp?
>
>Blessings,
>Rick
>
Yada...Yada...Yada
Sounds like the exact same thing coming from you. You see, there is
nothing wrong with any of us disagreeing with each other. You want
everyone to believe that all in this country is based on the Christian
religion or God and it is not. That is all I am saying. BTW, who cares
if you go to church or jnot. You are still a Christian aren't you or
claim to be anyway?
Spirit Explorer
Spirit Explorer
Lannen) wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Mar 1999 08:06:50 -0700, c...@teleport.com wrote:
>
>>It was also these people who errected the wall between church and state,
>>recognizing the perverse influence of religion on government. Remember,
>>these me were ultimately founding a government, not founding a religion or
>>supporting a church.
>
> You are correct. They were concentrating on a government and not
>on a religion. But that should not be taken to such lengths as Spirt
>Explorer takes it -- implying that the founders' Christianity had no
>influence whatsoever in shaping their political and social worldviews.
I never said any sauch thing. You see, this is what your problem is. I
said that not everything they did was based on their religion or lack
thereof, whichever was appropiate at the time. This is what you want
to believe because it makes you feel superioe to be able to say "I
know better". Please. at least read what I say in take it in the right
perspective or is that too darn difficult for you? Of course religion
played a part, just not every place that the Christians say it did.
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
Frank Shelton
>recognizing the perverse influence of religion on government.
IIRC Jefferson said it would be a one way barrier, allowing good Christian
influence on the government without the governement controlling
Christianity. You have it backwords.
--
Cheers,
Frank
http://www.voicenet.com/~frnkn0fs
Frank Shelton
(First >acknowledging that he rejected the concept of a Trinity)
IIRC so does the Eastern Orthadox Church which is still considered
Christian.
knowbody
You continue to post a url "for the book", without mentioning that the
book is not at the url. It points to an advertisement for the book.
Every message you post with the url should, therefore, be seen for what it
is: spam.
Gardiner
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..
Gardiner
> >Locke, Mill etc) than on their "christian" teachings, probably about ten
> >to one or more.
>
> drafters of the Constitution may have read Locke (I don't think Hobbes
> was taken much as a model due to his sanction of tyranny, nor Mill due
> to his not being born until 1806)
LOL, Andrew...I commend you for your courteousy in your gentle correction; I
probably would not have had the kindness to offer such a mild response. I
think you are correct that the founders generally disparaged Hobbes, and that
they probably did not use crystal balls in order to read Mill. I would just
add that, according to the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Locke was "a sincere
Christian." He dedicated his last years to writing commentaries upon St.
Paul's epistles and is well known for writing a treatise entitled "The
Reasonableness of Christianity."
Your posts have been genuinely fair and balanced, as well as honorable and
kind; Jefferson said that a man's charity is intimately linked to his reason:
uncharitable persons are usually that way because they are unreasonable.
Blessings,
Rick
http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
Andrew C. Lannen
>In article <36ea46e2...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, and...@ix.netcom.com
>(Andrew C. Lannen) wrote:
>
>> You are correct. They were concentrating on a government and not
>> on a religion. But that should not be taken to such lengths as Spirt
>> Explorer takes it -- implying that the founders' Christianity had no
>> influence whatsoever in shaping their political and social worldviews.
>
>I would wager that they relied more on the political philosophers (Hobbes,
>Locke, Mill etc) than on their "christian" teachings, probably about ten
>to one or more.
These things are devilishly hard to measure. Many of the
drafters of the Constitution may have read Locke (I don't think Hobbes
was taken much as a model due to his sanction of tyranny, nor Mill due
to his not being born until 1806), but how many of them agreed with
what he said? For most of them, we just don't know. There has been a
sharp historical debate since the 1960s over the influence of Lockean
thought.
Andrew C. Lannen
Explorer) 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
See, this is the type of statement that I object to. You cannot
crawl into a dead person's head and figure out what they secretly
thought. All we have to go by is what they wrote and how they
behaved. Based on that, most of them considered Christianity a
positive moral and social force. Even Jefferson.
The only reason I even entered this debate was to question your
apparent insinuation that the country was founded on Deism (seeming to
take the opposite view of the person who started the thread).
> or it would have been more of a part of this
>country.
Protestant Christianity was very much a part of the lives of
the founders and everyone who lived here at the time. I fail to see
how you can argue that it wasn't an important part of the country. If
you can prove to me that most of the founders and most Americans were
Pagans, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Shintoists, Confucians, or Athiests,
I will admit defeat.
Gardiner
Dear Knowbody (kno...@knowhwere.kom),
At least some of us are forthcoming with regard to our identity!
I never claimed that the entire text of the book was posted at the url
http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html. However, there is a summary of the
thesis of the book there which is what I was preventing myself from having to
repeat every time I cited it.
In light of the length and throroughness of this thread, I don't think you can
make a convincing case that I am responding to posts in a cursory impersonal
"spamming" sort of fashion. If I have somehow made your life miserable with my
link, please accept my apologies; but please know that I am committed to
providing a custom made response to posts directed toward me. This being an example.
God's Blessings,
Rick
shang...@my-dejanews.com
Gard...@pitnet.net wrote:
> 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:
Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|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.
>:|>
>:|> It's irrelevant.
>:|>
>:|> Thomas Paine played a role in the struggle for independence in this
>:|> country. In fact, many scholars credit him with changing the mind set to a
>:|> mind set of going for independence, instead of compromise. He wrote
>:|> throughout the war of independence.
>:|>
>:|> That is his place and role in history regarding him and this country.
>:|>
>:|> His Age of Reason and his criticism of
>:|> George Washington in Letter to Washington (1796), however, made him
>:|> unpopular. Paine returned to the United States in 1802 and died in
>:|> poverty.
>:|
>:|Exactly my point. Paine's role was inciting the populace toward independence.
>:|His views on religion, i.e., deism, had little if anything to do with his
role
>:|in the founding.
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 meaning
> >
> > 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..
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
c...@teleport.com
> 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.
The "overwhelmingly evident" data supports the FF to have been Diests.
They did not reject a creator and some even believed in the divinity of
Christ. Many were Unitarians (no Trinitarians).
The "aversion to Christianity" is to prevent any religion influenceing the
liberty of personal choice (rfread the history of "established" churches
in the colonies and states).
An anyway, didn't christ say that his kingdom was not of this world? He
too did not want tribute from Caesar.
c...@teleport.com
<frnk...@voicenet.com> wrote:
> >It was also these people who errected the wall between church and state,
> >recognizing the perverse influence of religion on government.
>
> IIRC
I do not klnow what this means.
Jefferson said it would be a one way barrier, allowing good Christian
> influence on the government without the governement controlling
> Christianity. You have it backwords.
Nope. TJ, Madison, Monroe, Franklin and many others wanted government
neutral on religion and religion to not influence government, particualrly
any intrusion on civil liberties. There is a history of churches and
sects trying to get laws passed that make anti-religious utterances and
practices illegal and/or to ram their orthodoxy down the throats of the
un-receptive. That is what the founding fathers acted to prevent.
The problem is that organized religions on many occasions have not
followed "the golden rule".
c...@teleport.com
(Andrew C. Lannen) wrote:
>
> Protestant Christianity was very much a part of the lives of
> the founders and everyone who lived here at the time. I fail to see
> how you can argue that it wasn't an important part of the country. If
> you can prove to me that most of the founders and most Americans were
> Pagans, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Shintoists, Confucians, or Athiests,
> I will admit defeat.
Mentioning a list of non-western religions is a strawman. The real
competition was between the "christian" sects.
I invite you to read "The Establishment Clause" by Leonard W. Levy. He
exhaustivly reviews the feeling of religious practioners on separation.
You might be interested to know that separation was advocated by every
religion when they thought that some other religion (sect) was, or would
become, state sanctioned.
Most of the population would have considered themselves "christians", but
the unity ended there. There were many "chrisian" groups in the country
that wanted to be the chosen religion and fought to have any other
selected.
If a religion cannot thrive on its own merits without support from the
government, it should die.
c...@teleport.com
I commend you for your courteousy in your gentle correction; I
> probably would not have had the kindness to offer such a mild response. I
> think you are correct that the founders generally disparaged Hobbes,
Hobbes, like Adolph Hitler, is useful as a bad example.
Andrew C. Lannen
>In article <36E9F9C4...@pitnet.net>, Gard...@pitnet.net wrote:
>
>I commend you for your courteousy in your gentle correction; I
>> probably would not have had the kindness to offer such a mild response. I
>> think you are correct that the founders generally disparaged Hobbes,
>
>Hobbes, like Adolph Hitler, is useful as a bad example.
Bad comparison. Hobbes is tremendous thinker that I have much
respect for. He advocated submission to the government because he
believed that only the government had the power to *prevent* everyone
from killing each other in the streets (the state of nature). Hitler,
in direct opposition, believed in using the power of the government
*to* kill people. Similar means (tyranny), but totally opposite ends.
Andrew C. Lannen
>In article <36eceffe...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, and...@ix.netcom.com
>(Andrew C. Lannen) wrote:
>>
>> Protestant Christianity was very much a part of the lives of
>> the founders and everyone who lived here at the time. I fail to see
>> how you can argue that it wasn't an important part of the country. If
>> you can prove to me that most of the founders and most Americans were
>> Pagans, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Shintoists, Confucians, or Athiests,
>> I will admit defeat.
>
>Mentioning a list of non-western religions is a strawman.
Judaism and Atheism aren't really non-western. Paganism also
is not exclusively non-western.
> The real
>competition was between the "christian" sects.
But Deists are, on the whole, not Christian. Deists do not
accept the Divinity of Christ, which is absolutely fundamental to
being a Christian.
>Most of the population would have considered themselves "christians", but
>the unity ended there.
Exactly. That's all I have been trying to say here -- that most
of the founding fathers were Christian (a couple like Franklin and
Jefferson leaned towards Deism). That inevitably means that
Christianity shaped their views of the world and society, and by
extension, also shaped the founding documents they wrote (even if they
did not establish Christianty as an official state religion).
shang...@my-dejanews.com
kno...@knowhere.com wrote:
> In article <36E90DFB...@pitnet.net>, Gardiner wrote:
>
> You continue to post a url "for the book", without mentioning that the
> book is not at the url. It points to an advertisement for the book.
> Every message you post with the url should, therefore, be seen for what it
> is: spam.
>
Yea. LOL yes it was about time someone pointed that out.
Now for tiny bit of my own spam :-)
**********************************************
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
**********************************************
shang...@my-dejanews.com
spirite...@oogeocities.com wrote:
> Very well written and I, myself, want to thank you for taking the time
> to explain basic history to the know-it-alls here.
>
> Spirit Explorer
>
Its not all that well written and contains thnks not always proven, some
things being passed of as facts which are not, and at least one item that is
bogus.
**********************************************
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
**********************************************
> On Wed, 10 Mar 1999 22:51:20 -0500, "Robert L. Johnson"
> <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. Just because christianity
> >relegates reason a few places beneath myth and emotion doesn't mean the
> >rest of society will blindly do the same.
> >
> >> > 1) Neither Jefferson nor Paine were part of the assembly of
founders
> >> > who wrote the U.S. Constitution in 1787.
> >
> >Are you admitting Jefferson to be a Deist?
> >
> >Have you heard that Jefferson, though not present, was very instrumental
> >in forming the Bill of Rights?
> >
> >Have you ever heard of the Declaration of Independence? It's the first
> >of our national documents. It's considered by some (even christians) to
> >be a very important document. AND IT IS A DEISTIC DOCUMENT! It only
> >refers to God in a Deistic way, such as Creator, etc. NOWHERE IN THE
> >ENTIRE DOCUMENT IS REFERENCE MADE TO CHRISTIANITY, THE BIBLE, JESUS,
> >ETC.....
> >
> >> 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. His religious perspective did not represent the consensus of
the
> >> > colonists. In key places such as Princeton, all students had to refute
Paine
> >> > as a part of their graduation requirements.
> >
> >We're not saying the majority of Americans were Deists, only that many
> >of the key founders were Deists and that Deism is the only spiritual
> >philosophy that made it into the Declaration of Independence while no
> >religious or spiritual ideas made it into the Constitution.
> >
> >Do you endorse what you say the students at Princeton had to do
> >regarding Paine? I know Pat Robertson wrote that he believed only
> >christians and Jews should be in high office in America. This ignorant
> >narrow view is in the same vain as the Princeton requirement against Tom
> >Paine of who Adams wrote, the sword of Washington would have been in
> >vain without the words of Paine.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> > 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
> >
> >You need to open you history books again. Or perhaps purchase books from
> >other sources other than Christian Coalition Press, etc.
> >
> >James Madison believed along Unitarian lines. Unitarians don't believe
> >Jesus is God or even the son of God. To make the huge jump that Madison
> >was a "traditional orthodox believer in the trinity" is foolish. He
> >didn't even take communion.
> >
> >Patrick Henry was a strong believer in bible myth. I'm sure he was
> >sincere, although he was wrong. He probably knew he was wrong to believe
> >in christianity. Do you know that he was so angry after reading Tom
> >Paine's excellent book on religion and Deism, The Age of Reason, that he
> >wrote a book refuting Paine's book. However, after some deep thought he
> >threw it in the fire. He probably realized it wasn't based on God-given
> >reason and could never stand up to the Deist arguments of Paine.
> >
> >> 4) Harvard, William & Mary, Yale, and Princeton were the
institutions
> >> > where most of the founders received their intellectual formation; all of
these
> >> > institutions were traditional orthodox Christian academies until the 19th
century.
> >> >
> >So what? I went to a Catholic school for a time, that doesn't mean I
> >believe it.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> > 5) The two most often quoted sources by the founders were, first,
the
> >> > Bible, and second, William Blackstone's Common Law Commentaries (See
Hyneman &
> >> > Lutz). Blackstone was a full fledged believer in revealed religion (i.e.,
the
> >> > bible), and most of his content was rooted in medieval (Catholic)
political
> >> > philosophy (e.g., the Magna Carta). What's more, the entire Common Law
> >> > tradition was rooted in orthodox Christianity.
> >> >
> >Too bad for the christian argument that none of that made it into either
> >the Declaration or the Constitution!
> >
> >I don't see how you can think the influence of a book like the bible
> >that tells slaves to obey their masters was a source of freedom.
> >
> >
> >
> >> > 6) The First Great Awakening was the generation in which the
founders
> >> > were born and reared. The First Great Awakening was led by Jonathan
Edwards,
> >> > George Whitefield, and John Wesley...their views permeated the colonies;
and
> >> > they were hardly deists!
> >>
> >Again, so what?
> >
> >
> >The prayer you attribute to Washington is at best suspect. Like Madison,
> >Washington refused to take communion. When the preacher mentioned to him
> >that he set the example for many people and that he should take
> >communion Washington stayed home from services when he knew communion
> >would be a part of it.
> >
> >
> >John Adams believed along Unitarian Universalist lines. He would not be
> >considered an orhtodox believer in the three gods in one trinity myth.
> >
> >> BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: Of all the founders, Franklin is most deistic. I
> >> > will grant him to your cause, with Paine. But you need to be honest
enough to
> >> > admit that Franklin, as an 81 year old man at the Constitutional
Convention
> >> > was too feeble to provide the erudition he possessed as a younger man.
> >> >
> >Again, the point is that our founding documents are in no way christian
> >documents. If Ben Franklin didn't influence the convention then perhaps
> >it was just general common sense that kept religion out of the
> >Constitution.
> >
> >> Puritanism ran through his (Franklin's) blood.
> >How does religion run through your blood? Given Franklin's reputation as
> >a ladies man, I don't see the conection with the Puritans!
> >
> >
> >Regarding your comments about Jefferson, again you need to open you
> >history books. Jefferson was not a Unitarian. He never openly endorsed
> >any religion. He did however write Deistic writings and he could not by
> >any mythological stretch of the imagination be considered a christian!
> >He even cut and pasted the new testament! Ever hear of the Jefferson
> >bible?
> >
> >
> >Regarding your weak ideas about christianity being indirectly the basis
> >of our nation, how can this be? The bible teaches, as mentioned above,
> >slaves to obey their masters, it teaches women should keep quite and be
> >submissive to men, the old test teaches we should stone unruly children,
> >etc ....... This type of thinking has no place in a progressive society
> >and did nothing to promote the US Revolution. In fact the bible teaches
> >us to obey our rulers because they are doing God's work & by rebelling
> >against them we're rebelling against God. Does this sound like it could
> >be used to start a revolution????
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I look forward to hearing from you.
> >
> >Your's in Enlightenment, Bob
> >http://www.deism.com
shang...@my-dejanews.com
"Frank Shelton" <frnk...@voicenet.com> wrote:
> >It was also these people who errected the wall between church and state,
> >recognizing the perverse influence of religion on government.
>
> influence on the government without the governement controlling
> Christianity. You have it backwords.
>
You do not remember it correctly. Jefferson never said such a thing.
if you wish to respond to me directly I am picking up some of these threads in
alt.politics,usa constitution. My isp does not offer alt.history.colonial
**********************************************
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
**********************************************
Frank Shelton
>The problem is that organized religions on many occasions have not
>followed "the golden rule".
I think we might be arguing to different things. Of course I don't want the
government deciding on doctrine. The good influence was the beliefe that
"thou shalt not steal" "love thy neighbor" and such. Not the enternal debate
about what is a sacrement and who is saved. The influences they referred to
where the ideal teachings of Christianity. You know, the ones we never seem
to live up to. "They" often say you can't legislate morality, but many laws
are based on morality, not killing, stealing, taking advantage of the
elderly. These are immoral.
shang...@my-dejanews.com
Gard...@pitnet.net wrote:
> In regards to the persistent debate about the book, NEVER BEFORE IN HISTORY
(http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html)
>
> Robert L. Johnson wrote:
> >
> > Dear Rick,
> >
> > By your lack of reason on very key issues of your bloated message you
> > appear to be a christian fundamentalist.
>
> what happened in Colonial America
>
> >
> > > > 1) Neither Jefferson nor Paine were part of the assembly of
founders
> > > > who wrote the U.S. Constitution in 1787.
> >
> > Are you admitting Jefferson to be a Deist?
>
> favor of Deism
Would you mind posting anything that I said in any of my replies to you that
would show I was arguing in favor or support of Deism or any other religious
beleif system, for that matter
I would really like to see such information.
> > Have you heard that Jefferson, though not present, was very instrumental
> > in forming the Bill of Rights?
>
> George Mason authored the Bill of Rights.
Incorrect. Plain and simple, incorrect.
>Jefferson's influence was
>ubiquitous, although in one of his later letters he urged a biographer not to
> use him as an authority on the constitution.
Well, let's see the anti-rats used comments, out of context, made by
Jefferson in some of his letters to try and claim him as one of theris (he
wasnt') in the power struggle to stop the ratification of the Constitution.
This greatly distressed Madison, becasue he knew the truth of what Jefferson
had said in the various letters. That was part of the reason Madsion changed
his mind about amendments. In addtion, Jefferson had written him one or more
letters urging he reconsider the matter of amendments. I would say he had a
role.
>
> The Declaration of Independence is not a Deist document. It is not a
> "Christian" document either. It's a political document. It was not based upon
> Jefferson or his religious views. Rather it was based upon the views of John
> Locke (a Christian), Algernon Sydney (a Puritan), Edward Coke (a Puritan),
> William Blackstone (a Christian), etc.
>
What role did Blackstone have regarding the DOI?
c...@teleport.com
<frnk...@voicenet.com> wrote:
> The influences they referred to
> where the ideal teachings of Christianity. You know, the ones we never seem
> to live up to. "They" often say you can't legislate morality, but many laws
> are based on morality, not killing, stealing, taking advantage of the
> elderly. These are immoral.
I think you are confusing illegal acts which cause "injury" with "morality".
Just because something shows up in the ten commandments doesn't mean it
should be illegal, such as no other gods before me, or honor thy father
and mother. While both of these could be considered "moral" not doing
such is hardly illegal.
At any rate, the Constitution is not concerned with a code of laws, but
with formulation of a government structure and in the BoR and other
articles of detailing what that government can and cannot do with respect
to individual rights. There is no place in the Constitution for
"morality". If it even gets close, it maintains a neutrality on the
subject.
Frank Shelton
"morality".
As long as they don't cause injury to me, why should I care? As a Christian
nation we do not condone discrimination against non-Christian religions, or
other minority groups. A lot of white folks died to end slavery, not for
their own self protection, but because it was wrong. You are correct that
not every "immoral" item becomes law, but self protection is not the only
reason either. We seem to be able to tell the difference in what should and
should not be inlcuded in our laws.
knowbody
>
>Dear Knowbody (kno...@knowhwere.kom),
>
>At least some of us are forthcoming with regard to our identity!
>
1) My identity is irrelevant to this discussion
2) Every time I have posted to usenet with a real e-mail address, no
matter how munged, the amount of unsolicited commercial messages ("spam")
I receive goes up.
>I never claimed that the entire text of the book was posted at the url
No, you never used the words "the book posted at", but you did say "the
book at". Any reasonable, honest person (i.e., someone who is not a
lawyer, politician, or theologian) would expect that a url preceeded by
the words "the book at" would point to the text of the book, rather than
to an advertisement for the book.
>In light of the length and throroughness of this thread, I don't think you can
>make a convincing case that I am responding to posts in a cursory impersonal
>"spamming" sort of fashion.
On further reflection, I believe the word "spam" was inappropriate to
describe what you have been doing in this thread. "Plugging" or
"promoting" would have been more accurate.
>.....................If I have somehow made your life miserable with my
>link, please accept my apologies; but please know that I am committed to
>providing a custom made response to posts directed toward me. This being an
>example.
Short of libel, or false testimony, nothing anyone says or writes can
"make" someone else's life miserable; any misery they feel is
self-inflicted. My posting was an attempt to express my opinion that
your primary motive in posting to this thread is to promote the sale of
your book, based on your inclusion of the url in every post.
c...@teleport.com
<frnk...@voicenet.com> wrote:
> >I think you are confusing illegal acts which cause "injury" with
> "morality".
>
> As long as they don't cause injury to me, why should I care?
Society cares and to be a good christian, you must care. If you do not,
you are forgetting many of the teachings of Christ. Perhaps that just
indicates the shallowness of christian bleating for more "morality in
government".
> As a Christian
> nation we do not condone discrimination against non-Christian religions, or
> other minority groups.
As a nation we do not condone it, but individual sects certainly treat
other (especially non-western) religions as second class and do
discriminate. And during the colonial period, many religions sought to be
state supported, and opposed a state supported religion only when another
sect was chosen.
> A lot of white folks died to end slavery, not for
> their own self protection, but because it was wrong
Historically, it took a superhuman effort by Lincoln to sell emancipation
in the north. There was a lot of anti-black prejudice in the north.
> You are correct that
> not every "immoral" item becomes law, but self protection is not the only
> reason either. We seem to be able to tell the difference in what should and
> should not be inlcuded in our laws.
But no laws should be included just because some religion demands it, ie,
prayer in schools or anti-abortion laws. We should have only laws that
are neutral to religion and definitely not supportive.
Gardiner
> Gard...@pitnet.net wrote:
> >
> > George Mason authored the Bill of Rights.
>
> Incorrect. Plain and simple, incorrect.
>
"George Mason was the author of the Bill of rights... the evidence of the day
established fully in my mind"
-Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, May 8, 1825
(available at http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl282.htm)
I suppose Jefferson was just plain and simply, incorrect.
> > The Declaration of Independence is not a Deist document. It is not a
> > "Christian" document either. It's a political document. It was not based upon
> > Jefferson or his religious views. Rather it was based upon the views of John
> > Locke (a Christian), Algernon Sydney (a Puritan), Edward Coke (a Puritan),
> > William Blackstone (a Christian), etc.
> >
>
> What role did Blackstone have regarding the DOI?
Jefferson believed the right of liberty is grounded in a person's status of
being a Creature of God. Where might have Jefferson gleaned that novel idea?
What did Jefferson and the Founders mean by the term inalienable rights? The
term was drawn from the English Common Law of property. When people own land
or other kinds of property, they may sell it, give it away, rent or lease it,
or transfer it to others. In the Common Law, to sell or transfer one’s rights
to property was to “alienate” them (see Blackstone II:19-23).
According to Blackstone, “Inalienable rights” are rights that are so
essential to our identity as humans that no one can sell them or give them
away without denying one’s own personhood. They are a higher than ordinary
property rights. Ordinary rights can be bartered, sold or traded. Inalienable
rights cannot. The Creator endows people with these inalienable rights,
attaching them to human nature. Since inalienable rights are part of the
definition of mankind, to take them away is to attack humanity itself.
Where did Blackstone glean this understanding of inalienable rights? It was
the canon lawyers and men like Aquinas that developed the concept of *persona
jura* (human rights based upon the fact of being a creation of God). It was
the medieval church that translated its beliefs about creation into the belief
that every person is, therefore, a possession of God, and retains a certain
respect as a result. The concept of "due process" likewise arose from the
canon law of the Romish Church (see Harold Berman, Law and Revolution)
When the Patriot leaders were pressed to make an axiomatic case for freedom,
they routinely did so on a religious basis... Sam Adams and James Otis, for
example put it that, “the right of freedom being the gift of God almighty, it
is not in the power of man to alienate this gift.” John Adams likewise
contended that human freedom was founded in the ordinance of the Creator...
John Dickinson, for instance, said of American freedoms: “We claim them from a
higher source, from the King of Kings and Lord of all the earth”... Hamilton’s
version was “The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among
parchments and musty records. They are written... by the Hand of the
Divinity... The Supreme Being... invested [mankind] with an inviolable right
to personal liberty.” Jay asserted that “we are... entitled by the bounty of
an indulgent Creator to freedom.”
In a nutshell, the concept that humans are endowed by their creator with
inalienable rights is a concept which came down through the canon lawyers into
the common law and disseminated most agressively in the Commentaries of
Blackstone which were ubiquitous in the American Colonies; that Jefferson had
imbibed Blackstone by in 1776 is beyond question (I think...with you, I would
be reluctant to claim that George Washington was from Virginia).
Blessings,
Rick
---------------
For a book detailing the Christian cultural milieu of the American colonies see
http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|On Sun, 14 Mar 1999 18:10:53 -0700, c...@teleport.com wrote:
>:|
>:|>In article <36eceffe...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, and...@ix.netcom.com
>:|>(Andrew C. Lannen) wrote:
>:|>>
>:|>Most of the population would have considered themselves "christians", but
>:|>the unity ended there.
>:|
>:| Exactly. That's all I have been trying to say here -- that most
>:|of the founding fathers were Christian (a couple like Franklin and
>:|Jefferson leaned towards Deism). That inevitably means that
>:|Christianity shaped their views of the world and society, and by
>:|extension, also shaped the founding documents they wrote (even if they
>:|did not establish Christianty as an official state religion).
How did Christianity shape the Constitution and how did it shape the
amendments?
Frank Shelton
>> You are correct that
>> not every "immoral" item becomes law, but self protection is not the only
>> reason either. We seem to be able to tell the difference in what should
and
>> should not be inlcuded in our laws.
And what's his name said:
>But no laws should be included just because some religion demands it, ie,
>prayer in schools or anti-abortion laws. We should have only laws that
>are neutral to religion and definitely not supportive.
My answer is, no lie! That's what I just said. Of course it depends on what
you mean by "supportive."
You make it sound acceptable to "anti," or at least a little "anti."
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:| As a Christian
>:|nation we do not condone discrimination against non-Christian religions, or
>:|other minority groups.
Christian nation?
Who said that?
Andrew C. Lannen
> 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
Wow. Some of this is good, some is just awful. There is much
dancing about and wiggling in some parts -- particularly unconvincing
is the attempted finesse of the "Sundays excepted" clause.
Still, I could have taken the site seriously had I not seen the
section ranking the "most important" founders using inappropriate and
wildly inaccurate criteria. That gave me a really good laugh.
Congratulations on setting your definitions so that those who agree
with you get more "importance points" than founders who disagree with
you.
Frank Shelton
>Who said that?
How about these two? (Thanks, Gene)
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great
nation was founded not by reliigionists ,but by Christians ; not on
religions ' but on the gospel of Jesus Christ"
PATRICK HENRY
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it
is our duty..of our Christain nations to select and prefer Christians
for their
rulers" JOHN JAY, FIRST CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATE SURPRE ME
COURT.
This is only three of many reasons I believe we
were founded as a Christian nation.
Gene
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 18:40:24 GMT, jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|
>:|> 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
>:|
>:| Wow. Some of this is good, some is just awful. There is much
>:|dancing about and wiggling in some parts -- particularly unconvincing
>:|is the attempted finesse of the "Sundays excepted" clause.
>:|
Hmmmm, you have any hard evidence to offer in this area?
You have any objections to precise parts of the article/
>:| Still, I could have taken the site seriously had I not seen the
>:|section ranking the "most important" founders using inappropriate and
>:|wildly inaccurate criteria. That gave me a really good laugh.
Kewl, glad you are easily amused.
Now, care to explain what is inappropriate and wildly inaccurate about the
criteria?
>:|Congratulations on setting your definitions so that those who agree
>:|with you get more "importance points" than founders who disagree with
>:|you.
No points awarded on opinions. No points on any agreements or
disagreements. How did you miss that fact?
**********************************************
jal...@pilot.infi.net & sba...@infi.net
Web masters of
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
c...@teleport.com
<frnk...@voicenet.com> wrote:
> "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it
> is our duty..of our Christain nations to select and prefer Christians
> for their
> rulers" JOHN JAY, FIRST CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATE SURPRE ME
> COURT.
Wasn't Jay a noted bigot who was venomously anti-catholic?
Frank Shelton
I've always thought of Catholics as Christian.
Andrew C. Lannen
>Wasn't Jay a noted bigot who was venomously anti-catholic?
Most Americans in the late 18th century were venomously
anti-catholic. They associated Catholicism with tyranny (due to the
actions of James II from 1685-1688) and with corruption. They may
have established the free exercise of religion, but it didn't change
the attitudes of people who grew up being taught to hate Catholics.
Andrew C. Lannen
>and...@ix.netcom.com (Andrew C. Lannen) wrote:
>
>>:| Wow. Some of this is good, some is just awful. There is much
>>:|dancing about and wiggling in some parts -- particularly unconvincing
>>:|is the attempted finesse of the "Sundays excepted" clause.
>
>Hmmmm, you have any hard evidence to offer in this area?
>You have any objections to precise parts of the article?
Yes, the part where you deny that "Sunday" has anything to do with
the Sabbath. You claim that it was put in there only to insure that
the President would have at least 10 days to veto a bill. But they
could have just as easily guaranteed the same time by writing
"Tuesdays excepted". They didn't. They chose Sunday precisely
because it was the Sabbath.
>>:| Still, I could have taken the site seriously had I not seen the
>>:|section ranking the "most important" founders using inappropriate and
>>:|wildly inaccurate criteria. That gave me a really good laugh.
>
>Kewl, glad you are easily amused.
>
>Now, care to explain what is inappropriate and wildly inaccurate about the
>criteria?
Specifically:
1. Awarding points for being an ambassador, state legislator, state
supreme court justice, etc.: Such minor offices had little to do with
the national government. Indeed, since communication was so poor and
ambassadors so out of touch with events back in the U.S., being
overseas should be negative points if anything.
2. Awarding more points to people at the Philadelphia Convention over
those at the state ratifying conventions: James Madison repeatedly
wrote that the *only* place to look to uncover the meaning of the
Constitution was the state ratifying conventions.
3. Slighting Anti-federalists: Anti-federalists and opponents of
the Constitution were just as much founding fathers as Federalists.
By awarding points only to those voting in *favor* of the
Constitution, of the the Bill of Rights, etc., you subtly throw more
points in a direction you favor.
4. Rewarding sheer longevity: Any quantification that counts merely
how many offices a person held and how long they held them is
misleading. Some continuously occupied offices but did absolutely
nothing of note. Others held only one office but single-handedly
altered the interpretations of the Constitution. The best example is
John Marshall. Any ranking that puts him under such lightweights as
John Rutledge, Caleb Strong, and George Read is skewed. And Elbridge
Gerry was the #5 most important founder? As far as the "players" were
concerned, he was largely a non-entity.
5. In general, such rankings are unhelpful and futile. They attempt
to quantify something that defies quantification.
>>:|Congratulations on setting your definitions so that those who agree
>>:|with you get more "importance points" than founders who disagree with
>>:|you.
>
>No points awarded on opinions. No points on any agreements or
>disagreements. How did you miss that fact?
See #3 above.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|>Christian nation?
>:|
>:|>Who said that?
>:|
>:|How about these two? (Thanks, Gene)
>:|
>:|"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great
>:|nation was founded not by reliigionists ,but by Christians ; not on
>:|religions ' but on the gospel of Jesus Christ"
>:|PATRICK HENRY
>:|
What role exactly did Patrick Henry play with regards to religion on the
national level?
On the state level (Va) he lost out to J. Madison. Henry supported a bill
to pay the teachers of the Christian religion from public funds. Madison
was one of the leaders of the opposition of that bill. Madison won that
battle and the result was that Thomas Jefferson's Statute for religious
freedom became law in Virginia, and eventually had parts of it incorporated
into the Va State Constitution.
Henry favored established religion, so long as it was some version or form
of Protestant Christianity
His side lost.
Now, back the first question. Precisely what role did P Henry play in
establishing this as a Christian Nation?
Exactly what did he do on the national level to do that?
>:|"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it
>:|is our duty..of our Christain nations to select and prefer Christians
>:|for their
>:|rulers" JOHN JAY, FIRST CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATE SURPRE ME
>:|COURT.
>:|
What role did John Jay play on the national level to found this nation as a
Christian Nation?
Where in the Constitution is this nation defined as a Christian nation?
>:|This is only three of many reasons I believe we
>:|were founded as a Christian nation.
Three?
What is the third?
The following are some things to bear in mind:
**********************************************************************************
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 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
*******************************************************************************
I could toss out a great many quotes from men who actually played a role
regarding religion on the national level, but I will only toss out one,
here.
************************************************************************************
JULY 30, 1788
NORTH CAROLINA RATIFYING CONVENTION
MR. LANCASTER. As to a religious test, had the article which excludes it
provided none but what had been in the states heretofore, I would not have
objected to it. It would secure religion. Religious liberty ought to be
provided for. I acquiesce with the Gentleman, who spoke, on this point, my
sentiments better than I could have done myself. For my part, in reviewing
the qualifications necessary for a president, I did not suppose that the
pope could occupy the President's chair. But let us remember that we form a
government for millions not yet in existence. I have not the art of
divination. In the curse of four or five hundred years, I do not know how
it will work. This is most certain, that Papists may occupy that chair, and
Mahometans may take it. I see nothing against it. There is a
disqualification, I believe, in every state in the Union - it ought to be
so in this system.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Wed. July 30, 1788. North Carolina State
Constitutional Ratifying Convention debates--THE DEBATES IN THE SEVERAL
STATE CONVENTIONS ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AS
RECOMMENDED BY THE GENERAL CONVENTION AT PHILADELPHIA IN 1787, VOL IV, by
Jonathan Elliot J. B. Lippincott Company 1888. Pages 215)
**************************************************************************************
At least one founder had the foresight to imagine that things as they
existed then would not always be the way things existed.
Then I submit to you that you might want to look over the following:
**********************************************************************************
JUNE 10, 1797
ARTICLE 11. As the government of the United States of America is
not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, as it has in itself
no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of
Mussulmans; and, as the said States never entered into any was, or act of
hostility aainst any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that
no pretext, arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an
interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: TREATY OF PEACE AND FRIENDSHIP
BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE BEY AND SUBJECTS OF BARBARY
Communicated to the Senate, May 26, 179, American State Papers, Class I,
Foreign Relations, Volume, II, Page 154)
(The treaty was made under the administration of George Washington, and was
signed and sealed at Tripoli on the fourth Day of November, 1796, and at
Algiers the third day of January, 1797, by Hassan Bashaw, Dey of Algiers,
and Joel Barlow, Counsul- General of the United States
AMERICAN STATE PAPERS Bearing On Sunday Legislation, Revised and Enlarged
Edition, Compiled and Annotated by William Addison Blakely, Revised Edition
Edited by Willard Allen Colcord, The Religious Liberty Association,
Washington D.C. 1911, pp 153)
*It was ratified by the U.S. Senate June 7, 1797 and signed into law by
President John Adams June 10, 1797.*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 22:17:29 GMT, jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|
>:|>and...@ix.netcom.com (Andrew C. Lannen) wrote:
>:|>
>:|>>:| Wow. Some of this is good, some is just awful. There is much
>:|>>:|dancing about and wiggling in some parts -- particularly unconvincing
>:|>>:|is the attempted finesse of the "Sundays excepted" clause.
>:|>
>:|>Hmmmm, you have any hard evidence to offer in this area?
>:|>You have any objections to precise parts of the article?
>:|
>:| Yes, the part where you deny that "Sunday" has anything to do with
>:|the Sabbath.
Do you have any historical documentation that says it has anything to do
with the Sabbath?
No, you do not.
The article you are referring to on the web page presents the entire
historical record as it exists. Anything beyond that is speculation.
What we did with the article was to present the actual record of the
history of the phrasing of the clause that contains the words "Sundays
excepted."
Couple things to bear in mind. There were times that Congress was in
session on Sundays. Congress passed laws that required that posts offices
be open on sundays to allow people to pick up their mail, and to transport
mail on Sundays.
Seems odd that those who framed the Constitution, if they really wanted to
set Sunday aside because it was the Sabbath for some of the Christian
sects, denominations, etc,
(1) would not say that was what they were doing by by recording that fact
in their discussions, and would not actually use the term sabbath.
(2) would make it only apply to the President, and not other branches of
the national government.
(3) would actually require that the President not work on that day
(4) would leave loopholes that Congress used to pass laws requiring that
post offices be open on Sundays.
Again, what we did with the article was to present the historical as they
exist.
Unless you can produce some historical documentation that shows that was
the reason, you are speculating. Your speculation is no better then the
next person's speculations.
The historical record is silent on the matter. You are also leaving out the
fact that originally the clause read seven days and did not include the
words Sundays excepted.
>:| You claim that it was put in there only to insure that
>:|the President would have at least 10 days to veto a bill. But they
>:|could have just as easily guaranteed the same time by writing
>:|"Tuesdays excepted".
Either you did not read the article very carefully or you are deliberately
leaving out some major points of the article that would weaken, quite a
bit, your argument.
One of the points that the article makes is the fact that the several
states did have laws regarding such things as travel, work, etc on the
"sabbath"
Recognition of that fact, that fact being that any President outside of the
seat of Government was going to be stranded anyways, or any advisors who
had to travel would not be able to travel on that day, etc, is as good a
reason as any for those words to be included in that clause.
Recognition of the reality of the situation with the several states does
not mean those words are any sort of acceptance or endorsement of a
specific day as the Christian sabbath.
In fact, some of the debates that took place in Congress over the sunday
mail controversies state the national government did not recognize such
days.
>:| They didn't. They chose Sunday precisely
>:|because it was the Sabbath.
Prove it.
Provide your evidence
>:|>>:| Still, I could have taken the site seriously had I not seen the
>:|>>:|section ranking the "most important" founders using inappropriate and
>:|>>:|wildly inaccurate criteria. That gave me a really good laugh.
>:|>
>:|>Kewl, glad you are easily amused.
>:|>
>:|>Now, care to explain what is inappropriate and wildly inaccurate about the
>:|>criteria?
>:|
>:| Specifically:
>:|
>:|1. Awarding points for being an ambassador, state legislator, state
>:|supreme court justice, etc.: Such minor offices had little to do with
>:|the national government. Indeed, since communication was so poor and
>:|ambassadors so out of touch with events back in the U.S., being
>:|overseas should be negative points if anything.
Now this is wild, the person most responsible for this entire series of
threads in numerous news groups Rick Gardiner, I believe his name or handle
is, takes the opposite approach. When I point out to him that many of the
people he likes to name played on minor roles on the national level, and
after all we are talking about founding the U S of America, and not any of
the independent states that, in essence were independent nations from
approx 1774-76 to 1789 he got all bent out of shape, They were founders he
stated over and over again etc.
As you point out, they had (usually) a lesser role, therefore they received
fewer points.
Ambassadors etc, well such people did have some roles in treaties etc,
which in turn helped the fledgling nation in a number of ways, including
development of law, etc.
>:|
>:|2. Awarding more points to people at the Philadelphia Convention over
>:|those at the state ratifying conventions: James Madison repeatedly
>:|wrote that the *only* place to look to uncover the meaning of the
>:|Constitution was the state ratifying conventions.
The constitution was written in Philly. It went to the states as it stood,
as written, The ratifying conventions did not have the authority to alter a
single word of that document. They could ratify it as it stood, which they
did, or they could reject it as it stood. Many of the members of the state
ratifying conventions were people who were state people, and would remain
so.Now above you argue against awarding even less points to state people,
now you want them treated the same in this instance.
The rule I tried to follow throughout was to keep what happened on the
state level and what happened on the national level as separate things
awarded points separately.
Do you really think it would alter the list all that much? I think you
would find it would not.
>:|
>:|3. Slighting Anti-federalists: Anti-federalists and opponents of
>:|the Constitution were just as much founding fathers as Federalists.
That they are on the list makes them founders. The list is not complete,
and as time passes others will be added to the list. Actually, I have
never gone over the list counting who was a rat and who was a anti-rat.
So I have no idea what the percentage of representation for the two groups
are.
I think you will find that historically speaking there were more of one
then there was of the other.
>:|By awarding points only to those voting in *favor* of the
>:|Constitution, of the the Bill of Rights, etc., you subtly throw more
>:|points in a direction you favor.
>:|
I awarded points based on actions.
Don't forget one very major factor here, if you want to get into the
battles between the rats and anti-rats.
A very large and influential segment of the so called leadership of the
anti-rats wanted to defeat ratification of the Constitution, and when that
failed they wanted to prevent the passing and ratification of amendments.
Why, because they did not want this new stronger national government. They
wanted only to make some tinkering alterations to the Articles of
Confederation. They did not deny that the old Articles were not working,
but they wanted no part of this new government that the Constitution had
created either.
What they wanted was a new Constitutional Convention so they could severely
weaken the new constitution.
Those are facts. How does one go about showing that? Its pretty hard to do.
While eventually amendments did result from all this hassle, much of that
same leadership of the anti-rats did not want amendments either. They
wanted a new Constitution which would favor their demands more closely.
They didn't get that.
BTW, I bet you probably would find that some anti-rats signed the
Constitution and that some anti-rats voted for the amendments too.
>:|4. Rewarding sheer longevity: Any quantification that counts merely
>:|how many offices a person held and how long they held them is
>:|misleading.
Not really, they had to do something while they were in that position.
Someone must have been impressed with what they were doing, to keep
electing or appointing them. They were part of shaping the position they
held, contributing to the government that position was part of.
> Some continuously occupied offices but did absolutely
>:|nothing of note. Others held only one office but single-handedly
>:|altered the interpretations of the Constitution. The best example is
>:|John Marshall. Any ranking that puts him under such lightweights as
>:|John Rutledge, Caleb Strong, and George Read is skewed. And Elbridge
>:|Gerry was the #5 most important founder? As far as the "players" were
>:|concerned, he was largely a non-entity.
The same standards were applied to each person for the time frame covered.
is it going to be 100% accurate. Nope. (BTW you forgot to mention how low
Thomas Jefferson finished as well) The commentary explaining the list
covers all that. You specifically mention John Marshall.
For the approx 41 or so areas that one could receive points in Marshall
only received points in 12 of those areas. Nine of those points came in the
time frame of 1790 to 1820.
38 of his 90 points came based on the number of years he was Chief Justice
on the Supreme Court during that time frame.
There has to be some sort of standard that is going to apply to all evenly,
even when sometimes what someone does is not as even as what someone else
has done. To begin to judge the importance each document, each speech, each
vote, etc that each person did begins to get deep into opinion.
The list does not offer the last word on anyone. What it does do is give a
idea of how various people compared based on a set of standards that are
applied to all equally.
Did Marshall play a very important role in the development of
Constitutional law in this nation? Sure did. But how then do you compare
that to George Washington who led an army that eventually won the right for
a handful of states to exist independently form England?
And how does that compare with Madison who was present and a major force at
every major step of the journey from Colonies to a nation as was operating
by 1792 and then still played an important role till the ending of the time
frame in 1820? (Exception for Madison, he was not involved with the DOI,
instead he was insisting that religious freedom be written into the
Virginia Declaration of Rights, instead of mere toleration.
Some sort of standard has to be set that is going to apply in some even
handed way to all you wish to include.
I offer you the chance to create a better table if you dislike this one so
much. it can be put on the web page if it really is any better.
>:|
>:|5. In general, such rankings are unhelpful and futile. They attempt
>:|to quantify something that defies quantification.
They give a picture of something. I am sure you can tinker with this and
that on that page and maybe exchange some of the positions a bit but
probably not that much for most.
You dislike that list, fine, others have found it quite helpful.
It has been on one web page for over two years and on this web page for a
month or so.
>:|
>:|>>:|Congratulations on setting your definitions so that those who agree
>:|>>:|with you get more "importance points" than founders who disagree with
>:|>>:|you.
>:|>
>:|>No points awarded on opinions. No points on any agreements or
>:|>disagreements. How did you miss that fact?
>:|
>:| See #3 above.
>:|
I saw # 3 above and answered #3 above...
I find your comments about the page quite interesting.
There are approx 56 articles currently on the web page. If printed out, at
least on my computer, there is over 225 pages.
You mention only two things by name. Both you dislike.
You actual comments were:
**********************************************************************************
Wow. Some of this is good, some is just awful. There is much
dancing about and wiggling in some parts -- particularly unconvincing
is the attempted finesse of the "Sundays excepted" clause.
Still, I could have taken the site seriously had I not seen the
section ranking the "most important" founders using inappropriate and
wildly inaccurate criteria. That gave me a really good laugh.
Congratulations on setting your definitions so that those who agree
with you get more "importance points" than founders who disagree with
you.
--Andrew
**********************************************************************************
I seriously doubt that either of the things you disliked really makes or
breaks the web page. You claims to wiggling and dancing would be in the eye
of the beholder and could be applied to any form of commentary.
I note you did say some was "good" but didn't comment or identify any of
it, only the things you found some sort of fault with.
Ahhh well, one can't please everyone.
There will be a lot more to go on the page, but being in the process of
buying a house, then moving, etc it has eaten into my time a lot.
Gardiner
> >:|nation was founded not by reliigionists ,but by Christians ; not on
> >:|religions ' but on the gospel of Jesus Christ"
> >:|PATRICK HENRY
> >:|
>
> What role exactly did Patrick Henry play with regards to religion on the
> national level?
That question you ask does not deal with the quote above, it rather tries to
evade it. In Henry's quote, he is not talking only about himself, he is
talking about those who founded "this great nation." The question should not
be, then, what role Henry played, but whether or not he was an accurate
commentator upon the events. As a contemporary of the founders, I would allege
that he was in a much better position to make this assessment than we are
today. Your opinion seems to be that Henry was simply idiotic, regardless of
the role he played.
Second, the citation of the treaty of 1797 has the "just being politically
shrewd" problem which you often assign to Washington when he makes statements
such as "religion is necessary for good government." In the treaty, they are
"offering a morsel" to the mahometans. The authenticity of the document is
also in question.
c...@teleport.com
<frnk...@voicenet.com> wrote:
> >Wasn't Jay a noted bigot who was venomously anti-catholic?
>
> I've always thought of Catholics as Christian.
The competition between sects for government supported status during the
colonial and early republic period made the term christian just a cover
for religious.
Gardiner
>
> What is the point you are trying to make, Gene?
>
> From a scholarly standpoint, I'm not happy that you haven't given
> either source or context to your quotations (appended below). Could
> you please provide that?
>
> It is certainly true that most of the founders were devout or at least
> practicing Christians, and of course most of the population at the
> time were as well.
I totally agree. However, there are a few people who are posting in this
thread who disagree, saying things like only 17% of the population were
serious Christians. Do you agree that this is in error?
> It may be the case that character flaws in both Franklin and Jefferson
> are related to their deism.
That is a very interesting point. I've never heard that alleged before. I find
it a little hard to believe insofar as the religious principles Franklin
embraced included a sense of "do-gooding" and a fear of eternal rewards and
punishments (See Autobiography).
> Nevertheless, it was quickly realized by both the founding generation
> and its immediate successors that religious toleration is essential,
Founders such as Madison were clear that they were not promoting religious
"toleration," but rather religious "liberty."
This is a very crucial point, because with "toleration" the implication is
that the government is "putting up with" religion and has the right not to do
so. Instead, the founders, using the language of the Westminster Confession
Chap. 20, sect 2, argued that religious liberty was an inalienable right, and
the government is not in the position to "tolerate" or not to tolerate
religion. People inherently have the right to exercise their religious
consciences, and the government simply cannot prevent that. That was the
essence of the Memorial and Remonstrance, Jefferson's Bill for Religious
Liberty, Mason's 16th amendment to the VA bill of rights, and the first
amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Unfortunately too many people today think of the first amendment in terms of
religious toleration, as if the government sees religious as something
dreadful which needs to be tolerated--as long as its practitioners do not
attempt to influence others. This concept would have been totally foreign to
every one of the founders...yes, I said every one.
> not just among Christian sects but toward non-Christians as well. This
> was one of the great examples the U.S. republic set for the rest of
> the world.
Well into the late 19th century, the U.S. government was "imperializing" by
taking over such lands as Hawaii, Midway, Puerto Rico, the Phillipines, Guam,
the Marshalls, etc. They largely did this as a result of the belief expressed
by late turn of the century politicians, such as Woodrow Wilson, that we, as a
Christian nation, are doing the natives of these lands a favor by missionizing
them, civilizing them, and allowing them to be part of our empire.
In other words, if indeed the idea of the founders was to be an example of
religious humility to the rest of the world, they utterly failed. To this day
our political leaders have imposed numerous sanctions upon Muslim nations for
their "religious" views concerning women, etc. We have always thought that our
religious views were superior to the rest of the world, and we still do. We
base our laws upon our Judeo-Christian sensibilities: We don't allow polygamy,
other religious cultures do. We don't allow public nudity, other cultures do.
We don't allow Courts to be open on Sunday, other cultures do. Not that that
is right or wrong, but it is what has happened in America.
> Religious, and specifically Protestant Christian, influence in the
> American Revolution is an important subject and merits more discussion
> than it has received in this newsgroup to date. But if one is trying
> to make of that historical reality a weapon to use in a crusade for
> officially favoring Christianity over some other family of faiths,
> historical discussion will cease and we will only have an unproductive
> contemporary brawl.
I agree. On the other hand, if the historical reality has absolutely no
relevance to our contemporary situation, why discuss it at all? Do we study
history just for fun? Or does it have some application? If it has no
pertenance to me today, I'd rather watch the Simpsons for fun.
Blessings,
Rick Gardiner
Found out more about the influence of Religion in the founding of the U.S.: http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
Ed Watts
America was founded on the quest for freedom.
Freedom from the state church in England.
Freedom to be Puritans. Freedom to leave Plymouth and found Rhode Island.
Freedom to be Quakers. Freedom to practice any
religion whatsoever, or none at all. Not all Christians are authoritarian
bigots, but those who are are not true Christians in my view.
The Constitution upholds the concept of freedom of religion and
prohibits the establishment of a state church, but any snake-handling
pinhead can have tax-free status while savaging the "heathen"
majority in this country who understand that to be free on the one hand, you
must also tolerate the freedom of others. Personally I
doubt that Jesus was a Nazi, but these right-wing freaks are just
as bad or worse. Nothing "Christian" about them!
Spirit Explorer wrote in message <36e80e98...@news.zianet.com>...
>Very well written and I, myself, want to thank you for taking the time
>to explain basic history to the know-it-alls here.
>
>Spirit Explorer
>
>
>
>On Wed, 10 Mar 1999 22:51:20 -0500, "Robert L. Johnson"
><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. Just because christianity
>>relegates reason a few places beneath myth and emotion doesn't mean the
>>rest of society will blindly do the same.
>>
<several cogent arguments deleted>
Gardiner
>
> "Frank Shelton" <frnk...@voicenet.com> wrote:
>
> >:| As a Christian
> >:|nation we do not condone discrimination against non-Christian religions, or
> >:|other minority groups.
>
>
> Who said that?
How about the Supreme Court (Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892)
----------
For a resource documenting the influence of Christianity upon the founding of
the U.S., see http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
Gardiner
>
> I am SO sick and tired of this.
> America was founded on the quest for freedom.
> Freedom from the state church in England.
> Freedom to be Puritans. Freedom to leave Plymouth and found Rhode Island.
> Freedom to be Quakers. Freedom to practice any
> religion whatsoever, or none at all.
Not quite: In a number of states, atheism disqualified citizens from certain
privileges, a few examples to wit:
"The man who has the hardihood to avow that he does not believe in a
God, shows a recklessness of moral character and utter want of moral
responsibility, such as very little entitles him to be heard or believed in a
court of justice in a country designated as Christian."
-- the Supreme Court of Tennessee, 1871
Constitution of the State of Tennessee
Article IX Disqualifications
Section 2. No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of
rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of
this state.
This is a result of the common law tradition which undergirds the American
legal tradition. The common law proclaims:
"The belief in a future state of rewards and punishments, the entertaining
just ideas of the attributes of the Supreme Being, and a firm persuasion that
He superintends and will finally compensate every action in human life, are
the grand foundation of judicial oaths, which call God to witness the truth of
those facts, which perhaps may only be known to him and the party attesting.
All moral evidence, all confidence in human veracity [are] weakened by
apostasy, and overthrown by total infidelity"
--William Blackstone, COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND
Find out more about this issue in the resource available at http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
Ed Watts
Gardiner wrote in message <36F1E425...@pitnet.net>...
Gardiner
significant role in American history; and that the test includes religious
history, particularly the socio-cultural aspects of religious history such as
that are addressed in the resource at http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|> >:|"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great
>:|> >:|nation was founded not by reliigionists ,but by Christians ; not on
>:|> >:|religions ' but on the gospel of Jesus Christ"
>:|> >:|PATRICK HENRY
>:|> >:|
>:|>
>:|> What role exactly did Patrick Henry play with regards to religion on the
>:|> national level?
>:|
>:|That question you ask does not deal with the quote above, it rather tries to
>:|evade it. In Henry's quote, he is not talking only about himself, he is
>:|talking about those who founded "this great nation." The question should not
>:|be, then, what role Henry played, but whether or not he was an accurate
>:|commentator upon the events. As a contemporary of the founders, I would allege
>:|that he was in a much better position to make this assessment than we are
>:|today. Your opinion seems to be that Henry was simply idiotic, regardless of
>:|the role he played.
Look who is back, I thought you had left in a huff.
Funny you should end the above in the manner that you did. I say that
because I did have a book here at one point in time that had actually made
the comments that after Henry's wife died he actually underwent a very
dramatic personality change. That some felt he became mentally ill.
Second point above is, those are your words, not mine. You do seem very
adept at taking the words of others and then spinning them using your words
to state their position. Isn't that something you complained about others
doing with you? Hmmmmmm how interesting.
The question, like it or not, is a valid question.
Someone offered the Henry quote as proof that this nation was founded as a
"Christian nation." Of course you already know that.
The quote does not prove that poster's claim.
At most Henry was offering his opinion. What weight does that carry?
Now, my understanding is, from what you have said, you really aren't into
all this "Christian nation" stuff. That is not what this book you are name
dropping all over the net is claiming or saying. If that is true, why are
you entering into this particular discussion?
Are you now trying to say that you think this nation was founded as a
Christian nation? Henry may have believed that, he may have thought that,
he may have wanted that. He lost that battle to Madison on the state level.
Hence my question, what role did he play regarding religion on the national
level?
Did his wants, wishes,. desires, dreams, etc make it into law?
>:|
>:|Second, the citation of the treaty of 1797 has the "just being politically
>:|shrewd" problem which you often assign to Washington when he makes statements
>:|such as "religion is necessary for good government." In the treaty, they are
>:|"offering a morsel" to the mahometans. The authenticity of the document is
>:|also in question.
The authenticity? Really? In what way?
You might find the following interesting
http://www.earlyamerica.com/reviews/summer97/secular.html
A simple question
Since you spend so much time and effort promoting this book of yours, how
exactly does this book differ from any of the following books?
Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, James H. Huston
The Myth of Separation, What is the correct relationship between Church and
State, David Barton
Original Intent, The courts, the Constitution, & Religion, David Barton
The Rewriting of America's History, Catherine Milliard
The Declaration of Independence: The Christian Legacy, Herbert W Titus
Defending The Declaration, How the Bible and Christianity Influenced the
Writing of the Declaration of Independence, Gary T. Amos
America's God and Country, Encyclopedia of Quotations, William J. Federer
The Bible and the Constitution of the United States of America, Verna M
Hall
The Christian History of the American Revolution, Verna M Hall
The Christian History of the Constitution of the United States of America,
Christian Self-Government,
Verna M Hall
The Christian History of the Constitution of the United States of America,
Christian Self-Government with Union,Verna M Hall
God, Man, and law; The Biblical Principles, Herbert W Titus
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|Ed Watts wrote:
>:|>
>:|> I am SO sick and tired of this.
>:|> America was founded on the quest for freedom.
>:|> Freedom from the state church in England.
>:|> Freedom to be Puritans. Freedom to leave Plymouth and found Rhode Island.
>:|> Freedom to be Quakers. Freedom to practice any
>:|> religion whatsoever, or none at all.
>:|
>:|Not quite: In a number of states, atheism disqualified citizens from certain
>:|privileges, a few examples to wit:
The same could have been said about minority religious denominations,
sects, etc at various times and in various places in the colonies and under
some early state Constitutions.
Just goes to show how narrow minded, evil spirited, biased some could be.
You still have some state constitutions that contain language requiring
some form of religious tests. Just a couple of years ago the Supreme Court
of South Carolina ruled such language in that States Constitution to be
unconstitutional Of course the U S Supreme Court had already so ruled back
in 1961.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> "Frank Shelton" <frnk...@voicenet.com> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:| As a Christian
>:|> >:|nation we do not condone discrimination against non-Christian religions, or
>:|> >:|other minority groups.
>:|>
>:|> Christian nation?
>:|>
>:|> Who said that?
>:|
>:|How about the Supreme Court (Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892)
I cannot believe you are offering this.
Do you not honestly know what the above was all about and the comments
about this being a "Christian nation" are meaningless?
I understand you are working very hard trying to get your book before
peoples eyes, and that you will take every chance you can to promote it,
but to jump into this with the above is really going to desperate extremes.
BTW, some of the above newsgroups are not accepting or receiving these
posts and replies. Seems as though a lot newsgroups have placed limits of
no more then four news groups listed in the address.
Now back to the matter at hand, two can play the URL game.
For anyone interested in the FACTS regarding the dicta [no legal standing]
comments of Justice Brewer see
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/trinity.htm
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|I totally agree. However, there are a few people who are posting in this
>:|thread who disagree, saying things like only 17% of the population were
>:|serious Christians. Do you agree that this is in error?
>:|
You might want to study the following:
=====================================================================
Breakdown of religion:
TABLE 2. 1
Number of Congregations per Denomination, 1776
Denomination Number of congregations
Congregational 668
Presbyterian(1) 588
Baptist(2) 497
Episcopal 495
Quakers 310
German Reformed 159
Lutheran(3) 150
Dutch Reformed 120
Methodist 65
Catholic 56
Moravian 31
Separatist and Independent 27
Dunker 24
Mennonite 16
Huguenot 7
Sandemanian 6
Jewish 5
TOTAL 3,228
SOURCE: PaulIin (1932).
(1) Includes all divisions such as New Light, Old Light, Associate
Reformed,
etc.
(2) Includes all divisions such as Separate, Six Principle, Seventh Day,
Rogerene, etc.
(3) Includes all synods.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 2.2
Religious Adherence Rates by Colony, 1776 (in percent)
Colony Adherence rate White adherence rate
NEW ENGLAND 20 20
New Hampshire 20 20
Massachusetts 22 22
Rhode Island 20 20
Connecticut 20 20
MIDDLE COLONIES 19 20
New York 15 17
New ]ersey 26 26
Pennsylvania 24 24
Delaware 20 22
Maryland 12 17
SOUTHERN COLONIES 12 20
Virginia 12 22
North Carolina 9 14
South Carolina 14 31
Georgia 7 20
NATIONAL 17 20
SOURCE: The data in Table 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, and A.1 are based on a series of
estimation
procedures described in the text. The number of congregations is estimated
from Paullin
(1932) and Wers (1936, 1938, 1950, 1955); the number of members per
congregation is
estimated from existing denominational totals.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 2.3
Denominational Percentages by Region, 1776,
Based on Number of Congregations
NEW ENGLAND (N = 1,039)
Congregationalist 63.0
Baptist 15.3
Episcopal 8.4
Presbyterian 5.5
Quaker 3.8
Other(1) 3.6
MIDDLE COLONIES (N = 1,285)
Presbyterian 24.6
Quaker 14. 1
Episcopal 12.9
German Reformed 9.8
Dutch Reformed 8.9
Lutheran 8.6
Baptist 7.6
Roman Catholic 4.2
Methodist 3.8
Moravian 1.8
Congregationalist 0.3
Other(1) 3.1
SOUTHERN COLONIES (N = 845)
Baptist 28.0
Episcopal 27.8
Presbyterian 24.9
Quaker 9.0
Lutheran 3,8
German Reformed 2.8
Methodist 1.4
Moravian 0.6
Congregationist 0.1
Roman Catholic 0.1
Other (1) 1.2
SOURCE: See Table 2.2.
NOTE: Only 3,169 of lernegan's 3,228 congregations could be located
by colony.
(1) "Other" includes Separatist and Independent, Dunker, Mennonite,
Huguenot, Sandemanian, and Jewish.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 2.5
Percentage Congregationalist by Colony, 1776
Colony % Congregationalist
Massachusetts 71.6
Connecticut 64.2
New Hampshire 63.2
Rhode Island 17.2
Georgia 4.3
New York 1.8
South Carolina 1.2
New ]ersey 0.4
Pennsylvania 0.0
Delaware 0.0
Maryland 0.0
Virginia 0.0
North Carolina 0.0
SOURCE: See Table 2.2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source of information" THE CHURCHING OF AMERICA 1776-1990. Winners and
losers in our religions economy, by Roger Finke and Rodney Stark, Rutgers
University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey, (1994) Pages 25, 27, 29-30, 41
In addition, Table 2.1 can also be found in CHURCH AND STATE IN THE UNITED
STATES, VOL. I Anson Phelps Stokes, D.D., LL.D> Harper & Brothers, New
York, (1950) page 273, with only a few minor variation in the numbers as
shown below:
Section 6. THE CONDITION AND PUBLIC INFLUENCE OF THE
CHURCHES DURING AND IMMEDIATELY AFTER
THE REVOLUTION
At the close of the colonial period there were something under three
million
persons in the thirteen colonies, of whom about one-sixth were slaves.
Recent
studies at the University of Chicago show somewhat over three thousand
religious organizations or congregations, counting each church or chapel
separately. These were divided about equally among New England, the Middle
Atlantic States, and the South. The total (3,005) actually
enumerated--about one thousand more than were estimated a decade
ago49--were thus distributed:
Congregationalists, mostly in New England ................... . 658
Presbyterians, largely in the middle colonies but becoming increas-
ingly prominent in the South ................ ............. 543
Baptists, especially in Rhode island, the middle colonies, the Care-
linas,and Virginia ........... .............. ..... ... 498
Anglicans, mainly in the South and in the larger towns elsewhere... 480
Quakers, mostly in Pennsylvania and North Carolina ........... 298
German and Dutch Reformed, mainly in the middle colonies ..... 251
Lutherans, largely in the middle colonies .. .. .............. 151
Roman Catholics, mainly in the large Eastern towns and in Mary-
land........................................................... 50
Miscellaneous minor groups ... ...... ................ .. 76
________
3,005
_____________________________________________________________________________
Nationally
Congregationist 21.13% (Their power was only found in New England)
Presbyterian 18.33%
Baptist 16.96%
Episcopal 16.36%
Quaker 8.96%
All others 18.26%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How much study have you done on the following idea?
The Sociology of frontiers?
Chapter 2 of the book TCHURCHING OF AMERICA, Winners and Losers in Our
Religious Economy, by Roger Finke and Rodney Stark [an award winning book I
might add] Rutgers University Press (1994) pp 22-54 especially puts some of
this whole discussion into perspective.
It appears, based on your comment:
>:|I totally agree. However, there are a few people who are posting in this
>:|thread who disagree, saying things like only 17% of the population were
>:|serious Christians. Do you agree that this is in error?
your mind is already made up on this matter no matter what evidence there
might be.
BTW, the "serious Christian" are your words, not mine. Another example
where you take something that was actually said, and put it into your own
words.
The authors of the book state that 17% of the population were "churched"
(yes that also address such things as travel etc. Now, are thay saying that
only 17% of the population were seriously religious, or serioulsy
Christian? No, but they do present some very good evidence showing that
religion or Christianity wasn't as universal as some others try to say it
was.
Gardiner
never left. just asked that you might cease and desist on the ad hominems.
apparently that is a futile request. i see no purpose in exchanging abusive
posts. i see much purpose, however, in an intelligent conversation. your posts
seem to toggle between both of these approaches. i prefer that you keep it
academic; where you do not, don't expect a response.
> Now, my understanding is, from what you have said, you really aren't into
> all this "Christian nation" stuff.
Depends on what you mean by Christian nation. If you mean Christian
Reconstructionism (i.e., Theonomy), then I do not see their interpretation as
historically valid.
If, on the other hand, you simply mean the position of the Supreme Court in
its undistilled 1892 decision, I agree with the majority opinion of the Court
(unabridged at http://member.aol.com/EndTheWall/TrinityHistory.htm)
> Are you now trying to say that you think this nation was founded as a
> Christian nation? Henry may have believed that, he may have thought that,
> he may have wanted that. He lost that battle to Madison on the state level.
> Hence my question, what role did he play regarding religion on the national
> level?
The battle lost on the state level was not whether the nation was Christian in
its socio-cultural fiber, but whether or not Virginia would collect taxes to
fund Anglican Parishes. I'm quite glad Henry lost that debate.
> Did his wants, wishes,. desires, dreams, etc make it into law?
Many of the Christian opinions of Sir Blackstone did, regardless of
Jefferson's 1814 letter alleging Christianity to be fraudulently introduced
into common law.
> >:|Second, the citation of the treaty of 1797 has the "just being politically
> >:|shrewd" problem which you often assign to Washington when he makes statements
> >:|such as "religion is necessary for good government." In the treaty, they are
> >:|"offering a morsel" to the mahometans. The authenticity of the document is
> >:|also in question.
>
> The authenticity? Really? In what way?
1) Washington never signed the treaty. The treaty didn't come to the
president's desk until March 1797. At that time John Adams was President. (See
Ray Irwin, THE DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS OF THE U.S. WITH THE BARBARY POWERS,
1776-1816, UNC Press, 1931, p. 84)
2) When the treaty was translated from Arabic to English, in the process much
important religious language was jettisoned (see Charles Bevans, TREATIES AND
OTHER INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS OF THE USA 1776-1949), XI, p. 1078.
3) the phrase "the government of the U.S.A. is not in any sense founded on the
Christian Religion" was interpolated into the treaty (Bevans op cit, p 1077).
That phrase was not part of the 1805 congressional approval of the treaty.
> You might find the following interesting
>
> http://www.earlyamerica.com/reviews/summer97/secular.html
no such page is in existence
> A simple question
>
> Since you spend so much time and effort promoting this book of yours, how
> exactly does this book differ from any of the following books?
I have not read the Huston book. From the LOC website
(http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html) however, it seems that
my book would overlap much of Mr. Huston's research.
I am not familiar with the books written by Ms. Verna Hall or Mr. Titus. I
have seen Mr. Barton's "MYTH." It's thesis is a legal one rather than a
socio-cultural one.
Dr. Amos' book on the Declaration is scholarly, well documented, and, in my
judgment, very accurate. I would challenge anyone to refute it.
But I have to hand it to you, you are a master of logical fallacies. If you
can dish out a genetic fallacy or an ad hominem, you surely don't miss that
opportunity. If the best you can do to defeat my thesis is associate me with
some unpopular writer, then go ahead and associate me with them. The truth
about the colonies and the founding will remain the same.
Blessings,
Rick Gardiner
http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
Gardiner
> comments of Justice Brewer see
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/trinity.htm
This article concludes by citing Justice Brennan's disparagement of the 1892
decision
"the Court takes a long step backwards to the days when Justice Brewer could
arrogantly declare for the Court that 'this is a Christian nation.' Those
days, I had thought, were forever put behind us ...."
However, Justice Brennan's words were the MINORITY opinion of the court in the
1983 Lynch case. The 1892 opinion of the Court has never been reversed, much
to the despair of those who wish American history was something other than
that which it was (as outlined by the Supreme Court in 1892).
What do you find in the majority opinion of the Supreme Court historically
inaccurate? (see http://member.aol.com/EndTheWall/TrinityHistory.htm)
Blessings,
Rick
http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
Peter M.
I hate to butt in, but I have been following much of this thread. I am a Canadian, and
have a somewhat different view on the matter. People should avoid absolutes in their
discussions, like the constitution in my country it meant different things to
different people. To christians, the USA may appear to be a christian nation because
its majority at the time the constitution was framed were christians of one
denomination or another; the USA may appear as religious or sectarian depending on the
view. In my readings of your constitution, I never ran across the word God being used.
IMHO, the drafters of the constitution of the USA intended it to be a sectarian state
from day one, so arguments that it is a christian nation, may apply to its culture at
the time, but definitely cannot be applied to its constitution. Even the argument that
Deism is the foundation are weak, for exactly the same reason -- no mention of God in
the constitution. Just an idea.
peace
Peter
Gardiner
thesis that America was permeated with Christianity in its early years are
legion. You point out a fallacy which has been used a lot in this discussion:
the idea that if one cuts and pastes an entire chapter out of a book
(regardless of the relevance of the bulk of it) it will seem true on account
of its length. I second your call for an economy of citations.
I, too, vigorously oppose a government which would mandate religion. I
disagree with you, however, if you don't think that the government should
impose some forms of morality upon its citizens. Murder, rape, theft, perjury,
kidnapping, assault, etc., are all immoral practices. I hope that the
government continues to legislate against these forms of immorality.
Rick
http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
Andrew C. Lannen wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 Mar 1999 19:48:12 GMT, jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>
> (Note: You really need to sort out relevant information from the
> irrelevant. More than half your post contained stats that are
> relatively useless in this debate -- total congregations in America,
> numbers of congregations in each area, percentages of different sects
> in each area, etc.)
>
> >The authors of the book state that 17% of the population were "churched"
> >(yes that also address such things as travel etc. Now, are thay saying that
> >only 17% of the population were seriously religious, or serioulsy
> >Christian? No, but they do present some very good evidence showing that
> >religion or Christianity wasn't as universal as some others try to say it
> >was.
>
> The fallacy of that 17% is that it refers only to a small
> proportion of those attending church -- the full members of the
> church. For every full member, there were 3-4 regular attendees who
> were not full members. It was quite a personal struggle and ordeal to
> become a full church member in the 18th century. Many people felt
> themselves unworthy of such an honor.
>
> Most colonial historians (even those hostile to religion) will
> tell you that the majority of people in early America attended church.
> Beyond that, it is difficult to come up with exact percentages.
>
> FWIW, I vigorously oppose religious fundamentalists who want
> government to legislate religion and morality. But I also oppose
> those who go to the opposite extreme and unfairly belittle the
> importance of religion in America's past.
The Shoe
idiots around since the beginning.
Andrew C. Lannen
(Note: You really need to sort out relevant information from the
irrelevant. More than half your post contained stats that are
relatively useless in this debate -- total congregations in America,
numbers of congregations in each area, percentages of different sects
in each area, etc.)
>The authors of the book state that 17% of the population were "churched"
>(yes that also address such things as travel etc. Now, are thay saying that
>only 17% of the population were seriously religious, or serioulsy
>Christian? No, but they do present some very good evidence showing that
>religion or Christianity wasn't as universal as some others try to say it
>was.
The fallacy of that 17% is that it refers only to a small
Gardiner
And that is all I have been trying to prove!! There have been quite a few of
them around since the beginning... as a matter of fact, there were a lot more
of them around in the beginning then there are now. Yes! That's all I am
trying to prove.
However, some of the people in this conversation have been alleging that these
"idiots" were not really around in the beginning... or, more precisely, they
were around, but they were a small minority who had no influence in America's birth.
The historically undeniable fact is that there were a lot of these "idiots"
around in the beginning, and their voices played a very important role in the founding.
For a resource detailing more see http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
Rick
Gardiner
>
> In article <36F2B723...@pitnet.net>,
> Gard...@pitnet.net wrote:
> > > For anyone interested in the FACTS regarding the dicta [no legal standing]
> > > comments of Justice Brewer see
> > >
> > > http://members.tripod.com/~candst/trinity.htm
> >
> > This article concludes by citing Justice Brennan's disparagement of the 1892
> > decision
> >
> > "the Court takes a long step backwards to the days when Justice Brewer could
> > arrogantly declare for the Court that 'this is a Christian nation.' Those
> > days, I had thought, were forever put behind us ...."
> >
> > However, Justice Brennan's words were the MINORITY opinion of the court in the
> > 1983 Lynch case. The 1892 opinion of the Court has never been reversed, much
> > to the despair of those who wish American history was something other than
> > that which it was (as outlined by the Supreme Court in 1892).
>
> US was a "Christian Nation"? I don't see how that really matters, since no
> special laws go along with that, unlike the Muslim Sharia. The Constituion
> clearly calls for a seperation of Church & state in any event, and to alter
> that by declaring an offical religon, would require an act of Congress not
> the Sumpreme Court.
What exactly is your point here? That the Supreme Court is wrong in their
interpretation of the constitution? According to the constitution, the Supreme
Court has the last word on that matter, so their interpretation is really the
only one that matters. The opinion in Holy Trinity has never been rescinded or
overturned, only disparaged by Brennan in a minority opinion in the 1980's.
The Shoe
who would like for you to believe that Washington and others were "closet
Christians". That way they don't have to be consistent with their belief
that the Father of Our Country is currently roasting in Hell. Such a
pronouncement turns people off. "How can we get these Washington lovers to
join the fold?" they ask. "Easy. We will create this big lie that George
was a closet Christian and that he is not roasting in Hell. We can always
tell them the truth after we have addicted them to Fundamentalism".
George Washington was a great man, a deeply religious man who prayed, who
spoke of his destiny not to have children because God had so ordained it
to prevent a monarchy, who had a very high sense of accountability before
God ('accountability' is not a doctrine embraced by Fundamentalists) who
according to my religious value structure is doing very well in the
Hereafter, has learned all about Christ. But when he lived here on earth he
was not a Fundamentalist or even regular Christian.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|All your quotations prove is that there were "this is a Christian nation"
>:|idiots around since the beginning.
Good point :-)
Individually some believed it. Individually, some wanted it to be so.
There have been times when it was basically true. Other times when things
had swung in the other direction.
The arguments of today, the events of today are not new.
The lines of battle were drawn even before the ink was dry on the
Constitution (and in many respects those battles had been being waged on
the state levels for 11 years or more). I could post a 60 page publication
that was published in the very early 1830's that I bet would contain a lot
of what is in this book Gardiner is promoting all over various newsgroups
in use net. The purpose of that publication as to counter the growing
secularization of government and this country (in the eyes of some)
I could post a publication that was written a couple years later rebutting
the first publication.
I could post the S. C. opinion in the Holy Trinity case, from the late
1800's and Justice Brewers book which was published at the end of the
1800's (too lazy today to look up that exact date) or very beginning of the
1900's Then publish a book written prior to 1911 which rebuts both of those
I can post the arguments of the NRA [National Reform Association a
forerunner of todays religious right] from the 1860's to well into this
century and arguments from the RFA [Religious Freedom Association a
forerunner of today's Americans United for separation of church and state]
all showing that there is nothing new under the sun in this debate and
struggle.
At least two major groups existed in the 1800's that would be considered
forerunners of todays Christian Coalition or some of its clones. There were
at least two major groups that existed along with those that would be
considered forerunners of todays Americans United, ACLU (in many respects)
etc.
Arguments of today were argued, almost word for word from 1778 to today.
Evidence presented today is much the same as evidence presented back then.
At various times one side or that other influenced the national scene,
courts and lawmakers. But things go in cycles and each side rose, dominated
then declined while its opposite rose. That cycle has continued since the
beginning and will continue well into the next century.
The only constant is, the religious conservatives, traditionalist, those
that wanted this to be this huge Christian nation, etc have continually
lost grown and the idea of real religious freedom as embodied in the words,
and in some cases lack of words, in the Constitution has taken root and
grown. There is more true religious freedom in this country today, for
all-religious and non religious alike, then there was in 1787, 1791, 1800,
1820, 1850, 1875, 1900, 1920, 1940, 1960, 1990, etc., and it will continue
to be that way.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|On Fri, 19 Mar 1999 19:48:12 GMT, jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|
>:| (Note: You really need to sort out relevant information from the
>:|irrelevant. More than half your post contained stats that are
>:|relatively useless in this debate -- total congregations in America,
>:|numbers of congregations in each area, percentages of different sects
>:|in each area, etc.)
>:|
It was part of the overall package of information the authors presented in
making their case.
>:|>The authors of the book state that 17% of the population were "churched"
>:|>(yes that also address such things as travel etc. Now, are thay saying that
>:|>only 17% of the population were seriously religious, or serioulsy
>:|>Christian? No, but they do present some very good evidence showing that
>:|>religion or Christianity wasn't as universal as some others try to say it
>:|>was.
>:|
>:| The fallacy of that 17%
You have read the book, right?
You have examined their data, etc, right?
>is that it refers only to a small
>:|proportion of those attending church -- the full members of the
>:|church. For every full member, there were 3-4 regular attendees who
>:|were not full members. It was quite a personal struggle and ordeal to
>:|become a full church member in the 18th century. Many people felt
>:|themselves unworthy of such an honor.
See my comments above.
You have any documentary evidence establishing what you are claiming?
>:|
>:| Most colonial historians (even those hostile to religion) will
>:|tell you that the majority of people in early America attended church.
I presented information from two different sources.
Source of information" THE CHURCHING OF AMERICA 1776-1990. Winners and
losers in our religions economy, by Roger Finke and Rodney Stark, Rutgers
University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey, (1994) Pages 25, 27, 29-30, 41
In addition, Table 2.1 can also be found in CHURCH AND STATE IN THE UNITED
STATES, VOL. I Anson Phelps Stokes, D.D., LL.D. Harper & Brothers, New
York, (1950) page 273, with only a few minor variation in the numbers as
shown below:
The two sources were published 54 years apart, and I bet you would find
used different sources. I have actually seen the figure 14% given in other
publications.
>:|Beyond that, it is difficult to come up with exact percentages.
>:|
>:| FWIW, I vigorously oppose religious fundamentalists who want
>:|government to legislate religion and morality. But I also oppose
>:|those who go to the opposite extreme and unfairly belittle the
>:|importance of religion in America's past.
>:|
If you are so certain that these people don't have the foggiest idea what
they are talking about, I would suggest you go to a library or bookstore,
buy or check out the book, read it. Look over their data, etc. After doing
that, you may still feel that way, but then again, you may not. At any
rate, you would be able to rebut there claims and data much better.
The book is in paperback, so it doesn't cost that much if you had to buy
it. But I have seen it here in the Virginia Beach Public Library, so I
suspect it can be found in most fair sized public Libraries. Probably in
most college and university libraries as well.
The book must have impressed some because it won "the Distinguished Book
Award for 1993" presented by the Society for the Scientific Study of
religion.
>:| FWIW, I vigorously oppose religious fundamentalists who want
>:|government to legislate religion and morality. But I also oppose
>:|those who go to the opposite extreme and unfairly belittle the
>:|importance of religion in America's past.
What is unfair about presenting information?
BTW in your post knocking the "Whose is the most important Founders" chart,
on the web page,you misrepresented it. You claimed that those who attended
the Constitutional Convention received more points then those who attended
the several State Ratifying Conventions. It had been almost two years since
I had read over the chart, but when I looked it over yesterday, I
discovered, you were incorrect. In each case the points given were the
same.
Thus far you have found fault in the following ways:
The web page:
Wow. Some of this is good, some is just awful. There is much
dancing about and wiggling in some parts -- particularly unconvincing
is the attempted finesse of the "Sundays excepted" clause.
Still, I could have taken the site seriously had I not seen the
section ranking the "most important" founders using inappropriate and
wildly inaccurate criteria. That gave me a really good laugh.
Congratulations on setting your definitions so that those who agree
with you get more "importance points" than founders who disagree with
you.
Then of course your latest on the book "The Churching of America."
Now to be fair, you did mention you found some of the web page good, but
never identified exactly what.
Nor did you ever offer anything that shows the article on Sunday's excepted
to be incorrect,, etc.
This is pretty interesting.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|> For anyone interested in the FACTS regarding the dicta [no legal standing]
>:|> comments of Justice Brewer see
>:|>
>:|> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/trinity.htm
>:|
>:|This article concludes by citing Justice Brennan's disparagement of the 1892
>:|decision
>:|
Nice try.
What was said by the article before that part of the conclusion is
reached?
Why did you make no mention of any of that?
Are you going to now resort to misrepresentations to try and promote your
book?
How does misrepresenting the facts here help you to sell books?
Why is that line of only trying to say Christians had an influence on the
founders being crossed more and more by you? In other words, what does
Justice Brewer's dicta comments have to do with the theme of your book?
[The theme of your book being a time period over 100 years prior to this
court decision]
>:|"the Court takes a long step backwards to the days when Justice Brewer could
>:|arrogantly declare for the Court that 'this is a Christian nation.' Those
>:|days, I had thought, were forever put behind us ...."
>:|
>:|However, Justice Brennan's words were the MINORITY opinion of the court in the
>:|1983 Lynch case. The 1892 opinion of the Court has never been reversed, much
>:|to the despair of those who wish American history was something other than
>:|that which it was (as outlined by the Supreme Court in 1892).
I see we resort to smoke screens now to promote books.
The article was not about Justice Brennan. If you read the article, you
know that. What is this game playing called? Does it have a name.
[Hint, smoke screen or smoke blowing]
Is this the way men of goodwill act? :-)
************************************************************************************
Is the United States a Christian Nation?
David Barton (The Myth of Separation, pp. 47-51) and
others of the Religious right claim that the Supreme Court determined that
the United States was a Christian nation in the 1892 case, Church of the
Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 226 (1892). Unfortunately, their
thesis and the analysis of the case that accompanies it amounts to little
more than a manipulation of the language of the opinion to distort the
actual meaning of the case, its relevant facts and its stated rule of law
The facts of Holy Trinity concerned the application of an Act of Congress
titled "An act to prohibit the importation and migration of foreigners and
aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the Unites States,
its Territories and the District of Columbia." Holy Trinity Church, a
church located in the city of New York contracted with a minister in
England to perform services as rector and pastor at its church. At issue in
the case was whether or not the church's action violated the Act which
prohibited "any person, company, partnership, or corporation ... to assist
or encourage the importation or migration of any alien ... under contract
or agreement ... to perform labor or service of any kind in the United
States."
The holding of Holy Trinity was based on an interpretation of the purpose
of the Act. The Court concluded that the purpose of the Act was to prohibit
the importation of foreign unskilled persons to perform manual labor and
manual services A christian minister, the Court reasoned. is a "toiler of
the brain," not a manual laborer; Holy Trinity Church, therefore, was found
not to have violated the Act when it secured a contract for the holy man's
employment.
The rationale in Holy Trinity contains several different parts. First the
court discusses how it came up with the idea that the purpose of the Act
was to slow down or stop the importation of cheap, unskilled manual
laborers which might compete with American unskilled laborers for jobs. The
Court says the title of the Act implies its meaning, that only the
importation of "laborers" will be restricted. The Court then turns to the
legislative history, debates, and comments of the Congressmen involved in
drafting the Act to conclude that the Act was designed to regulate the
domestic unskilled, labor market.
Justice Brewer then writes in the opinion that "beyond all these matters no
purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, stale
or national, because this is a religious people." Several pages later,
after presenting a religious history of America, he follows up with the
statement: "These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a
volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that
this is a Christian nation." Barton splices together these two quotes
and cites Holy Trinity as establishing America as a Christian Nation.
To understand whether this last part of the Court's rationale establishes
anything at all, it is necessary to first understand that an opinion
written by the Supreme Court contains several different parts. The holding
of the case establishes the rule of law as decided on by the court and as
it relates specifically to the facts of the case. The rationale of the case
contains the different reasons why the Court decided a case the way that It
did. Contained within these reasons can be comments by the Court which
do not have any bearing on the specific rule of law and are not binding on
future cases with similar facts. These non-essential comments are called
dictum, and unlike the holding of the case, dictum carries no precedential
value. The essential comments, or the holding, becomes precedent which can
then be applied to subsequent cases with similar facts.
In the case of Holy Trinity the essential comments made by the Court
concern the scope of an immigration law. The rule was that the Act did not
prohibit foreign "toilers" of the brain from accepting employment in this
country. The foreign-born professional worker, doctor, lawyer businessman,
or clergyman, would be able to use the rule in Holy Trinity and the
rationale regarding the purpose of the Act to support his claim for
employment in America. Consider the "absurd" result if a doctor from
Russia at the turn of the century were to state that he could be hired by
an American hospital because Holy Trinity stood for the proposition that
"this is a Christian nation." It would not make sense for such a person to
cite the dictum concerning America's religiosity as a reason for allowing
him access to the American job market.
Whether or not America was a Christian Nation was not even at issue in Holy
Trinity. The actual dispute or controversy the Court had to decide had
nothing at all to do with religion. The parties in Holy Trinity did not
question whether the Immigration Act's purpose was "for or against
religion" generally or specifically. So when Brewer begins his religious
history lesson with, "no purpose of action against religion can be imputed
to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people,"
he refers to no particular statute, no particular actor. He has moved
outside the actual facts of this case and the statute at issue to address
the vague application of general principles to law in general. His
statements, therefore, create no rule of law, and provide no useful
precedent for future legal disputes. As any basic Legal Research textbook
will confirm, the legal researcher will not find precedent in such
language, but must look for "the [legal] rules stated by courts [which] are
tied to specific fact situations" (The Fundamentals of legal Research.
199·1. Jacobstein et al, page 6).
Brewer's comments about religion are not tied to any of the facts as
presented in Holy Trinity. The Holy Trinity Church did not allege in tile
facts of its case that the purpose of the Act was to discriminate against a
particular religion nor that it was designed to prevent the members of
their church from the free exercise of their religion. Since none of tile
facts suggested that the clergyman was being kept out of the country for
the purpose of discriminating against religion or prohibiting religious
exercise, the dictum by Brewer addresses no controversy and crafts no rule
of law to be applied to other cases as precedent.
Holy Trinity's legacy includes a number of Supreme Court cases which cite
the opinion as support for either statutory construction based on
legislative intent or the use of immigration policy to exclude or include
immigrants. Only on three occasions does the Holy Trinity christian nation
dictum make an appearance in a Supreme Court case.
In the 1931 case of U.S. v. Macintosh, an ordained Baptist minister was
denied naturalization because he was unwilling to take an oath to bear arms
in defense of the country unless he believed the war necessitating the
defense to be morally justified. As in Holy Trinity, the legal rule
established by this case had nothing to do with the Christian nation quote.
Instead, the applicant was denied citizenship based on a reading of the
naturalization statute which required the oath.
However, in Macintosh dictum, Justice Sutherland writes, "We are a
Christian people according to one another the equal right of religious
freedom, and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will
of God." Sutherland then states that as a nation we must assume that
obedience to our laws is "not inconsistent with the will of God;"
therefore, a foreign-born person refusing to follow the naturalization
statute to the letter would be denied citizenship.
There are a couple interesting notes about Macintosh. First, in Holy
Trinity, Brewer uses the phrase "we are a Christian nation" to allow a
foreign-born minister access to this country. In Macintosh, it is used to
keep a foreign-horn ordained minister out. Second. a different result would
most likely have occurred had this case arisen after World War II when the
court overturned the Macintosh line of cases (Girouarrl, 1946).
The other two cases which cite Holy Trinity's Christian nation dictum are
Marsh v. Chambers (1982), and Lynch v. Donnelly (1983). Brennan writes
dissents in both cases and uses the Brewer verbiage to criticize the
majority's use of history to support legislative prayer and a government
sponsored creche. In the creche case, (Lynch), Brennan writes, "By
insisting that such a distinctively sectarian message is merely an
unobjectionable part of our 'religious heritage,' the Court takes a long
step backwards to the days when Justice Brewer could arrogantly declare
for the Court that 'this is a Christian nation.' Those days, I had thought,
were forever put behind us ....
***********************************************************************************
>:|What do you find in the majority opinion of the Supreme Court historically
>:|inaccurate? (see http://member.aol.com/EndTheWall/TrinityHistory.htm)
End The Wall? And you claim to be only interested in seeling a book that
claims the Christianity had influence on some of the Founders? Yea,
Right!
Wrong question.
Historically speaking, the fact that a Justice on the Supreme Court of the
U S went off on a tangent and tossed in a lot of totally unrelated dictum
is of no concern of mine. How accurate or inaccurate he was from a
historical point of view with the information which spilled forth from him
is of no concern.
The right question would be:. legally speaking, what did it mean. The
answer is, legally speaking, not a thing.
Now you mentioned that this case was never reversed.
>:| The 1892 opinion of the Court has never been reversed, much
>:|to the despair of those who wish American history was something other than
>:|that which it was (as outlined by the Supreme Court in 1892).
You say that like it is important or that it really means something.
Have you ever heard of a Supreme Court case being reversed because of the
dictum that might be contained in the opinion?
If Holy Trinity had ever been reversed, it would have been reversed based
on its actual ruling. This rampage off into a religious history discourse
had nothing to do with the actual case.
Nice try though
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|sch...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>:|>
>:|> In article <36F2B723...@pitnet.net>,
>:|> Gard...@pitnet.net wrote:
>:|> > > For anyone interested in the FACTS regarding the dicta [no legal standing]
>:|> > > comments of Justice Brewer see
>:|> > >
>:|> > > http://members.tripod.com/~candst/trinity.htm
>:|> >
>:|> > This article concludes by citing Justice Brennan's disparagement of the 1892
>:|> > decision
>:|> >
>:|> > "the Court takes a long step backwards to the days when Justice Brewer could
>:|> > arrogantly declare for the Court that 'this is a Christian nation.' Those
>:|> > days, I had thought, were forever put behind us ...."
>:|> >
>:|> > However, Justice Brennan's words were the MINORITY opinion of the court in the
>:|> > 1983 Lynch case. The 1892 opinion of the Court has never been reversed, much
>:|> > to the despair of those who wish American history was something other than
>:|> > that which it was (as outlined by the Supreme Court in 1892).
>:|>
>:|> What exactly is the point here? That the Supreme Court in 1892 thought the
>:|> US was a "Christian Nation"? I don't see how that really matters, since no
>:|> special laws go along with that, unlike the Muslim Sharia. The Constituion
>:|> clearly calls for a seperation of Church & state in any event, and to alter
>:|> that by declaring an offical religon, would require an act of Congress not
>:|> the Sumpreme Court.
>:|
>:|What exactly is your point here?
I don't know what his point is, but:
my point would be either you honestly didn't understand what this case
really was all about [You had read one too many incorrect biased accounts
by some writer with a very real agenda] or you are trying to misrepresent
this as being something it isn't.
I will extend you the benefit of the doubt. I will say I think you truly
did not understand this case, and you aren't lawyer.
>:|That the Supreme Court is wrong in their
>:|interpretation of the constitution?
The Constitution was not really the issue in this case.
The Facts of Holy Trinity concerned the application of an act of Congress
titled "An act to prohibit the importation and migration of foreigners and
aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the Unites States,
its Territories and the District of Columbia."
The holding {RULING, FINDING, ETC] was based on an interpretation of the
purpose of the act. The Court concluded the purpose of the Act was to slow
down or stop the importation of cheap unskilled manual laborers which might
compete American unskilled laborers for jobs. A christian minister, the
Court reasoned. is a "toiler of the brain," not a manual laborer; Holy
Trinity Church, therefore, was found not to have violated the Act when it
secured a contract for the holy man's employment.
End of story.
>:|According to the constitution, the Supreme
>:|Court has the last word on that matter, so their interpretation is really the
>:|only one that matters.
Ok, so?
>:|The opinion in Holy Trinity has never been rescinded or
>:|overturned, only disparaged by Brennan in a minority opinion in the 1980's.
Word games. Opinion is not the holding or ruling of the case.
If there was ever a problem it would be the ruling or holding that would
get reversed or overturned, not the opinion as such, and definitely not
any dictum of the opinion.
This would have been the only thing that could ever have been reversed or
overturned from that case:
The holding {RULING, FINDING, ETC] was based on an interpretation of the
purpose of the act. The Court concluded the purpose of the Act was to slow
down or stop the importation of cheap unskilled manual laborers which might
compete American unskilled laborers for jobs. A christian minister, the
Court reasoned. is a "toiler of the brain," not a manual laborer; Holy
Trinity Church, therefore, was found not to have violated the Act when it
secured a contract for the holy man's employment.
You see, the whole "Christian nation" discourse is not part of anything
official and meaningful about that case. It was a justice going off on a
tangent, expressing his own thoughts about something totally separate from
any official fact, rule of law and even the holding of the case.
**********************************************
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
**********************************************
Why do you think I was so shocked when you offered it as evidence? Go back
and read what I said to you at that time. I truly was totally shocked that
someone as educated as you are suppose to be would even mention that case.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|> For anyone interested in the FACTS regarding the dicta [no legal standing]
>:|> comments of Justice Brewer see
>:|>
>:|> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/trinity.htm
>:|
>:|This article concludes by citing Justice Brennan's disparagement of the 1892
>:|decision
>:|
BTW I could post you a wonderful rebuttal of both Brewer's dictum comments
in the case itself, and his book which he wrote several years later on the
same subject.
Gardiner
> >:|inaccurate? (see http://member.aol.com/EndTheWall/TrinityHistory.htm)
>
> End The Wall? And you claim to be only interested in seeling a book that
> claims the Christianity had influence on some of the Founders? Yea,
> Right!
Again you resort to the genetic fallacy far too readily. (see
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html). I do not
administrate the page which contains the Holy Trinity opinion, and I have no
clue who the guy is who does. He seems like a wacko to me. Nonetheless, the
opinion of the court is accurately transcribed there (If you might dare to
post it on your website I could have given you that URL). As long as you
continue to persist with fallacious logic, I think you are doing your "cause"
a disservice.
> How accurate or inaccurate he was from a
> historical point of view with the information which spilled forth from him
> is of no concern.
>
> The right question would be:. legally speaking, what did it mean. The
> answer is, legally speaking, not a thing.
You have it exactly backwards. This is because you only see the world through
the eyes of your "cause." What I have been arguing is the Christian
socio-historical context of the birthing of America...the same sort of issues
traced in the Holy Trinity opinion. I really don't care much what the legal
ramifications are. I am primarily concerned with the accurate representation
of history. Did the Court state America's early history accurately. I am of
the opinion that it did. You are of the opinion that it doesn't matter. As
long as they got the history correct, then that's all that matters. I don't
think the court ever meant for the phrase "this is a Christian nation" to mean
that the government must be Christian in all its aspects. I think the court
was simply acknowledging what the library of Congress is currently alleging to
be true (http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html), viz., that
this nation is Christian in its historical socio-Cultural Fiber.
> This rampage off into a religious history discourse
> had nothing to do with the actual case.
Yeah. Those retarded supreme court justices really don't have a clue about how
to write an opinion which is relevant to the actual case. They need to take a
English composition course or something.
For a different opinion, consult the resource at
http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html (which is really just a smokescreen
of course)
Rick
Andrew C. Lannen
>and...@ix.netcom.com (Andrew C. Lannen) wrote:
>
>You have any documentary evidence establishing what you are claiming?
If you want a specific citation, see Patricia U. Bonomi and
Peter B. Eisenstadt, "Church Adherence in the Eighteenth-Century
British American Colonies," William and Mary Quarterly 3d series, 39
(1982): 245-86. Their estimates are that about 69% of the white
population attended church regularly in 1765 and 59% in 1780 (not at
all surprising a drop given the turmoil of the war). On average, over
the 18th century this percentage of the churched population ranged
from 80% of whites in New England to 56% in the Chesapeake.
The William and Mary Quarterly, by the way, is the most
prestigious academic journal about early America published today.
>>:| Most colonial historians (even those hostile to religion) will
>>:|tell you that the majority of people in early America attended church.
>
>I presented information from two different sources.
>
>Source of information" THE CHURCHING OF AMERICA 1776-1990. Winners and
>losers in our religions economy, by Roger Finke and Rodney Stark, Rutgers
>University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey, (1994) Pages 25, 27, 29-30, 41
>In addition, Table 2.1 can also be found in CHURCH AND STATE IN THE UNITED
>STATES, VOL. I Anson Phelps Stokes, D.D., LL.D. Harper & Brothers, New
>York, (1950) page 273, with only a few minor variation in the numbers as
>shown below:
>
>The two sources were published 54 years apart, and I bet you would find
>used different sources. I have actually seen the figure 14% given in other
>publications.
So you have one old source using numbers that are no longer
considered accurate, and a more recent source that repeated the
inaccurate numbers.
>The book is in paperback, so it doesn't cost that much if you had to buy
>it. But I have seen it here in the Virginia Beach Public Library, so I
>suspect it can be found in most fair sized public Libraries. Probably in
>most college and university libraries as well.
>
>The book must have impressed some because it won "the Distinguished Book
>Award for 1993" presented by the Society for the Scientific Study of
>religion.
Never heard of the award or the organization. You are aware
that any single person can start an organization and give out a book
award, right? I'd rather accept an article of high enough quality to
make it past the demanding editors and reviewers of the William and
Mary Quarterly, thanks.
>What is unfair about presenting information?
It is unfair to make interpretations based on wrong information.
>BTW in your post knocking the "Whose is the most important Founders" chart,
>on the web page,you misrepresented it. You claimed that those who attended
>the Constitutional Convention received more points then those who attended
>the several State Ratifying Conventions. It had been almost two years since
>I had read over the chart, but when I looked it over yesterday, I
>discovered, you were incorrect. In each case the points given were the
>same.
Yes, you are correct. I lost my train of thought when I wrote
it. What I actually objected to is that there are more potential
points to be gained for debating and voting on the BoR than by
attending either one of the two levels of Constitutional Conventions
(potential 8 max vs. potential 4 each max).
>Now to be fair, you did mention you found some of the web page good, but
>never identified exactly what.
I thought that the dissection of the inaccurate quotes was well
done.
On the other hand, the new article on school vouchers you put up
is just bad. It is poorly argued and based on an interpretation of
the word "establishment" that no reasonable person should hold --
certainly the founders didn't. To them, establishment meant the
instituting of an official and compulsory state religion such as the
Anglican Church in England at the time. It does not cover the
provision of funds to private individuals who may then use the money
how they please -- for either secular or religious private education.
That interpretation of the word "establishment" is the same type
of improperly loose reading that leads the ACLU to argue that nude
dancing and flag burning are speech. Don't get me wrong, I think
people should be allowed to dance nude while burning flags (though
they might be warmer if they wore the flags instead of torching them).
I also oppose school vouchers because I believe the state has a
legitimate right to shape children into orderly and obedient citizens
-- private education upsets that. However, I think that vouchers are
(unfortunately) Constitutional.
I have long thought that the Constitution needs to be scrapped
and rewritten to better specify our freedoms. It is creaking and
cracking and showing its age. Most countries (and most states)
periodically rewrite their Constitutions to suit the times. Only in
America do we persist in the absurd notion that a group of fallible
human beings 200 years ago achieved *perfection*. Think about it for
a minute. When you break a leg, do you go running to "Ye Olde
Medicine Manual" published in 1789 for treatment?
Gardiner
Andrew,
Thanks for the info on the Wm & Mary Quarterly. I found the article online at http://www.jstor.org/journals/00435597.html
It is also my understanding that the Wm & Mary Quarterly is quite prestigeous.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|The Shoe wrote:
>:|>
>:|> All your quotations prove is that there were "this is a Christian nation"
>:|> idiots around since the beginning.
>:|>
>:|
>:|And that is all I have been trying to prove!!
It is getting harder and harder to accept your statement that you are only
trying to prove there were Christians in America prior and during the
founding period.
Even your comments you are trying to prove that Christianity influenced
some or most of those men.
Why is it getting harder and harder to believe that?
Because you are showing up in more and more discussions that are not
related to that specific topic in that specific time frame.
i. e. the Holy Trinity discussion. Bringing abortion into the discussion,
something totally unrelated to what you are claiming you are trying to
prove. BTW, you do know that abortion was legal, and was practiced during
the founding period of this nation, and for a good 100 years there after?
You do know that even the churches had no problems with it, so long as it
was performed before the quickening took place?
>:|There have been quite a few of
>:|them around since the beginning... as a matter of fact, there were a lot more
>:|of them around in the beginning then there are now. Yes! That's all I am
>:|trying to prove.
Then it would seem to me that would the time frame and area you would be
making your discussions, not areas and time frames totally removed from
that above.
>:|
>:|However, some of the people in this conversation have been alleging that these
>:|"idiots" were not really around in the beginning... or, more precisely, they
>:|were around, but they were a small minority who had no influence in America's birth.
And your claims have been for the exact opposite. that most or all were
Christian and Christianity played a major role, had major influence in the
founding.
The truth is in the middle.
>:|
>:|The historically undeniable fact is that there were a lot of these "idiots"
>:|around in the beginning, and their voices played a very important role in the founding.
One has to get into defining terms then.
In your mind, what does lot mean?
In your mind, what does played a very important role in the founding mean?
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|I couldn't agree more with your commentary. The fallacies employed against the
>:|thesis that America was permeated with Christianity in its early years are
>:|legion. You point out a fallacy which has been used a lot in this discussion:
>:|the idea that if one cuts and pastes an entire chapter out of a book
>:|(regardless of the relevance of the bulk of it) it will seem true on account
>:|of its length. I second your call for an economy of citations.
Interesting.
An economy of citations?
Why, you having a hard time mounting any effective response to them?
>:|The fallacies employed against the
>:|thesis that America was permeated with Christianity in its early years are
>:|legion.
Smoke screen
If you believe it to be so, why not show that the data presented is false?
Saying it doesn't make it so.
>:|
>:|I, too, vigorously oppose a government which would mandate religion. I
>:|disagree with you, however, if you don't think that the government should
>:|impose some forms of morality upon its citizens. Murder, rape, theft, perjury,
>:|kidnapping, assault, etc., are all immoral practices. I hope that the
>:|government continues to legislate against these forms of immorality.
What does the above have to do with promoting your book?
Why didn't you actually address the data that you so disliked?
The Constitution does not concern itself with morality.
The items you listed above are considered to be criminal behavior, and have
been considered to be such in a great many cultures throughout history.
Even cultures that were not "Christian."
Trouble with giving the government the right to legislate morality is the
government will not confine itself to the standard things that have come to
be universally accepted as "improper behavior" i.e. murder, stealing, rape,
etc. The usual universally accepted things that constitute criminal
actions.
Such things will begin to be determined by the current popular fad. Such
things we begin to be determined by the latest craze and far too often the
minorities will become targets. will be the one who
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|On Sat, 20 Mar 1999 17:24:06 GMT, jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|
>:|>and...@ix.netcom.com (Andrew C. Lannen) wrote:
>:|>
>:|>You have any documentary evidence establishing what you are claiming?
>:|
>:| If you want a specific citation, see Patricia U. Bonomi and
>:|Peter B. Eisenstadt, "Church Adherence in the Eighteenth-Century
>:|British American Colonies," William and Mary Quarterly 3d series, 39
>:|(1982): 245-86. Their estimates are that about 69% of the white
>:|population attended church regularly in 1765 and 59% in 1780 (not at
>:|all surprising a drop given the turmoil of the war). On average, over
>:|the 18th century this percentage of the churched population ranged
>:|from 80% of whites in New England to 56% in the Chesapeake.
>:|
No problem, next time I am at ODU I will look it up.
>:| The William and Mary Quarterly, by the way, is the most
>:|prestigious academic journal about early America published today.
>:|
Am very much aware of what it is, etc. Been to the offices where it is put
together, published etc.
>:|>>:| Most colonial historians (even those hostile to religion) will
>:|>>:|tell you that the majority of people in early America attended church.
>:|>
>:|>I presented information from two different sources.
>:|>
>:|>Source of information" THE CHURCHING OF AMERICA 1776-1990. Winners and
>:|>losers in our religions economy, by Roger Finke and Rodney Stark, Rutgers
>:|>University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey, (1994) Pages 25, 27, 29-30, 41
>:|>In addition, Table 2.1 can also be found in CHURCH AND STATE IN THE UNITED
>:|>STATES, VOL. I Anson Phelps Stokes, D.D., LL.D. Harper & Brothers, New
>:|>York, (1950) page 273, with only a few minor variation in the numbers as
>:|>shown below:
>:|>
>:|>The two sources were published 54 years apart, and I bet you would find
>:|>used different sources. I have actually seen the figure 14% given in other
>:|>publications.
>:|
>:| So you have one old source using numbers that are no longer
>:|considered accurate, and a more recent source that repeated the
>:|inaccurate numbers.
>:|
You have any evidence of this?
>:|>The book is in paperback, so it doesn't cost that much if you had to buy
>:|>it. But I have seen it here in the Virginia Beach Public Library, so I
>:|>suspect it can be found in most fair sized public Libraries. Probably in
>:|>most college and university libraries as well.
>:|>
>:|>The book must have impressed some because it won "the Distinguished Book
>:|>Award for 1993" presented by the Society for the Scientific Study of
>:|>religion.
>:|
>:| Never heard of the award or the organization. You are aware
>:|that any single person can start an organization and give out a book
>:|award, right? I'd rather accept an article of high enough quality to
>:|make it past the demanding editors and reviewers of the William and
>:|Mary Quarterly, thanks.
>:|
Kewl, are you going to compare the book with the article you cite?
On the other hand, I tend to think that an associate professor of sociology
at Purdue, and a professor of sociology and comparative religion at the
University of Washington, would not exactly be publishing trash.
I seriously doubt that Rutgers University Press, would publish trash.
You have every right to question, and challenge their data and findings,
but I do think they rate and deserve serious consideration, until such time
as you or anyone else can show that their data is incorrect, etc.
Even your buddy Gardiner deserves that much.
After all he can state the following:
Richard Gardiner - History Instructor, University Lake School, Hartland,
Wisconsin, since 1995; B.A. (Magna Cum Laude) University of
Maryland--College Park; M.Div., Princeton Theological Seminary;
History Teacher's Certification, Princeton University. While at Princeton
Theological Seminary, Richard Gardiner founded and edited The Princeton
Theological Review and helped found the Charles Hodge Society.
>:|>What is unfair about presenting information?
>:|
>:| It is unfair to make interpretations based on wrong information.
>:|
You haven't shown that data is wrong.
You cite another study, but that is all.
You provide very little information from that study.
>:|>BTW in your post knocking the "Whose is the most important Founders" chart,
>:|>on the web page,you misrepresented it. You claimed that those who attended
>:|>the Constitutional Convention received more points then those who attended
>:|>the several State Ratifying Conventions. It had been almost two years since
>:|>I had read over the chart, but when I looked it over yesterday, I
>:|>discovered, you were incorrect. In each case the points given were the
>:|>same.
>:|
>:| Yes, you are correct. I lost my train of thought when I wrote
>:|it. What I actually objected to
Personally, I am beginning to think you just want to object.
Seems as if you agree with Gardiner, or if you don't you don't seem to have
much to say about it, but you do seem to object when others counter or
challenge some of his posts and replies.
>;|is that there are more potential
>:|points to be gained for debating and voting on the BoR than by
>:|attending either one of the two levels of Constitutional Conventions
>:|(potential 8 max vs. potential 4 each max).
If a person was a member of the Convention in Philly they received 2
points. [more points based on public documented participation]
2 points if they signed the Constitution
2 points for voting for the constitution
2 points for being a member of the state ratifying convention
[more points based on public documented participation]
2 points for being a member of the First session of the First Federal
Congress
2 points for being part of the BOR's debates
{more points based on public documented participation]
2 points for voting for the amendments
Seems pretty above board and fair to me.
>:|
>:|>Now to be fair, you did mention you found some of the web page good, but
>:|>never identified exactly what.
>:|
>:| I thought that the dissection of the inaccurate quotes was well
>:|done.
Amazing. LOL
A page that contains over 55 articles, and if printed out on paper would
take up well over 225 pages. You find two items horrible and one item well
done. LOL
Oh well.
Actually, there is a great deal of very good information to be found on the
page.
>:| On the other hand, the new article on school vouchers you put up
>:|is just bad.
In your opinion.
>:|It is poorly argued and based on an interpretation of
>:|the word "establishment" that no reasonable person should hold --
>:|certainly the founders didn't.
Evidence?
>:|To them, establishment meant the
>:|instituting of an official and compulsory state religion such as the
>:|Anglican Church in England at the time.
Would you like a "ton" of information showing the word establishment had
numerous meanings during that time frame?
That the word was used by most in a very interchangeable way?
That the use of public funds to support religion was very much viewed as an
establishment of religion, etc?
>:| It does not cover the
>:|provision of funds to private individuals who may then use the money
>:|how they please -- for either secular or religious private education.
Now what is the above suppose to be about?
>:| That interpretation of the word "establishment" is the same type
>:|of improperly loose reading
You have provided no evidence showing this to be the case.
>:|that leads the ACLU to argue that nude
>:|dancing and flag burning are speech. Don't get me wrong, I think
>:|people should be allowed to dance nude while burning flags (though
>:|they might be warmer if they wore the flags instead of torching them).
>:|I also oppose school vouchers because I believe the state has a
>:|legitimate right to shape children into orderly and obedient citizens
>:|-- private education upsets that. However, I think that vouchers are
>:|(unfortunately) Constitutional.
Actually, at least to this point in time the Supreme Court disagrees with
you [about vouchers]. That may or may not change in the future, but to this
point in time vouchers have been shot down time after time.
There is a vast amount of historical data agreeing with that decision.
[snip]
Gardiner
Contrary to what you allege, not everything I say is a smokescreen or a veiled
attempt to promote the book. I am actually interested in historical scholarship.
> The Constitution does not concern itself with morality.
Wrong. Cruel and unusual punishment is immoral. Double Jeopardy is immoral.
Treason, Bribery, High crimes and misdemeanors are immoral. Invasion of
privacy is immoral. Denial of due process is immoral. There are many more
examples than these?
Doesn't the constitution include any of these issues?
> The items you listed above are considered to be criminal behavior, and have
> been considered to be such in a great many cultures throughout history.
> Even cultures that were not "Christian."
And those behaviors are immoral.
Are you saying that one has to be a Christian to be "moral"??? The government
can legislate morality without legislating Christianity, and it does!
> Trouble with giving the government the right to legislate morality is the
> government will not confine itself to the standard things that have come to
> be universally accepted as "improper behavior" i.e. murder, stealing, rape,
> etc. The usual universally accepted things that constitute criminal
> actions.
Polygamy is not universally accepted as "improper behavior." Are you one who
would like to permit that kind of behavior in our country? As a matter of
fact, infanticide, genital mutilation, and some forms of human sacrifice are
not universally condemned.
I dread a government which can only legislate against "universally accepted"
standards of misconduct.
> Such things will begin to be determined by the current popular fad. Such
> things we begin to be determined by the latest craze and far too often the
> minorities will become targets.
Like those who participate in bestiality? The common law is what it is because
its principles are "time-tested." Right now laws are being made upon the
grounds of the current fads (viz., the legislation of political correctness),
which have not been part of universal consent for the last 5 millenium.
This is a result of our current abandonment of the common law tradition which
is rooted in milleniums of legal and theological decision making. Now we are
throwing much of it away in exchange for new "fads." (See Harold Berman, LAW
AND REVOLUTION 1983):
"It is only in the twentieth century that the Christian foundations of Western
law have been almost totally rejected. This twentieth-century development is a
historical consequence of the Western belief, of which St Anselm was the first
exponent, that theology itself may be studied independently of revelation.
Anselm had no intention of exalting reason at the expense of faith. Yet once
reason was [*198] separated from faith for analytical purposes, the two began
to be separated for other purposes as well. It was eventually taken for
granted that reason is capable of functioning by itself and ultimately this
came to mean functioning without any fundamental religious beliefs whatever.
By the same token, it was eventually taken for granted that law, as a product
of reason, is capable of functioning as an instrument of secular power,
disconnected from ultimate values and purposes; and not only religious faith
but all passionate convictions came to be considered the private affair of
each individual. Thus not only legal thought but also the very structure of
Western legal institutions have been removed from their spiritual foundations,
and those foundations, in turn, are left devoid of the structure that once
stood upon them," pp. 197-198.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|> >:|What do you find in the majority opinion of the Supreme Court historically
>:|> >:|inaccurate? (see http://member.aol.com/EndTheWall/TrinityHistory.htm)
>:|>
>:|> End The Wall? And you claim to be only interested in seeling a book that
>:|> claims the Christianity had influence on some of the Founders? Yea,
>:|> Right!
>:|
>:|Again you resort to the genetic fallacy far too readily. (see
>:|http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html). I do not
>:|administrate the page which contains the Holy Trinity opinion, and I have no
>:|clue who the guy is who does. He seems like a wacko to me. Nonetheless, the
>:|opinion of the court is accurately transcribed there (If you might dare to
>:|post it on your website I could have given you that URL). As long as you
>:|continue to persist with fallacious logic, I think you are doing your "cause"
>:|a disservice.
>:|
>:|> How accurate or inaccurate he was from a
>:|> historical point of view with the information which spilled forth from him
>:|> is of no concern.
>:|>
>:|> The right question would be:. legally speaking, what did it mean. The
>:|> answer is, legally speaking, not a thing.
>:|
>:|You have it exactly backwards. This is because you only see the world through
>:|the eyes of your "cause." What I have been arguing is the Christian
>:|socio-historical context of the birthing of America...the same sort of issues
>:|traced in the Holy Trinity opinion. I really don't care much what the legal
>:|ramifications are.
If what you say above is true, why on earth did you post the following:
***********************************************************************************
How about the Supreme Court (Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States,
1892)
This article concludes by citing Justice Brennan's disparagement of the
1892 decision
"the Court takes a long step backwards to the days when Justice Brewer
could arrogantly declare for the Court that 'this is a Christian nation.'
Those days, I had thought, were forever put behind us ...."
However, Justice Brennan's words were the MINORITY opinion of the court in
the 1983 Lynch case. The 1892 opinion of the Court has never been reversed,
much to the despair of those who wish American history was something other
than that which it was (as outlined by the Supreme Court in 1892).
What do you find in the majority opinion of the Supreme Court historically
inaccurate? (see http://member.aol.com/EndTheWall/TrinityHistory.htm)
Abortion on demand is not a law either. It is rather the result of Roe v.
Wade, which is just an opinion of the Court. By your reasoning, Roe v. Wade
doesn't really matter, since no special laws go with that.
Bizarre.
Does all the above really support what you are saying now?
>;|I am primarily concerned with the accurate representation
>:|of history.
Primarily implies secondary interests as well. But, be that as it may, why
would you say the following, if only interested history:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, Justice Brennan's words were the MINORITY opinion of the court in
the 1983 Lynch case. The 1892 opinion of the Court has never been reversed,
much to the despair of those who wish American history was something other
than that which it was (as outlined by the Supreme Court in 1892).
Abortion on demand is not a law either. It is rather the result of Roe v.
Wade, which is just an opinion of the Court. By your reasoning, Roe v. Wade
doesn't really matter, since no special laws go with that.
Bizarre.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those comments are involving legal thinking, etc, not historical.
>:| Did the Court state America's early history accurately. I am of
>:|the opinion that it did. You are of the opinion that it doesn't matter. As
>:|long as they got the history correct, then that's all that matters.
Oh, so if a Justice on the Supreme court suddenly launched into a recital
of nursery rhymes in a case that had nothing to do with nursery rhymes
so long as he got the rhymes correct that would put some sort of
importance on them?
>I don't
>:|think the court ever meant for the phrase "this is a Christian nation" to mean
>:|that the government must be Christian in all its aspects. I think the court
>:|was simply acknowledging what the library of Congress is currently alleging to
>:|be true (http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html), viz., that
>:|this nation is Christian in its historical socio-Cultural Fiber.
Christian in the fact that most of W.A.S.P. citizens who came here were in
some form or fashion members of one of the Protestant sects, denominations,
etc that existed in Europe at the time.
Yep, that is true.
We have gone through this before.
Christian in that it was founded as a "Christian nation" by Protestant
Christians, for Christians, and/or was/is based on the Christian religion
and/or the Bible, etc, etc, etc, not true.
Christian nation in that the Christian religion should be supported,
protected, that the once very real de facto establishment of the Protestant
form of Christianity should be elevated to a primary position, etc, nope.
Just one additional thought on all that. Even if one could prove any or all
of the above to be true, and the secular Constitution makes that
impossible, it would not matter today.
I think that the facts today are, the largest Christian denomination is the
Catholic form of Christianity.
That there are religions from all over the world in this country and some
of these religions have large memberships, in fact I believe some of them
are growing in numbers faster, in this country, then any of the traditional
Christian sects are.
That there is a large number on non religious in this country today, and
they have equal rights with anyone who is religious.
>:|> This rampage off into a religious history discourse
>:|> had nothing to do with the actual case.
>:|
>:|Yeah. Those retarded supreme court justices really don't have a clue about how
>:|to write an opinion which is relevant to the actual case. They need to take a
>:|English composition course or something.
>:|
My, such a reaction to facts. Why do you feel this is needed.
Judges and Justices frequently get carried away in writing opinions. Did
you know lawyers used to get paid by the written word?
Why do you think this would be included in a Law Dictionary if was not a
fact of life in many, probably far too many; legal opinions?
_______________________________________________________________________
DICTA: /dikta/ Opinions of a Judge which do not embody the resolution or
determination of the specific case before the court,. Expressions in
court's opinion which go beyond the facts before court and therefore are
individual views of author of opinion and not binding in subsequent cases
as
legal precedent. See also Dictum.
Dictum /diktam/. A statement, remark, or observation.
Gratis dictum; a gratuitous or voluntary representation; one which a party
is not bound to make.
Simplex dictum; a mere assertion; an assertion without proof: The word is
generally used as an abbreviated form of obiter dictum, "a remark by the
way;" that is, an observation or remark made by a judge In pronouncing an
opinion upon a cause, concerning some rule, principle, or application of
law, or the solution of a question suggested by the case at bar, but not
necessarily involved in the case or essential to its determination; any
statement of the law enunciated by the court merely by way of illustration,
argument. analogy, or suggestion. Statements and comments in an opinion
concerning some rule of law or legal proposition not necessarily involved
nor· essential to determination of the case in hand are obiter dicta, and
lack the force of an adjudication. Dicta are opinions Of a judge which do
not embody the resolution or determination of the court, and made without
argument, or full consideration of the point, are not the professed
deliberate determinations of the Judge himself.
(Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, Centennial Edition
(1891-1991) West's Publishing Co St Paul Minn (1991)
________________________________________________________________________
I have already replied to you giving the facts concerning the case.
If you missed it look around, I posted it yesterday.
>:|For a different opinion, consult the resource at
>:|http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html (which is really just a smokescreen
>:|of course)
A different opinion? Of what, what the case was really about?
Or Brewer's discourse on irrelevant history? [irrelevant history as far as
what the case was about]
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|> Look who is back, I thought you had left in a huff.
>:|
>:|never left. just asked that you might cease and desist on the ad hominems.
>:|apparently that is a futile request. i see no purpose in exchanging abusive
>:|posts. i see much purpose, however, in an intelligent conversation. your posts
>:|seem to toggle between both of these approaches. i prefer that you keep it
>:|academic; where you do not, don't expect a response.
I give what I get.
You want something different, do something different.
When I run into personal comments about me, personal attacks, attempts to
ridicule, etc I will give the same back.
You want to discuss the information only, I have no problems with that.
if you are incapable of doing that, then I guess there won't be much
exchanged.
>:|
>:|> Now, my understanding is, from what you have said, you really aren't into
>:|> all this "Christian nation" stuff.
>:|
>:|Depends on what you mean by Christian nation. If you mean Christian
>:|Reconstructionism (i.e., Theonomy), then I do not see their interpretation as
>:|historically valid.
>:|
>:|If, on the other hand, you simply mean the position of the Supreme Court in
>:|its undistilled 1892 decision, I agree with the majority opinion of the Court
>:|(unabridged at http://member.aol.com/EndTheWall/TrinityHistory.htm)
>:|
That decision had nothing to do with the "opinion" you are referring to.
The decision has nothing to do with the dicta or dictum that Justice Brewer
spewed forth in the opinion.
You totally misunderstood that opinion.
I have already addressed this issue in three or four replies over
yesterday.
Just one additional item on that:
************************************************************************************
DICTA: /dikta/ Opinions of a Judge which do not embody the resolution or
determination of the specific case before the court,. Expressions in
court's opinion which go beyond the facts before court and therefore are
individual views of author of opinion and not binding in subsequent cases
as legal precedent. See also Dictum.
Dictum /diktam/. A statement, remark, or observation.
Gratis dictum; a gratuitous or voluntary representation; one which a party
is not bound to make.
Simplex dictum; a mere assertion; an assertion without proof: The word is
generally used as an abbreviated form of obiter dictum, "a remark by the
way;" that is, an observation or remark made by a judge In pronouncing an
opinion upon a cause, concerning some rule, principle, or application of
law, or the solution of a question suggested by the case at bar, but not
necessarily involved in the case or essential to its determination; any
statement of the law enunciated by the court merely by way of illustration,
argument. analogy, or suggestion. Statements and comments in an opinion
concerning some rule of law or legal proposition not necessarily involved
nor· essential to determination of the case in hand are obiter dicta, and
lack the force of an adjudication. Dicta are opinions Of a judge which do
not embody the resolution or determination of the court, and made without
argument, or full consideration of the point, are not the professed
deliberate determinations of the Judge himself.
(Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, Centennial Edition
(1891-1991) West's Publishing Co St Paul Minn (1991)
But it is nice that you have finally acknowledged this point.
I gave you a list of books in a reply the other day, and I asked what was
the difference between your book and those books.
If you bothered to reply I haven't found it yet [it may be here somewhere,
I only work at answering and reading so many a day and there are still some
I haven't read yet]
At any rate, I asked that question for a reason. Most if not all those
books pretty much take the same approach your book apparently takes.
However, each of those books went beyond where you were willing to go [or
willing to say you were going] in the beginning when you showed up on here.
They all proclaim in some form or fashion that this was a "Christian
nation" ( not meaning most of the population was Christian, but rather this
nation was founded by Christians for Christians.) Was based on the
Christian religion and/or the Bible, and saying directly or implying that
the modern sate of church state jurisprudence was incorrect, etc.
In short, separation of church and state is a myth invented by the S C in
the 40's or liberals in the 60's etc.
In fact, one of the authors of one of those books in your co-author to this
book you are promoting so heavily.
There were clues in your posting that you weren't JUST saying that many or
even most of the founders were Christian. There were clues in your posting
that indicated that you were ultimately following the same line of
reasoning that those other authors were in their books.
It's nice to now know that is true.
>:|> Are you now trying to say that you think this nation was founded as a
>:|> Christian nation? Henry may have believed that, he may have thought that,
>:|> he may have wanted that. He lost that battle to Madison on the state level.
>:|> Hence my question, what role did he play regarding religion on the national
>:|> level?
>:|
>:|The battle lost on the state level was not whether the nation was Christian in
>:|its socio-cultural fiber, but whether or not Virginia would collect taxes to
>:|fund Anglican Parishes. I'm quite glad Henry lost that debate.
Its was little more then that. To begin with the bill being promoted by
henry and his side was to fund all teachers of any and all Christian
religions.
It would have effectively established the Christian religion as the
official religion of Virginia (which was still an sovereign, independent
nation/state at that time) It would have provided public monies to
nonpreferentially support the teachers of Christianity, or in plain words
to support religion. Hence a union between church and state, religion and
government.
>:|
>:|> Did his wants, wishes,. desires, dreams, etc make it into law?
>:|
>:|Many of the Christian opinions of Sir Blackstone did, regardless of
>:|Jefferson's 1814 letter alleging Christianity to be fraudulently introduced
>:|into common law.
We aren't talking about Blackstone.
We are talking about Patrick Henry.
>:|
>:|> >:|Second, the citation of the treaty of 1797 has the "just being politically
>:|> >:|shrewd" problem which you often assign to Washington when he makes statements
>:|> >:|such as "religion is necessary for good government." In the treaty, they are
>:|> >:|"offering a morsel" to the mahometans. The authenticity of the document is
>:|> >:|also in question.
>:|>
>:|> The authenticity? Really? In what way?
>:|
>:|1) Washington never signed the treaty. The treaty didn't come to the
>:|president's desk until March 1797. At that time John Adams was President. (See
>:|Ray Irwin, THE DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS OF THE U.S. WITH THE BARBARY POWERS,
>:|1776-1816, UNC Press, 1931, p. 84)
>:|
I don't recall ever saying Washington signed the Treaty, and in fact will
post corrections whenever I find others in the various news groups listing
the wording of the treaty that states this is not a Christian nation as a
quote attributed to Washington.
Washington signing it or Adams signing it doesn't alter it.
>:|2) When the treaty was translated from Arabic to English, in the process much
>:|important religious language was jettisoned (see Charles Bevans, TREATIES AND
>:|OTHER INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS OF THE USA 1776-1949), XI, p. 1078.
>:|
Yea? What was taken out? What did the copy that the U. S. Senate ratified
and President Adams sign say?
>:|3) the phrase "the government of the U.S.A. is not in any sense founded on the
>:|Christian Religion" was interpolated into the treaty (Bevans op cit, p 1077).
>:|
Really?
I see, so you are saying this other fella is saying that none of the
following ever happened?
*******************************************************************************
The preliminary treaty began with a signing on November 4,1796 (the
end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the
American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for
the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a
chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine,
Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian
orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government.
Barlow, along with his associate, Captain Richard O'Brien, et al,
translated and modified the Arabic version of the treaty into English. From
this came the added Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S.
legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering. the secretary of
state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency),
sending the document on to the Senate.The Senate approved the treaty on
June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams
signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the
wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even
became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17
June 1797.
So here we have a clear admission by the United States that our government
did not found itself upon Christianity-. Unlike the Declaration of
Independence, this Treaty represented U.S. law as all treaties do according
to the Constitution (see Article VI, Sect. 2).
Although the Christian exclusionary wording in the Treaty of Tripoli only
lasted for eight years and no longer has legal status, it clearly
represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of the
U.S. government.
[http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
**********************************************************************************
>:|That phrase was not part of the 1805 congressional approval of the treaty.
APRIL 1806
ARTICLE XIV. AS the government of the United States of
America has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or
tranquillity of Mussulmen, and as the said States never have entered into
any voluntary war or act of hostility against any Mahometan except in
defense of their just rights to freely navigate the high seas, it is
declared by the contracting parties that no pretext arising from religious
opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between
the two nations. And the consuls and agents of both nations respectively
shall have liberty to exercise his religion in his own house. All slaves of
the same religion shall not be impeded in going to said consul's house at
hours of prayer.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: TREATY OF PEACE, AMITY, AND COMMERCE BETWEEN THE
PRESIDENT AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND THE BASHA, BEY,
AND SUBJECTS OF TRIPOLI, IN BOMBAY, CONCLUDED JUNE 4, 1805; RATIFIED BY THE
SENATE APRIL 12, 1806, " Treaties and Conventions Concluded between the
United States of America and other Powers, Since July 4, 1776," published
by the Department of State, 1889, page 1084, AMERICAN STATE PAPERS
Bearing On Sunday Legislation, Revised and Enlarged Edition, Compiled and
Annotated by William Addison Blakely, Revised Edition Edited by Willard
Allen Colcord, The Religious Liberty Association, Washington D.C. 1911, pp
164-165)
* Like the treaty of 1797, this treaty showed the government of the United
States to be impartial in matters of religion,--that it had no established
religion, and that the question of religion and religious opinion was not
to be considered in national affairs. It showed that it was not the policy
of this government to compel those within its jurisdiction, who are not
Christians, to act as though they were. *
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>:|> You might find the following interesting
>:|>
>:|> http://www.earlyamerica.com/reviews/summer97/secular.html
>:|
>:|no such page is in existence
>:|
>:|> A simple question
>:|>
>:|> Since you spend so much time and effort promoting this book of yours, how
>:|> exactly does this book differ from any of the following books?
>:|
Ahhhhh, so here is where I asked that question. I knew it was around here
somewhere.
>:|I have not read the Huston book. From the LOC website
>:|(http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html) however, it seems that
>:|my book would overlap much of Mr. Huston's research.
>:|
Hmmmm, I see, and it has already been mentioned that the Huston book and
the LOC exhibit pretty much gives one side of the story. I know you like to
claim I am the only one saying that, however, you know that at least 25
scholars have also made the same claim.
>:|I am not familiar with the books written by Ms. Verna Hall or Mr. Titus. I
>:|have seen Mr. Barton's "MYTH." It's thesis is a legal one rather than a
>:|socio-cultural one.
>:|
Actually, both books by barton are far more cultural then you are aware of
acknowledging. But, I don't blame you for distancing yourself from him. he
has a richly deserved bad reputation for shoddy research, serious
misrepresentations, etc.
>:|Dr. Amos' book on the Declaration is scholarly, well documented, and, in my
>:|judgment, very accurate. I would challenge anyone to refute it.
What else would you say about your co-author?
I am quite sure that there are many very qualified scholars would would do
a very good job of refuting his book.
I mean, isn't that what you have said in the past. Scholarship is agreeing
and disagreeing? Challenging, etc?
Your co-author hasn't got a patent on truth.
>:|But I have to hand it to you, you are a master of logical fallacies.
Hmmmm, another compliment? This is required to promote your book, right?
>:|If you
>:|can dish out a genetic fallacy or an ad hominem, you surely don't miss that
>:|opportunity. If the best you can do to defeat my thesis is associate me with
>:|some unpopular writer,
Who is the unpopular writer?
The common denominator in the above books is the theme or as you like to
say the thesis. It seems to be the same as yours.
>:| then go ahead and associate me with them. The truth
>:|about the colonies and the founding will remain the same.
Sorry, not my point. My point was already given above. I knew what these
books were about. I bought them, most in fact from Regent U. {we go there
often, using their Law School Library for research] Amos and Titus
are/were on the staff at Regent U.
Knowing where someone is coming from helps give some idea where they are
going, especially when they didn't clearly say where they were going.
As to the "truth" of your book. I am sure it has truth in it, and I am
equally sure it is not the "Truth"
(1) You sure are not going to select data that is going to conflict with
you are trying to show. [if you can't avoid including such data you are
going to try your best to spin it to make it come out on your side of the
fence]
(2) Then there is the matter what your selected material really means, how
important is it, etc [you can collect "tons' of material about something,
and the material can be correct, but does it mean what you say it means and
does it prove what you say it proves and does it matter in this day and
age]
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|> >:|What do you find in the majority opinion of the Supreme Court historically
>:|> >:|inaccurate? (see http://member.aol.com/EndTheWall/TrinityHistory.htm)
The year 1892 was a remarkable one in the history of the United
States, for in that year the national government, in all three of its
branches,--judicial, legislative, and executive,--departed from the
fundamental principle laid down in the Constitution of separation of
religion and the state, and gave sanction to religious legislation and to
the union of religion and the state; the Judicial, February 29, in the
decision of the Supreme Court declaring this a "Christian nation;" the
legislative, July 14 (the Senate) and July 9 (the House), in the
legislation conditioning the five-million-dollar appropriation to the
Chicago (1893) World's Columbian Exposition upon Sunday closing; and the
executive, August 5, in the President of the United States, President
Harrison, approving this legislation by attaching his signature to it.
While the real decision in this case, from a legal standpoint, was
not that the United States is a " Christian nation." but rather that; the
alien labor law passed by Congress in 1887 referred only to manual labor,
and not to professional, skilled, or "brain" labor, and hence could not
apply to the case in question, the conclusion drawn from the arguments
adduced in the obiter dictum portion of the opinion to prove that this is
a " religious people " and " a Christian nation," has been seized upon by
the advocates of religious legislation and of a union of religion and the
state in this country, as support of the highest order, and as though this
was the real question at issue in the case, and the decision of the court.
Viewed from the standpoint of the obiter dictum alone, which, it may be
observed, constitutes over one half of the entire decision, and from the
use that is made of it, this is true. This portion of the opinion does
declare that "this is a Christian nation;" and wherever the question of
Sunday legislation, religious instruction in the public schools, or a
religious amendment to the Constitution has come up since this decision was
rendered, this obiter dictum. or so called "decision," of the Supreme Count
of the United States, has been cited and appealed to. In effect, therefore,
this was the decision of the Court.
And this view of the matter is confirmed by a statement from the
justice himself who delivered the opinion. In 1905 Justice Brewer
delivered three lectures on " The United States a Christian Nation,"
before the Haverford College, of Haverford. Pennsylvania. The second
paragraph of the first lecture reads:
" This republic is classified among the Christian nations of the
world. It was so formally declared by the Supreme Court of the United
States. In the case of Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 United
States, 471, that court, after mentioning various circumstances, added,
'These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of
unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a
Christian nation.' " " The United States a Christian Nation," the John C.
Winston Company, Philadelphia, 1905, page 11.
This is evidence that Justice Brewer himself regarded this
declaration in this decision as at least a very conspicuous, if not the
leading, feature of it.
Having shown that the law in question, as indicated by the intent
of the lawmakers and all the circumstances attending the legislation,
applied only to manual labor, and not to professional or brain labor, the
court might well have closed the argument here and rendered the decision.
There was really no need for all the lengthy argument which follows,
concerning this being a "religious people" and a " Christian nation," in
order to reach the conclusion finally arrived at. The case was proved, and
the argument was complete, without this. This, therefore, was extra
judicial; and. considering its character, coming from a coordinate branch
of a government in which church and state are separate, it is not a little
remarkable. To cite an array of documents and laws gathered almost wholly
from times when, and from nations, colonies, and states in which, church
and state were united, to prove that a law passed now by a government in
which church and state are separate, could not apply to a certain case,
would appear illogical at least.
Because a people are religious is no reason why they may not make
laws against religion. The most intolerant and persecuting laws the world
has ever seen have been made by religious people. Nor because a nation is
professedly "Christian " is such legislation impossible. All the leading
European nations, save Turkey, are " Christian nations" so called; but
which one has not made restrictive religious laws, or laws against
religion? And even in a government like the United States, where church and
stare are separate, laws may be made, and properly so, restricting certain
practices or customs carried on in the name of religion, when those
practices or customs are criminal or uncivil in character, as, for
instance, laws against polygamy.
The character of the evidence cited in this decision to prove that
this is a " Christian nation " and a " religious people " is worthy of
note.. The first citation --the commission from Ferdinand and
Isabella to Columbus -- is significant. The religion of these rulers was
the Catholic religion; and not only so, but the Catholic religion with the
Inquisition in full operation, for it was Ferdinand and Isabella who, under
the generalship of Torquemada, established the Inquisition in Spain, and
who, because Spain was a "Christian nation, "sentenced to banishment, and
decreed the confiscation of all goods of, every Jew in the nation who would
not turn Catholic. This is ·the first historical evidence cited by the
court to prove that this is a " Christian nation."
It is true that "the establishment of the Christian religion" was
declared to be one of the "purposes" of the grants from Elizabeth and
succeeding rulers of England to Sir Waiter Raleigh and others. But are the
American people still bound by the purposes and intentions of those British
rulers? Does Great Britain still rule America? After all these historical
documents were issued, was there not the Declaration of Independence and
the American Revolution? And after these was there not a new nation
established, inaugurating "a new order of things:" and a national
Constitution framed, declaring for religious freedom, and expressly
repudiating religious legislation and religious establishments under the
national government? What then could these ancient English grants of right
have to do with the testing of the constitutionality of a law enacted by
the Congress of the United States?
Coming to our own country, it will be noticed that constitutional
declarations guaranteeing religious freedom are cited along with provisions
and laws defining religious duties, making religious tests, providing for
the support of religious teachers, and requiring religious observances, as
equally proving this a "Christian nation." Then, referring to all the
evidence thus cited, the court says: '' There is no dissonance in these
declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one
meaning. " For the purpose of this decision, State Constitutions requiring
religious tests mean the same as the United States Constitution when it
says, "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any
office," etc. Even an English grant, one of whose purposes was " the
establishment of the Christian religion." and the constitutional
prohibition, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion," have "one meaning," says this decision. Between such
declarations it says there is no " dissonance." Nor does it fail to mention
the laws " respecting the observance of the Sabbath,"-- the very laws which
more than any others, have been instrumental in uniting church and state
in the past, and been characteristic of such unions, both in America
and Europe.
A REMARKABLE OMISSION.
That the writer of this decision should have searched and gathered
from European documents, from colonial laws, and from State court decisions
from the time of Columbus to recent years,-- declarations so utterly at
variance with the American doctrine of the separation of church and
state--and omitted entirely all reference to those famous state documents,
petitions, remonstrances, and memorials bearing on religious liberty
produced between the signing of the
Declaration of Independence and the adoption of the United States
Constitution when the national government was being formed or to those
other prominent State and national utterances touching the same subject
since then, such as the famous Sunday Mail Reports adopted by Congress in
1829 and 1830. and the Supreme Court Decision of California in 1858,
setting aside the State Sunday law as unconstitutional is indeed most
remarkable. During the first period mentioned the national government was
founded. During this time was fought out the great struggle for religious
freedom which resulted in divorcing religion from civil government in this
country, and in founding a nation without an established or legally
declared religion. This decision passes this all by as though it were no
part of American history, and as though it had never happened. Such an
omission seems indeed remarkable.
The language in which Abraham Lincoln characterized a similar
omission in Stephen A. Douglas's defense of the decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States in 1856, in the Dred Scott case, written by
Chief Justice Taney, in which the doctrine was set forth that a colored man
" had no rights which the white man was bound to respect," seems eminently
fitting here. He said: "I ask, How extraordinary a thing
it is that a man who has occupied a seat on the floor of the Senate [or on
the bench of the Supreme Court -- Ed.] of the United States, . . .
pretending to give a truthful and accurate history of the slavery question
[or of the question of religion and the nation-- Ed.] in this country,
should so entirely ignore the whole of that portion of our history--the
most important of all! Is it not a most extraordinary spectacle that a man
should stand up and ask for any confidence in his statements who sets out
as he does with portions of history, calling upon the people to believe
that it is a true and fair representation, when the leading part, the
controlling feature, of the whole history is carefully suppressed?
" And now he asks the community to believe that the men of the
Revolution were in favor of his 'great principle,' when we have the naked
history that they themselves dealt with this very subject matter of his
principle, and utterly repudiated his principle -- acting upon a precisely
contrary ground. It is as impudent and absurd as if a prosecuting attorney
should stand up before a jury, and ask them to convict A as the murderer of
B, while B was standing alive before them."
Though a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States,
Lincoln said that that decision was wrong in principle. and that it should
be reversed. So it may be said now of the "Christian nation's" decision of
1892. It is wrong in principle, and should be reversed. It certainly does
not voice the religious liberty principles of the founders of the national
government. In principle and as precedent it is pernicious and mischievous.
This has been clearly demonstrated by the use that has already been made of
it.
In the case of ex parte Newman, 9 California, 502, Justice Burnett,
of the Supreme Court of California. said:'; We often meet with the
expression that Christianity is a part of the common law. Conceding that
this is true, it is not perceived how it can influence the decision of a
constitutional question. The Constitution of this State will not tolerate
any discrimination or preference in favor of any religion; and, so far as
the common law conflicts with this provision, it must yield to the
Constitution. Our constitutional theory regards all religions, as such,
equally entitled to protection, and all equally entitled to any preference.
Before the Constitution they are all equal." While Christianity may be the
religion of many or even of a majority of the people of the country, this,
under the American system of government, gives no authority or warrant to
any court, State or national, to say that Christianity is the religion of
the nation or a part of the law of the land. See jei- plvr ferson and the
Supreme Court of Ohio on the subject, ante pages f,O,p
zo8 and 460.
How this declaration on the part of the Supreme Court of the United
States was received, and the light in which it has been regarded ever since
by the National Reformers and other advocates of a union of church and
state in this country, may be gathered from the following:
In the " Christian Statesman " of June 25, 1892, the official organ
of the National Reform Association, one of the secretaries of the
association said:
" Is not this the time to remember that the United States Supreme
Court has officially declared (in a document that reads as if largely
gathered from the National Reform Manual) that this is a Christian nation?"
The " Pearl of Days," the official organ of the American Sabbath
Union, of May 7, 1892, said that this decision "establishes clearly the
fact that our government is Christian," and added:
"This decision is vital to the Sunday question in all its aspects,
and places that question among the most important issues now before the
American people. . . . And this important decision rests upon the
fundamental principle that religion is imbedded in the organic structure of
the American government--a religion that recognizes, and is bound to
maintain, Sunday as a day for rest and worship."
In its issue of May 21, 1892, the "Christian Statesman" said:
"Christianity is the law of the land.' 'This is a Christian nation." U. S.
Supreme Court, February 29, 1892. The Christian church, therefore, has
rights in this country. Among those is the right to one day in seven
protected from the assaults of greed, the god of the world, that it may be
devoted to worship of the God of heaven and earth."
And just before Thanksgiving of that year. the same paper, under
date of November 19, 1892, printed the following article:
"CHRISTIAN POLITICS.
" The Supreme Court Decision.
"The Greatest Occasion for Thanksgiving.
"This is a Christian nation.' That means Christian government,
Christian laws, Christian institutions, Christian practices, Christian
citizenship. And this is not an outburst of popular passion or prejudice.
Christ did not lay his guiding hand there, but upon the calm.
dispassionate, supreme judicial tribunal of our government. It is the
weightiest, the noblest, the most tremendously far-reaching in its
reconsequences of all the utterances of that sovereign tribunal. And that
utterance is for Christianity, for Christ. 'A Christian nation!' Then this
nation is Christ's nation, for nothing can be Christian that does not
belong to him. Then his word is its sovereign law. Then the nation is
Christ's servant. Then it ought to, and must, confess, love, ·and obey
Christ. All that the National Reform Association seeks, all that this
department of Christian politics works for, is to be found in the
development of that royal truth, 'This is a Christian nation.' It is the
hand of the second of our three great departments of national government
·throwing open a door of our national house, m
one that leads straight to the throne of Christ.
" Was there ever a Thanksgiving day before that called us to bless
our God for such marvelous advances of our government and citizenship
toward Christ?
"‘O sing unto the Lord a new song; for he hath done marvelous
things: his right hand, and his holy arm, hath gotten him the victory...
Sing unto the Lord with the harp; with the harp, and the
voice of a psalm.' "
This shows that these National Reformers and "Christian politicians
" recognized in this decision a national judicial sanction for all they had
ever asked in the way of religious legislation, and particularly in the way
of Sunday legislation. And the fact that within only a few months after the
rendering of this decision Congress passed its first Sunday legislation
(see pages 370-377), and,
that since then over fifty Sunday-law bills and something like half a
dozen religious constitutional amendment bills have been introduced in
Congress, is some evidence of its far-reaching effects and of how it helped
to set the tide in this government in the wrong direction -- in the way of
religious legislation.
And that Justice Brewer, who wrote the opinion, considered Sunday
legislation as vitally connected with his conception of a " Christian
nation," is evident from the fact that in his little work of ninety-eight
pages. entitled " The United States a Christian Nation." published in
1905. after starting out with a citation to this decision of the Supreme
Court, he refers to Sunday and Sunday laws no less than thirty-three times,
and justifies the enforcement of Sunday observance by law upon the ground
that " respect for Christianity implies respectful treatment of its
institutions and ordinances ; " that'' the citizen who does not attend
[church],--does not even share in the belief of those who do,-- ought ever
to bear in mind the noble part Christianity has taken in the history of the
republic;" and that, the American Christian is entitled to his quiet hour."
Pages 54, 55 As well might the Jew, whose ancestors fought in the war of
the Revolution, and through whom came to us the Bible and even the Christ,
demand, upon the same ground, respect for Jewish institutions and
ordinances, laws enforcing the universal observance of Saturday, and thus
the American Jew's right to his " quiet hour."
In this same book Justice Brewer traces the origin of American
Sunday laws in general to the Sunday law of Charles II, thus:
" By the English statute of 29 Charles II no tradesman, artificer,
A workman, laborer, or other person was permitted to do or exercise any
worldly labor, business, or work of ordinary calling upon the Lord's day,
or any part thereof, works of necessity or charity only excepted. That
statute, with some variations, has been adopted by most if not all the
States of the Union." Pages 28, 29.
Every one who has ever read the law of Charles II knows that it is
religious. And Justice Brewer was candid enough to admit the religious
character of the American Sunday laws, based, as they are, upon this
English law of Charles II, in the following words:
" Indeed, the vast volume of official action, legislative and
judicial, recognizes Sunday as a day separate and apart from the others, a
day devoted not to the ordinary pursuits of life. It is true in many of the
decisions this separation of the day is said to be authorized by the police
power of the State and exercised for purposes of health. At the same time,
through a large majority of them there runs the thought of its being a
religious day, consecrated by the commandment, 'Six days shalt thou labor,
and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy
God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter,
thy man servant, nor thy maid servant, nor thy cattle, nor the stranger
that is within thy gates.' " Id., pages 29, 30.
But if Sunday laws are religious, as here admitted, they are
unconstitutional, and a correct. unbiased, and impartial application of
American principles would so adjudge them in every State in the nation as
well as under the national Constitution itself.
The whole trend, therefore, of the latter part of this decision,
justifying and upholding religious laws and Sunday legislation, was away
from American principles and from both the spirit and the letter of the
Constitution of the United States, by which the Supreme Court is created,
and the principles of which that Court is supposed to correctly interpret,
uphold, and defend. No power is conferred by the Constitution upon any
branch of the national government to make any pronouncement as to the
religious character of the nation.
As Madison said: "There is not a shadow of right in the general
government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it
would be a most flagrant usurpation." Declaring, as it did, the national
"creed," it did more than merely to "intermeddle" with religion. So far as
could be done by a court decision, it united church and state in the United
States, and created a religious
establishment.
The reference in next to the last paragraph of the decision to a
Jewish synagogue in this country contracting with some eminent foreign
rabbi, and the repudiation of the idea that such contract would be void
under the law in question, shows that it was not because this is a
Christian nation any more than because it is a Jewish nation that no such
ruling should hold; but because of the fact that labor of this kind was not
the kind of labor the law referred to.
It is evident, therefore, that all this extended argument and array
of proofs to show that this is a Christian nation was not only unnecessary,
but irrelevant,--a gratuitous sandwiching in of a lot of
National Reform, church and state argument because of the character of the
case seemed to afford a convenient opportunity to do so,-- a revoicing in a
national judicial decision, of the Un-American position taken by Justice
Field in his dissenting opinion in the ex parte Newman case in California,
in 1858. See page 434·
It may be a matter of interest just here to state that Justice
Field was not only an uncle of Justice Brewer, but that both were members
of the Supreme Court of the United States when this case came before that
body.
While this decision was hailed with delight by National Reformers
and the advocates of a union of church and state in this country,it is not
all they wish. Thus, Dr. David McAllister, in the preface to his " Manual
of Christian Civil Government," p.9, third ed.. says: '' While our
Supreme Court in the above-quoted decision has said incidentally that 'this
is a Christian nation,' and while multitudes of our people also say so, the
nation itself has not said so. It speaks directly in its fundamental law,
the written Constitution of the United States, in which it proclaims its
own character. And in that authoritative instrument there is no
acknowledgment of Christ. In that confession of its political and
moral character it does not say that it is Christian."
Only a complete overturning Of the great principle of religious
liberty upon which he national government was founded will satisfy these
American advocates of a national established religion. And when they
succeed in accomplishing this, they may learn, when it is too late, that
they have sold their birthright, and that there are others claiming
priority of rights here, both as regards country and religion. But this
decision meant a long step in the backward, downward course.
In an address on " The Church and the Government." delivered in
the Foundry Methodist Episcopal Church, Washington, D. C., March 13, 1910,
Bishop Earl Cranston, D. D., said: .' Suppose this were to be declared a
Christian nation by a constitutional interpretation to that effect. What
would that mean! Which of the two contending definitions of Christianity
would the word "
Christian indicate! -- The Protestant idea, of course, for under our system
majorities rule, and the majority of Americans are Protestants. Very well.
But suppose that by the additions or certain
contiguous territory with twelve or more millions of Roman Catholics, the
annexation of a few more islands with half as many more, and the same rate
of immigration as now, the majority some years hence should be Roman
Catholics.--who doubts for a moment that the reigning Pope would assume
control of legislation and government?
He would say with all confidence and consistency, 'This is a
Christian nation. It was so claimed from the beginning and so declared many
years ago. A majority defined then what Christianity was, the majority will
define now what Christianity now is and is to be.'
That 'majority' would be the Pope." " The Church and the Government," by
Bishop Earl Cranston, pages 6, 7.
But this is just what the Supreme Court did in this decision. In so
many words it declared this "a Christian nation," and, after citing first,
Catholic. and then English church and state authority,
cited the Constitution itself in support of the declaration.
And that the Papacy has its eye on this country, and is bending its
energies to swing this nation back into the fold of the Catholic Church, is
well known to all intelligent and observing men. And that the Papacy still
holds to the doctrine of a union of church and state is also well known. In
his letter to the bishops of France, dated February 11, 1906, Pope Plus X,
opposing the position of the French government upon this question, said:
" That it is necessary to separate church and state is a thesis
absolutely false,--a most pernicious error. Based in fact upon the
principle that the state ought not to recognize any religious faith, it is,
to begin with. deeply insulting to God; for the Creator of man is also the
founder of human societies, and he maintains them as he does us. We owe
him, therefore, not only private worship, but also a public and social
worship in his praise." "Readings in Modern
European History," by Professors James Harvey Robinson and Charles A.
Beard, of Columbia University, N. Y., page 229.
What reasoning! that public and social worship must be done through
the store, or requires a union of church and state !
Regrettable as is the fact, and unintentional as it may have been,
into the hands of an ecclesiastical power holding such views regarding
church and state and religious liberty, was the Supreme Court playing when
it declared this a " Christian nation."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: AMERICAN STATE PAPERS Bearing On Sunday
Legislation, Revised and Enlarged Edition, Compiled and Annotated by
William Addison Blakely, Revised Edition Edited by Willard Allen Colcord,
The Religious Liberty Association, Washington D.C. 1911, pp 487-513)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gardiner
> >:|the eyes of your "cause." What I have been arguing is the Christian
> >:|socio-historical context of the birthing of America...the same sort of issues
> >:|traced in the Holy Trinity opinion. I really don't care much what the legal
> >:|ramifications are.
>
> If what you say above is true, why on earth did you post the following:
>
> ***********************************************************************************
> How about the Supreme Court (Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States,
> 1892)
>
> This article concludes by citing Justice Brennan's disparagement of the
> 1892 decision
>
> "the Court takes a long step backwards to the days when Justice Brewer
> could arrogantly declare for the Court that 'this is a Christian nation.'
> Those days, I had thought, were forever put behind us ...."
>
> However, Justice Brennan's words were the MINORITY opinion of the court in
> the 1983 Lynch case. The 1892 opinion of the Court has never been reversed,
> much to the despair of those who wish American history was something other
> than that which it was (as outlined by the Supreme Court in 1892).
>
> What do you find in the majority opinion of the Supreme Court historically
> inaccurate? (see http://member.aol.com/EndTheWall/TrinityHistory.htm)
Whether or not you perceive the opinion as gratis dictum or not, my point is
that the Supreme Court has never, to my knowledge, disavowed the accuracy of
the "dictum." This is what concerns me most. I have a stake in Brewer being
historically accurate. I don't consider the Supreme Courts words just
superfluous nursery rhymes. "Dictum" or otherwise, Supreme Court opinions are
generally respected as given by intelligent men of learning and wisdom.
> Abortion on demand is not a law either. It is rather the result of Roe v.
> Wade, which is just an opinion of the Court. By your reasoning, Roe v. Wade
> doesn't really matter, since no special laws go with that.
>
> Bizarre.
I am simply responding to someone's post saying that Supreme Court opinions
don't really matter, only legislation matters. I was using the most famous
opinion in our era as an illustration that Supreme Court opinions do matter. I
know you think that the history recited in Holy Trinity was superfluous dicta
akin to pointless nursery rhymes; but I think that the opinions of the Supreme
Court carry slightly more import than that, dictum or not.
> Oh, so if a Justice on the Supreme court suddenly launched into a recital
> of nursery rhymes in a case that had nothing to do with nursery rhymes
> so long as he got the rhymes correct that would put some sort of
> importance on them?
If a Justice of the Supreme Court suddenly launched into a recital of nursery
rhymes in a case that had nothing to do with nursery rhymes, I think the
senate may want to consider impeachment on the grounds of senility. I think
this illustrates your bizarre criticism of Brewer; you seem to imply that he
launched into a historical analysis of Christianity in America as a result of
some quantum indeterminant cause which came out of nowhere. I realize that the
case was not to "decide" whether the U.S. is a Christian nation, but rather
dealt with an immigrant labor dispute. Most court opinions with far reaching
implications have this similar character: the case itself deals with a very
narrow and specific matter, but then often in the process provide guidance
which applies to other matters.
> Judges and Justices frequently get carried away in writing opinions. Did
> you know lawyers used to get paid by the written word?
I suppose I have a little more faith that Supreme Court justices have always
considered their work rather significant, and that they know that what they
write is more than just a nursery rhyme.
Look, I know Holy Trinity is a very soar point for you. It is not that
important for me. If you want to argue about whether the history in Holy
Trinity is inaccurate, fine. If we are arguing whether Holy Trinity
established a state church, I am totally on your side. It did not; all it did
was express the court's view that the socio-cultural fiber of America is
permeated with a Christian heritage. On that I agree.
Frank Shelton
councerning George Washington:
The Following letter was written by George Washington's adopted daughter
Eleanor (Nelly) Park Custis Lewis. She wrote this letter in 1833 in response
to author Jared Sparks request for info on Washington's religious beliefs,
for a book he was writing that was published under the title; "The Life of
Washington".
"Woodlawn, 26 February, 1833.
"Sir,
"I received your favor of the 20th instant last evening, and hasten to give
you the information, which you desire.
"Truro Parish is the one in which Mount Vernon, Pohick Church, and Woodlawn
are situated. Fairfax Parish is now Alexandria . Before the Federal District
was ceded to Congress, Alexandria was in Fairfax County. General Washington
had a pew in Pohick Church, and one in Christ Church at Alexandria. He was
very instrumental in establishing Pohick Church, and I believe subscribed
largely. His pew was near the pulpit. I have a perfect recollection of being
there, before his election to the presidency, with him and my grandmother.
It was a beautiful church, and had a large, respectable, and wealthy
congregation, who were regular attendants. "He attended the church at
Alexandria, when the weather and roads permitted a ride of ten miles. In New
York and Philadelphia he never omitted attendance at church in the morning,
unless detained by indisposition. The afternoon was spent in his own room at
home; the evening with his family, and without company. Sometimes an old and
intimate friend called to see us for an hour or two; but visiting and
visitors were prohibited for that day. No one in church attended to the
services with more reverential respect. My grandmother, who was eminently
pious, never deviated from her early habits. She always knelt. The General,
as was then the custom, stood during the devotional parts of the service. On
communion Sundays, he left the church with me, after the blessing, and
returned home, and we sent the carriage back for my grandmother.
"It was his custom to retire to his library at nine or ten o'clock, where he
remained an hour before he went to his chamber. He always rose before the
sun, and remained in his library until called to breakfasdt[sic]. I never
witnessed his private devotions. In never inquired about them. I should have
thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His
life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian. He was not one of those
who act or pray, 'that they may be seen of men.' He communed with his God in
secret.
"My mother resided two years at mount Vernon, after her marriage with John
Parke Custis, the only son of Mrs. Washington. I have heard her say, that
General Washington always received the sacrament with my grandmother before
the revolution. When my aunt, Miss Custis, died suddenly at Mount Vernon,
before they could realize the event, he knelt by her and prayed most
fervently, most affectingly, for her recovery. Of this I was assured by
Judge Washington's mother, and other witnesses.
"He was a silent, thoughtful man. He spoke little generally; never of
himself. I never heard him relate a single act of his life during the war I
have often seen him perfectly abstracted, his lips moving, but no sound was
perceptible. I have sometimes made him laugh most heartily from sympathy
with my joyous and extravagant spirits. I was probably, one of the last
persons on earth to whom he would have addressed serious conversation,
particularly when he knew that I had the most perfect model of female
excellence ever with me as my monitress, who acted the part of a tender and
devoted parent, loving me as only a mother can love, and never extenuating
or approving in me what she disapproved in others. She never omitted her
private devotions, or her public duties; and she and her husband were so
perfectly united and happy, that he must have been a Christian. She had no
doubts, no fears for him. After forty years of devoted affection and
uninterrupted happiness, she resigned him without a murmur into the arms of
his Savior and his God, with the assured hope of his eternal felicity. Is it
necessary that any one should certify, 'General Washington avowed himself to
me a believer in Christianity?' As well may we question his patriotism,his
heroic, disinterested devotion to his country. His mottos were, 'Deeds, not
Words'; and, 'For God and my Country.'
"With sentiments of esteem, I am, & c."
--
Cheers,
Frank
http://www.voicenet.com/~frnkn0fs
jal...@pilot.infi.net
**********************************************************************************
THE RELATION OF CHRISTIANITY TO CIVIL
GOVERNMENT IN THE UNITED STATES:
SERMON,
Preached in St. Michael's Church, Charleston,
FEBRUARY 13TH , 1833
BEFORE
THE CONVENTION
of the
PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH
of the
DIOCESE OF SOUTH-CAROLINA:
By REV. J. ADAMS,
PRESIDENT OF THE COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON OF CAROLINA;
AND (EX-OFFICIO) HORRY PROFESSOR OF MORAL AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
SECOND EDITION
Published at the request of the Bishop and
Clergy of the Protestant
Episcopal Church of the Diocese of
South-Carolina.
CHARLESTON:
PRINTED BY A. E. MILLER,
No.4 Broad-street
1833.
__________________________
**********************************************************************************
The Reverend Jasper Adams had his sermon published in pamphlet form [he
actually had one edition published. It became a 50 some page pamphlet.
Copies were sent out. He then turned around, enlarged it, by adding more
footnotes and endnotes and published a second edition which contained 60
some pages]
(Yes, I have copies of both pamphlets)
He then sent out copies to a who's who of America. Eager to prove his
theories, he ask some men, by note, what they felt about his pamphlet.
James Madison was one of those men.
What follows is Madison's reply back.
**********************************************************************************
FROM JAMES MADISON
private
TO: Rev. JASPER ADAMS
Charleston, S.C.
Montpelier September 1833. private
Dear Sir,
I received in due time, the printed copy of your Convention sermon
on the relation of Xnity to Civil Gov' with a manuscript request of my
opinion on the subject.
There appears to be in the nature of man what insures his belief in
an invisible cause of his present existence, and anticipation of his future
existence. Hence the propensities & susceptibilities in that case of
religion which with a few doubtful or individual exceptions have prevailed
throughout the world.
Waiving the rights of Conscience, not included in the surrender
implied by the social State,
and more or less invaded by all religious Establishments, the simple
question to be decided is whether a support of the best & purest religion,
the Xn religion itself ought, not so far at least as pecuniary means are
involved, to be provided for by the Govt rather than be left to the
voluntary provisions of those who profess it. And on this question
experience will be an admitted Umpire, the more adequate as the connection
between Govts & Religion have [has] (1) existed in such various degrees &
forms, and now can be compared with examples where connection has been
entirely dissolved.
In the Papal System, Government and Religion are in a manner
consolidated, & that is
found to be the worst of Govts.
In most of the Govt of the old world, the legal establishment of a
particular religion and
without [any] (2) or with very little toleration of others makes a part
[pact?] (3) of the Political and Civil organization and there are few of
the most enlightened judges who will maintain that the
system has been favorable either to Religion or to Govt.
Until Holland ventured on the experiment of combining [liberal] (4)
toleration with the establishment of a particular creed, it was taken for
granted, that an exclusive [& intolerant](5) establishment was essential,
and notwithstanding the light thrown on the subject by that experiment, the
prevailing opinion in Europe, England not excepted, has been that Religion
could not be preserved without the support of Govt nor Govt be supported
with an established religion,
that there must be a least an alliance of some sort between them.
It remained for North America to bring the great & interesting
subject to a fair, and finally to a decisive test.
In the Colonial State of the Country, there were four examples, R.
I, N. J., Penna, and
Delaware, & the greater part of N. Y. where there were no religious
Establishments; the support of Religion being left to the voluntary
associations & contributions of individuals; and certainly the religious
condition of those Colonies, will well bear a comparison with that where
establishments existed.
As it may be suggested that experiments made in Colonies more or
less under the Control
of a foreign Government, had not the full scope necessary to display their
tendency, it is fortunate that the appeal can now be made to their effects
under a complete exemption from any such Control.
It is true that the New England States have not discontinued
establishments of Religion
formed under very peculiar circumstances; but they have by successive
relaxations advanced towards the prevailing example; and without any
evidence of disadvantage either to Religion or good Government.
And if we turn to the Southern States where there was, previous to
the Declaration of
independence, a legal provision for the support of Religion; and since that
event a surrender of it to a spontaneous support by the people, it may be
said that the difference amounts nearly to a contrast in the greater purity
& industry of the Pastors and in the greater devotion of their flocks, in
the latter period than in the former. In Virginia the contrast is
particularly striking, to those whose memories can make the comparison.
It will not be denied that causes other than the abolition of the
legal establishment of Religion are to be taken into view in account for
the change in the Religious character of the community. But the existing
character, distinguished as it is by its religious features, and the lapse
of time now more than 50 years since the legal support of Religion was
withdrawn sufficiently
prove that it does not need the support of Govt and it will scarcely be
contended that Government has suffered by the exemption of Religion from
its cognizance, or its pecuniary aid.
The apprehension of some seems to be that Religion left entirely to
itself may into
extravagances injurious both to Religion and to social order; but besides
the question whether the interference of Govt in any form wd not be more
likely to increase than Control the tendency, it is a safe calculation that
in this as in other cases of excessive excitement, Reason will gradually
regain its ascendancy. Great excitements are less apt to be permanent than
to vibrate to the opposite extreme.
Under another aspect of the subject there may be less danger that
Religion, if left to itself,
will suffer from a failure of the pecuniary support applicable to it than
that an omission of the public authorities to limit the duration of their
Charters to Religious Corporations, and the amount of property acquirable
by them, may lead to an injurious accumulation of wealth from the lavish
donations and bequests prompted by a pious zeal or by an atoning remorse,
Some monitory examples have already appeared.
Whilst I thus frankly express my view of the subject presented in
your sermon, I must do you the justice to observe that you very ably
maintained yours. I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every
possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of
religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid
collisions & doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on
one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between
them, will be best guarded agst by an entire abstinence of: the Govt from
interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public
order, & protecting each sect agst trespasses on its legal rights by
others.
I owe you Sir an apology for the delay in complying with the
request of my opinion on the
subject discussed in you sermon; if not also for the brevity & it may be
thought crudeness of the opinion itself, I must rest the apology on my
great age now in its 83rd year, with more than the ordinary. infirmities,
and especially on the effect of a chronic Rheumatism, combined with both,
which makes my hand & fingers as averse to the pen as they are awkward in
the use of it.
Be pleased to accept Sir a tender of my cordial & respectful
salutations.
James Madison
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter written by James Madison to Rev. Jasper
Adams, September, 1833.Writings of James Madison, edited by Gaillard Hunt,
[not sure what the volume number is but have enough information presented
here to locate the letter] microform Z1236.L53, pp 484-488. )
**********************************************************************************
Mike Curtis
>sch...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <36F2B723...@pitnet.net>,
>> Gard...@pitnet.net wrote:
>> > > For anyone interested in the FACTS regarding the dicta [no legal standing]
>> > > comments of Justice Brewer see
>> > >
>> > > http://members.tripod.com/~candst/trinity.htm
>> >
>> > This article concludes by citing Justice Brennan's disparagement of the 1892
>> > decision
>> >
>> > "the Court takes a long step backwards to the days when Justice Brewer could
>> > arrogantly declare for the Court that 'this is a Christian nation.' Those
>> > days, I had thought, were forever put behind us ...."
>> >
>> > However, Justice Brennan's words were the MINORITY opinion of the court in the
>> > 1983 Lynch case. The 1892 opinion of the Court has never been reversed, much
>> > to the despair of those who wish American history was something other than
>> > that which it was (as outlined by the Supreme Court in 1892).
>>
>> What exactly is the point here? That the Supreme Court in 1892 thought the
>> US was a "Christian Nation"? I don't see how that really matters, since no
>> special laws go along with that, unlike the Muslim Sharia. The Constituion
>> clearly calls for a seperation of Church & state in any event, and to alter
>> that by declaring an offical religon, would require an act of Congress not
>> the Sumpreme Court.
>
>What exactly is your point here? That the Supreme Court is wrong in their
>interpretation of the constitution? According to the constitution, the Supreme
>Court has the last word on that matter,
Actually, Congress has the last word if they ever have the guts. The
only time I can recall was in 1913.
> so their interpretation is really the
>only one that matters.
Because the Supreme Court interprets something at one time doesn't
make them correct. You ought to know that.
> The opinion in Holy Trinity has never been rescinded or
>overturned, only disparaged by Brennan in a minority opinion in the 1980's.
I seem to recall problems in early 1800 Massachusetts.
>Rick
>http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
Mike Curtis
Mike Curtis
>> What does the above have to do with promoting your book?
>
>Contrary to what you allege, not everything I say is a smokescreen or a veiled
>attempt to promote the book. I am actually interested in historical scholarship.
>
>> The Constitution does not concern itself with morality.
>
>Wrong. Cruel and unusual punishment is immoral.
Really? who says so?
> Double Jeopardy is immoral.
Who says so?
>Treason, Bribery, High crimes and misdemeanors are immoral.
Who says so?
> Invasion of
>privacy is immoral.
Who says so?
> Denial of due process is immoral. There are many more
>examples than these?
Let's make more examples without any attribution? Why not?
>Doesn't the constitution include any of these issues?
Which constitution? The one with or without the Bill of Rights?
>> The items you listed above are considered to be criminal behavior, and have
>> been considered to be such in a great many cultures throughout history.
>> Even cultures that were not "Christian."
>
>And those behaviors are immoral.
Who says so?
>Are you saying that one has to be a Christian to be "moral"??? The government
>can legislate morality without legislating Christianity, and it does!
Where are these morals written down?
>> Trouble with giving the government the right to legislate morality is the
>> government will not confine itself to the standard things that have come to
>> be universally accepted as "improper behavior" i.e. murder, stealing, rape,
>> etc. The usual universally accepted things that constitute criminal
>> actions.
>
>Polygamy is not universally accepted as "improper behavior." Are you one who
>would like to permit that kind of behavior in our country? As a matter of
>fact, infanticide, genital mutilation, and some forms of human sacrifice are
>not universally condemned.
So?
>I dread a government which can only legislate against "universally accepted"
>standards of misconduct.
Government recognizes the squeaky wheel.
>> Such things will begin to be determined by the current popular fad. Such
>> things we begin to be determined by the latest craze and far too often the
>> minorities will become targets.
>
>Like those who participate in bestiality? The common law is what it is because
>its principles are "time-tested." Right now laws are being made upon the
>grounds of the current fads (viz., the legislation of political correctness),
>which have not been part of universal consent for the last 5 millenium.
So?
>This is a result of our current abandonment of the common law tradition which
>is rooted in milleniums of legal and theological decision making. Now we are
>throwing much of it away in exchange for new "fads." (See Harold Berman, LAW
>AND REVOLUTION 1983):
>
>"It is only in the twentieth century that the Christian foundations of Western
>law have been almost totally rejected. This twentieth-century development is a
>historical consequence of the Western belief, of which St Anselm was the first
>exponent, that theology itself may be studied independently of revelation.
>Anselm had no intention of exalting reason at the expense of faith. Yet once
>reason was [*198] separated from faith for analytical purposes, the two began
>to be separated for other purposes as well. It was eventually taken for
>granted that reason is capable of functioning by itself and ultimately this
>came to mean functioning without any fundamental religious beliefs whatever.
A lot of sweeping statements made here.
>By the same token, it was eventually taken for granted that law, as a product
>of reason,
This is a good one.
> is capable of functioning as an instrument of secular power,
>disconnected from ultimate values and purposes; and not only religious faith
>but all passionate convictions came to be considered the private affair of
>each individual. Thus not only legal thought but also the very structure of
>Western legal institutions have been removed from their spiritual foundations,
>and those foundations, in turn, are left devoid of the structure that once
>stood upon them," pp. 197-198.
None of this is entirely true.
Mike Curtis
Mike Curtis
>Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
>>:|The Shoe wrote:
>>:|>
>>:|> All your quotations prove is that there were "this is a Christian nation"
>>:|> idiots around since the beginning.
>>:|>
>>:|
>>:|And that is all I have been trying to prove!!
>
>
>It is getting harder and harder to accept your statement that you are only
>trying to prove there were Christians in America prior and during the
>founding period.
Gosh, look at all the blanket statements. Massachusetts was founded by
Christians. Well, you were welcome as long as you were Quaker,
Baptist, Anglican . . .
>Even your comments you are trying to prove that Christianity influenced
>some or most of those men.
It depends upon which men. It depends upon the passage of time and the
context of the period under discussion. Everything period of time is
tending to get lumped into one. This simply is not very historical.
>Why is it getting harder and harder to believe that?
>
>Because you are showing up in more and more discussions that are not
>related to that specific topic in that specific time frame.
>
>i. e. the Holy Trinity discussion. Bringing abortion into the discussion,
>something totally unrelated to what you are claiming you are trying to
>prove. BTW, you do know that abortion was legal, and was practiced during
>the founding period of this nation, and for a good 100 years there after?
Depends upon the period. Men didn't understand how women could
manipulate an abortion. They would complain about another ailment that
was corrected with what was virtually an abortion.
>You do know that even the churches had no problems with it, so long as it
>was performed before the quickening took place?
Which was up to the woman too identify. It's a very complex history.
>>:|There have been quite a few of
>>:|them around since the beginning... as a matter of fact, there were a lot more
>>:|of them around in the beginning then there are now. Yes! That's all I am
>>:|trying to prove.
>
>Then it would seem to me that would the time frame and area you would be
>making your discussions, not areas and time frames totally removed from
>that above.
We agree.
>>:|
>>:|However, some of the people in this conversation have been alleging that these
>>:|"idiots" were not really around in the beginning... or, more precisely, they
>>:|were around, but they were a small minority who had no influence in America's birth.
>
>And your claims have been for the exact opposite. that most or all were
>Christian and Christianity played a major role, had major influence in the
>founding.
>
>The truth is in the middle.
Yes, read Bradford's reasons for coming here and compare those to
Winthrop's.
Mike Curtis