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 Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Free Deist ezine

1 view

Skip to first unread message

Robert L. Johnson

unread,

Dec 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/12/99

Anyone who'd like a free subscription to THINKonline!, the free weekly
ezine of the World Union of Deists, should send an email to
THINK...@deism.com with the world subscribe in the subject box.

THINKonline! includes essays and articles about God, religion, Deism,
religion and government issues as well as writings by Tom Paine, Thomas
Jefferson and other historic Deists.

Thanks, Bob
http://www.deism.com

Rick Gardiner

unread,

Dec 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/12/99

StNeel wrote:
>
> >Robert L. Johnson" b...@deism.com wrote
>
> >Many of America's key founders were Deists, that is they believed in God
> >based on nature and reason, not on the Bible or any other "holy" book.
>
> Actually this is not true. Jefferson & Franklin were Deists but most of the
> rest were conservative Christians. Also suggest a better definition of 'deist'
> please.
>
> StNeel

Good luck trying to get Mr. Johnson to support his claims with any evidence
whatsoever. I have seen nothing substantive from him for over a year.

RG
http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Dec 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/13/99

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

>:|

Which is worse, his [Robert L. Johnson] absolute statements or your
absolute statements?

I don't see a lot of difference between them.

BTW, you know full well the following isn't correct either.

>:|> Actually this is not true. Jefferson & Franklin were Deists but most of the

>:|> rest were conservative Christians. Also suggest a better definition of 'deist'
>:|> please.

**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

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

Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.

Page is a member of the following web rings:

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

Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring

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

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Dec 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/13/99

stn...@aol.com (StNeel) wrote:

Actually, the above isn't true either.
None of the first six Presidents, to mention just those men, would fit your
definition of "conservative Christians"

Rick Gardiner

unread,

Dec 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/13/99

jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>
> stn...@aol.com (StNeel) wrote:
>
> >:|>Robert L. Johnson" b...@deism.com wrote
> >:|
> >:|>Many of America's key founders were Deists, that is they believed in God
> >:|>based on nature and reason, not on the Bible or any other "holy" book.
> >:|
> >:|Actually this is not true. Jefferson & Franklin were Deists but most of the
> >:|rest were conservative Christians. Also suggest a better definition of 'deist'
> >:|please.
> >:|
> >:|StNeel
>
> Actually, the above isn't true either.
> None of the first six Presidents, to mention just those men, would fit your
> definition of "conservative Christians"

I'm not sure what Mr. St. Neel's definition is of a conservative Christian.
This I do know, the first six presidents, including Jefferson, were very
devout men. Washington's religious character is clearly delineated by his
daughter at http://www.universitylake.org/history/nelly.html

Adams' rarely missed a Sunday worship service. His diary is replete with his
sentiments about Christianity http://www.universitylake.org/history/adamsdiary.html

Jefferson was by no means a trinitarian, but the fact that he adored Jesus is
beyond dispute. He considered himself "attached to the doctrines of Jesus in
preference to all others." http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl153.htm

Madison's seminary training speaks for itself. His views reflected those of
his mentor, the Calvinist clergyman, John Witherspoon.

I think you will find that Monroe was an Anglican with sentiments often
following Jefferson.

JQ Adams was quite orthodox, and yes, he did say "the birthday of the nation
is indissolubly linked with the birth-day of the Saviour." John Quincy Adams,
An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport, at
Their Request, on the Sixty-first Anniversary of the Declaration of
Independence, July 4th, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 5

But I'm surprised at you Jim. I thought you would have jumped into the
"religious liberty in Virginia" thread in the colonial newsgroup by now.

The data must be too overwhelming, huh?

RG
http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html

Rick Gardiner

unread,

Dec 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/13/99

Rev Peter wrote:
>
> Rebellion is a "sin" in
> christianity, pure and simple, no excuses.
>
> Rom. 13: 1-4, "Let every person be in subjection to the governing
> authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and
> those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore he who resists
> authority HAS OPPOSED THE ORDINANCE OF GOD; and they who have opposed
> WILL RECEIVE CONDEMNATION UPON THEMSELVES. 3 For rulers are not a
> cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you wnat to have no
> fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise form the
> same; for IT IS A MINISTER of God to you for good. But if you do what is
> evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; FOR IT IS A
> MINISTER OF GOD, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices
> evil."
>
> According to Romans 13, ALL AUTHORITY is established by God, and ANYONE
> WHO RESISTS AUTHORITY will receive condemnation. No amount of christian
> sophism changes what is written in Romans 13; the fact that
> self-proclaimed christians pretend that Romans 13 is not to be taken
> literally, is only evidence of their duplicity.

Well, in the case of the American Revolution, there were boatloads of seminary
trained Christians who clearly disagreed with you on this score.

Try http://www.frii.com/~gosplow/sermons1.html

Bob Greer

unread,

Dec 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/13/99

> >:|>Robert L. Johnson" b...@deism.com wrote
> >:|
> >:|>Many of America's key founders were Deists, that is they believed in
God
> >:|>based on nature and reason, not on the Bible or any other "holy" book.

> stn...@aol.com (StNeel) wrote:
> >:|Actually this is not true. Jefferson & Franklin were Deists but most of
the
> >:|rest were conservative Christians.

jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
> Actually, the above isn't true either.
> None of the first six Presidents, to mention just those men, would fit
your
> definition of "conservative Christians"

Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>Jefferson was by no means a trinitarian, but the fact that he adored Jesus
is
>beyond dispute. He considered himself "attached to the doctrines of Jesus
in
>preference to all others."
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl153.htm
>

And he prepared the Jefferson Bible (actually called "The Life and Morals of
Jesus of Nazareth") - a careful and scholarly combination
of New Testament material directly by or about Jesus, with the
miracle-stories edited out of the mass. (His English-language version can
be found, apparently, at:
http://nothingistic.org/library/jefferson/jesus/toc.html )

Although I don't know if someone who performed a cut-and-paste job on the
Christian
gospel, drawing from several traditional versions of them, would be
considered a "conservative Christian."

While looking for a
copy of it on the web, I found various
altered versions of it, all called "The Jefferson Bible". A
"justification" for one example of this sort of modern Apologetics is found
at:
http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/jeffintr.html Comparing the
phony version at this site [which copies lines directly from a modern
revised version of the King James Bible] to Jefferson's own plain-English
version [stored at the Nothingistic library] is definitely... eye-opening.

Gardiner

unread,

Dec 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/13/99

> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> >Jefferson was by no means a trinitarian, but the fact that he adored Jesus
> is
> >beyond dispute. He considered himself "attached to the doctrines of Jesus
> in
> >preference to all others."
> http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl153.htm
> >
>
> And he prepared the Jefferson Bible (actually called "The Life and Morals of
> Jesus of Nazareth") - a careful and scholarly combination
> of New Testament material directly by or about Jesus, with the
> miracle-stories edited out of the mass. (His English-language version can
> be found, apparently, at:
> http://nothingistic.org/library/jefferson/jesus/toc.html )
>
> Although I don't know if someone who performed a cut-and-paste job on the
> Christian
> gospel, drawing from several traditional versions of them, would be
> considered a "conservative Christian."

Perhaps not. But certainly one who has such a
devout interest in the morals of Jesus and who
devotes a substantial portion of his intellectual
life to the study of the new testament in the
original language, etc., for the sake of his
spiritual development, would have to be considered
a "conservative" when juxtaposed to the likes of a
Bill Clinton, or a Ted Kennedy.

ladyhank

unread,

Dec 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/13/99

Rick Gardiner wrote in message <38548A56...@pitnet.net>...

>StNeel wrote:
>>
>> >Robert L. Johnson" b...@deism.com wrote
>>
>> >Many of America's key founders were Deists, that is they believed in God
>> >based on nature and reason, not on the Bible or any other "holy" book.
>>

>> Actually this is not true. Jefferson & Franklin were Deists but most of
the

>> rest were conservative Christians. Also suggest a better definition of
'deist'
>> please.
>>
>> StNeel

Ladyhank: History is not my forte, so I'll leave the "America's founders"
statements for someone else to respond to. Quite frankly, I feel I'm also
being rather simplistic in offering you a better definition of "deist" since
the info was so readily available on the net. I quote the following in the
hopes that it will provide the better definition of "deist" that you are
looking for. No arrogance is intended by the simplicity.

First, a deist is simply a person who believes in deism. I don't think
that's what you are asking, though. I gather that what you are asking is a
definition of deism other than the one you have received in Robert Johnson's
statement. I offer the following. As you will see, they concur with the
above.

Per dictionary at infoplease.com: Deism is: 1) belief in the existence of a
God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of
supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism). 2) belief in a God who
created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.

Per encyclopedia at infoplease.com: under the heading Deist: ...held that
the course of nature sufficiently demonstrates the existence of God. For
them formal religion was superfluous, and they scorned as spurious claims of
supernatural religion. ... The term *freethinkers* is almost synonymous.
Voltaire and J. J. Rousseau were deists, as were Benjamin Franklin, Thomas
Jefferson, and George Washington. Bibliography: See E.R. Pike, *Slayers of
Superstition* (1931, repr 1970); G. A. Koch, *Religion of the American
Enlightenment* (1933, repr 1968).

Per WWWebster Dictionary online: Deism: a movement or system of thought
advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century
denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe.

Per Encyclopedia Britannica online: Deism: ...In general, it refers to what
can be called natural religion, the acceptance of a certain body of
religious knowledge that is inborn in every person or that can be acquired
by the use of reason, as opposed to knowledge acquired through either
revelation or the teaching of any church. The proponents of natural
religion were strongly influenced by three intellectuals concerns: a growing
faith in human reason, a distrust of religious claims of revelation that
lead to dogmatism and intolerance, and, finally, an image of God as the
rational architect of an ordered world.

Per Encarta online: Deism: ...Generally, Deists held that a certain kind of
religious knowledge is either inherent in each person or accessible through
the exercise of reason. However, they denied the validity of religious
claims based on revelation or on the teachings of any church.

Hope this helps define Deism for you and for anyone else who may be curious.

Peace, ladyhank

DulSm

unread,

Dec 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/14/99

Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote in message
news:38559B8D...@pitnet.net...

When your responses are merely statements of the work in question, it is
hard to even take you seriously. Many of the great Christian philosophers
(many of whom have been giving saint status, such as St. Thomas Aquinas)
used critical thinking and reason to state their cases. You merely quote
and say "See, I told you so". It greatly decreases your credibility when
you use an unsupported argument. I'm am not trying to say that what you
choose to believe is wrong, merely lacking thought.

Rick Gardiner

unread,

Dec 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/14/99

I can't make heads or tails as to what you are trying to say. Please clarify.

RG
http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Dec 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/14/99

lynde...@aol.com (Lynden1000) wrote:

>:|Add Thomas Paine, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Paul Revere, and Ethan Allen
>:|to the list.They all attended Unitarian churches...they might not be Deists,
>:|but were obviously not "conservative christians" by a long shot.

Nor were many others going to fit that "conservative Christians" label all
that well.

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Dec 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/14/99

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

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

>:|>
>:|> Actually, the above isn't true either.

>:|> None of the first six Presidents, to mention just those men, would fit your
>:|> definition of "conservative Christians"

>:|
>:|I'm not sure what Mr. St. Neel's definition is of a conservative Christian.

>:|This I do know, the first six presidents, including Jefferson, were very
>:|devout men. Washington's religious character is clearly delineated by his
>:|daughter at http://www.universitylake.org/history/nelly.html

>:|

Dear readers, if there are any readers. This whole issue has been discussed
before, and been documented. Each of Gardiner's tired pieces of evidence
has ben countered by documented evidence

>:|Adams' rarely missed a Sunday worship service. His diary is replete with his

>:|sentiments about Christianity http://www.universitylake.org/history/adamsdiary.html

>:|

And his writings are also full of the exact opposite as you know, or SHOULD
know.

>:|Jefferson was by no means a trinitarian, but the fact that he adored Jesus is

>:|beyond dispute. He considered himself "attached to the doctrines of Jesus in
>:|preference to all others." http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl153.htm

Note how the poster leaves out that fact that Jefferson rejected all the
requirements of religion of that time to be considered a Christian. he did
not believe the bible to be the inspired word of God, nor infallible, nor
did he believe Jesus was anything other than mortal man, he rejected all
the miracles, virgin birth, most of the writings of the authors of the
gospels, and the other various books that made up the "New Testament"

Note to what extremes the poster goes to try and claim Jefferson. LOL

>:|
>:|Madison's seminary training speaks for itself. His views reflected those of

>:|his mentor, the Calvinist clergyman, John Witherspoon.

Prove it.

You have yet to prove it.

Seminary training? Gawd truth has no meaning to you at all does it?

LOL

>:|
>:|I think you will find that Monroe was an Anglican with sentiments often
>:|following Jefferson.
>:|

Making him far from being a conservative christian then, huh? LOL

>:|JQ Adams was quite orthodox, and yes,

Not nearly as orthodox as you claim.

>:|he did say "the birthday of the nation

>:|is indissolubly linked with the birth-day of the Saviour." John Quincy Adams,
>:|An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport, at
>:|Their Request, on the Sixty-first Anniversary of the Declaration of
>:|Independence, July 4th, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 5

Duh, exactly what are you referring to here?

>:|
>:|
>:|But I'm surprised at you Jim. I thought you would have jumped into the

>:|"religious liberty in Virginia" thread in the colonial newsgroup by now.

Why be surprised, I don't conduct my life according to your expectations.

I am not on line as much, got other things going on and lastly, it didn't
show up until today.

>:|
>:|The data must be too overwhelming, huh?

LOL

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Dec 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/14/99

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

>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> stn...@aol.com (StNeel) wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|>Robert L. Johnson" b...@deism.com wrote
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|>Many of America's key founders were Deists, that is they believed in God
>:|> >:|>based on nature and reason, not on the Bible or any other "holy" book.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|Actually this is not true. Jefferson & Franklin were Deists but most of the
>:|> >:|rest were conservative Christians. Also suggest a better definition of 'deist'
>:|> >:|please.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|StNeel
>:|>
>:|> Actually, the above isn't true either.
>:|> None of the first six Presidents, to mention just those men, would fit your
>:|> definition of "conservative Christians"
>:|
>:|I'm not sure what Mr. St. Neel's definition is of a conservative Christian.
>:|This I do know, the first six presidents, including Jefferson, were very
>:|devout men. Washington's religious character is clearly delineated by his
>:|daughter at http://www.universitylake.org/history/nelly.html
>:|

>:|Adams' rarely missed a Sunday worship service. His diary is replete with his
>:|sentiments about Christianity http://www.universitylake.org/history/adamsdiary.html
>:|

>:|Jefferson was by no means a trinitarian, but the fact that he adored Jesus is
>:|beyond dispute. He considered himself "attached to the doctrines of Jesus in
>:|preference to all others." http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl153.htm

>:|
>:|Madison's seminary training speaks for itself. His views reflected those of
>:|his mentor, the Calvinist clergyman, John Witherspoon.

>:|
>:|I think you will find that Monroe was an Anglican with sentiments often
>:|following Jefferson.
>:|

>:|JQ Adams was quite orthodox, and yes, he did say "the birthday of the nation

Path:
news.infi.net!newsxfer.visi.net!nntp.abs.net!newshub2.home.com!newshub1.home.com!news.home.com!news.rdc1.nj.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Paul Browning" <ps...@home.com>
Newsgroups:
soc.history,alt.history,alt.history.colonial,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.religion.christian,alt.deism,alt.atheism,alt.religion.deism
References: <37d73f8f...@news.pilot.infi.net>
<19990818094224...@ng-bj1.aol.com>
<37BAD351...@pitnet.net> <37c0f8d6...@news.pilot.infi.net>
Subject: Re: George Washington not Christian
Lines: 126
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211
Message-ID: <_t3v3.3381$9K....@news.rdc1.nj.home.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 02:56:58 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.6.68.243
X-Complaints-To: ab...@home.net
X-Trace: news.rdc1.nj.home.com 935117818 24.6.68.243 (Thu, 19 Aug 1999
19:56:58 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 19:56:58 PDT
Organization: @Home Network
Xref: news.infi.net soc.history:44207 alt.history:11525
alt.history.colonial:2173 alt.politics.usa.constitution:78575
alt.religion.christian:447034 alt.deism:1374 alt.atheism:747955
alt.religion.deism:1793

Washington, like many of our founding fathers was a Deist,
not a Christian.

Unlike Thomas Jefferson--and Thomas Paine, for that
matter--Washington never even got around to recording his belief that
Christ was a great ethical teacher.
His reticence on the subject was truly remarkable.
Washington frequently alluded to Providence in his private correspondence.
But the name of Christ, in any correspondence whatsoever, does not appear
anywhere in his many letters to friends and associates throughout his life.
(Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion, Dallas: Southern Methodist
University Press, 1963, pp. 74-75.)
... if to believe in the divinity and resurrection of Christ
and his atonement for the sins of man and to participate in the sacrament
of the Lord's Supper are requisites for the Christian faith, then
Washington, on the evidence which we have examined, can hardly be
considered a Christian, except in the most nominal
sense. (Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion, Dallas: Southern
Methodist University Press, 1963, p. 90.)

As President, Washington regularly attended Christian
services, and he was friendly in his attitude toward Christian values.
However, he repeatedly declined the church's sacraments. Never did he take
communion, and when his wife, Martha, did, he waited for her outside the
sanctuary.... Even on his deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered
no prayer to Christ, and expressed no wish to be attended by His
representative. George Washington's practice of Christianity was limited
and superficial because he was not himself a Christian. In the enlightened
tradition of his day, he was a devout Deist--just as many of the clergymen
who knew him suspected. (Barry Schwartz, George Washington: The Making of
an American Symbol, New York: The Free Press, 1987, pp. 174-175.)

From me:

For Washington:

Well the book I have been citing:

George Washington & Religion, by Paul F. Boller, Southern
Methodist University Press: Dallas TX (1962)

Then:

Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation. Edwin
S. Gaustad, Harper & Row, (1987) pp 71 - 85 has some good material

And don't forget this:

"Though the cool deism of Washington can hardly be distinguished in broad
outline from that of Jefferson, the public reaction to the two men and
their religious views differed sharply. Only Jefferson was denounced as
the 'howling atheist,' never Washington. Only Jefferson was
attacked as the enemy of the churches and the clergy, never Washington. A
curious public probed and punches Adams, Franklin and Jefferson regarding
their Christian convictions, but never Washington."
Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation. Edwin
S. Gaustad, Harper & Row, (1987) pp 77

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Dec 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/14/99

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

Path: news.infi.net!not-for-mail
From: jal...@pilot.infi.net
Newsgroups:
alt.history,alt.history.colonial,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.religion.christian,alt.deism

Subject: Re: George Washington not Christian

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 17:12:50 GMT
Organization: InfiNet
Lines: 364
Message-ID: <37cb7274...@news.pilot.infi.net>
References: <37B4A7...@entheosengineering.com>
<7p2k9r$4i2$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
<37B4DD...@entheosengineering.com> <37b52972$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>
<7pcfv3$hpj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> <7pcl2t$ekb$1...@lure.pipex.net>
<mejercit-180...@134.139.62.88>
<37bbf79...@news1.cheetah.net>
<01beeb00$a8b03480$e0a532d4@development>
<mejercit-200...@134.139.69.86>
<37BE1B...@spambad.yahooo.com> <37BF477E...@boom.com>
<37C16E97...@pitnet.net>
Reply-To: jal...@pilot.infi.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm4-1-s4-41.orf.infi.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
Xref: news.infi.net alt.history:11656 alt.history.colonial:2214
alt.politics.usa.constitution:78903 alt.religion.christian:451635
alt.deism:1419

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

Well, let's see, as late as the early 1770s Baptists and others were being
jailed for holding religious services, etc.

>:|> (2) The Anglican church was the state religion of colonial Virginia.
>:|> Everyone
>:|> had to pay taxes to support it, whether they were Anglicans or not. Religious
>:|> oaths of adherence to the Anglican religion were required for anyone to hold any
>:|> public office of any consequence.
>:|
>:|So, what you are alleging is that Washington perjured himself in order that he
>:|might aspire to high political office? Are you saying that you would swear to
>:|believing a grand hoax if that might advance your political status? I
>:|wouldn't; and I don't think that I am a man of principles any more than Washington.
>:|

I am curious why it is so important to you that you make Washington a full
fledged Christian?
There are certain things that I or others can post that is guaranteed to
bring you out of the woodwork, and I am really curious why this particular
subject is one of them.

The fact of the matters is, most scholars will state that Washington was
not a die in the wool orthodox Christian.

If you are unaware of this, I do seriously have to question your research.
If you are aware of this, I have to question your ethics.

>:|> Source: St. George Tucker's Annotated Blackstone's Commentaries (1803)
>:|> Go to http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook-law.html
>:|
>:|The Virginia Constitution of 1776, article 16, disestablished the Anglican church.
>:|

I would submit to you that what you are referring to was actually Article
16 of the Declaration of Rights. I would further submit to you that there
was controversies over whether said Declaration of Rights was actually part
of the Constitution or something totally separate of it.

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

VIRGINIA

VIRGINIA CONSTITUTIONS
1776; 1830; 1851; 1868; 1902; 1970

VIRGINIA DECLARATION OF RIGHTS--177
(Written by Geo. Mason with at least one major contribution by James
Madison)

SECTION 16, That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator,
and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and
conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally
entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of
conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian
forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.

CONSTITUTION OF VIRGINIA--1830

ARTICLE I

( As originally written and passed, the Declaration of Rights of 1776
was not part of the Constitution of 1776. Therefore Article I of the
Virginia State Constitution of 1830 stated:)
The declaration of rights made on 12 June, 1776, by the
representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free
convention, which pertained to them and their posterity, as the basis and
foundation of government, requiring in the opinion of this convention, no
amendment, shall be prefixed to this constitution, and have the same
relation thereto as it had to the former constitution of the commonwealth.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIRGINIA DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 16, That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator,
and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and
conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally
entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of
conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian
forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.
ARTICLE III
SECTION 11 The privilege of the writ of HABEUS CORPUS shall not in
any case be suspended. The legislature shall not pass any bill of
attainder, or any EX POST FACTO law, or any law impairing the obligation of
contracts; or any law whereby private property shall be taken for public
uses without just compensation; or any law abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press.
No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious
worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained,
molested or burthened, in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on
account of his religious opinions or belief: but that all men shall be free
to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of
religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminsh, enlarge or affect
their civil capacities.
And the legislature shall not prescribe any religious test
whatsoever; nor confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any one
sect or denomination; nor pass any law requiring or authorizing any
religious society, or the people of any district within this commonwealth
to levy on themselves or others any tax for the erection or repair of any
house for public worship or for the support of any church or ministry, but
it shall be left free to every person to select his religious instructor,
and make for his support such private contract as he shall please.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actual disestablishment did not come to Va until much later. {There was
something that I read recently -no I don't off hand recall where at this
point in time- that stated that legally speaking, because of continuing
courts cases over glebes and other property holdings etc complete
disestablishment didn't take place until the 1850s)

At any rate while actions did take place as early as you claim, there was
still some loopholes, etc in the laws that allowed for general assessments
for the support of religion and that continued to be the case until the
late 1780s, etc

That was why and how the conflict between henry and Madison which led to
Jefferson's bill for religious freedom being passed into law in 1786.

The common held dates for actual disestablishment in Va was technically
1786, and with the passage of some laws in 1790s made it pretty much
official.

>:|> From that, IF Washington ever took any Christian oath (no
>:|> direct proof),
>:|
>:|Really? How much proof do you want?
>:|
>:|Court Records of Fairfax Co., VA, 1763
>:|
>:|"At the court held for the County of Fairfax, 15 February, 1763--George
>:|Washington, Esq. took the oaths according to Law, repeated and subscribed the
>:|Test and subscribed to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England in
>:|order to qualify him to act as a Vestryman of Truro Parish"
>:|
>:|Furthermore, his signature is also found in the Church Records of Truro Parish
>:|under the following inscription: "I, A.B., do declare that I will be
>:|conformable to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England, as by law established"
>:|
>:|No proof that he ever took a Christian oath, huh?

according to law in order to qualify him to act as etc

Sort of says it all, doesn't it?

>:|
>:|> In any event, a quarter century passed before Washington became the first
>:|> U.S.
>:|> president. It might be hard for a bible-thumper to understand, but normal
>:|> humans
>:|> often do change their minds about their beliefs as they go on in life.
>:|
>:|Nelly Custis lived at Mt. Vernon with Washington until the day of his death.
>:|This is what Nelly had to say about the "changes" in Washington's Christian beliefs:

Glad you bought this up:

The book that I have referred to time and time again regarding Washington
mentions

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 24, 1774, the Virginia Assembly, whose sessions Washington was
attending in Williamsburg, voted to observe a day of fasting, humiliation,
and prayer on the first day of June to demonstrate its sympathy with
Massachusetts on the day that the Boston Port Bill went into effect.
Washington, accordingly, noted in his diary on June 1: "Went to Church and
fasted all day.""' Here, as elsewhere, there have been attempts to read
profound spiritual significance into Washington's notation. "Will the
reader mark especially die latter clause of this note," exclaimed one
writer.

He went to church in conformity with the order passed by the
house of burgesses. 13ut not only so-he did that also which,
perhaps, was not known to any mortal; which was known only
to Cod,-he faded all day. Who is not struck with the sincerity
and piety of this account?

And another writer referred to the seven words in Washington's diary as
"seven lights, the seven golden candles so to speak, that throw a most
penetrating light into the deeper and spiritual life of this great man."
But Washington's action on that day, like that of other Virginians, was
of course politically, not religiously, motivated. As to Washington's
behavior in church, Eleanor Parke ("Nelly") Custis, Martha Washington's
granddaughter, who resided at Mount Vernon for many years and attended
church with the Washingtons, declared: "No one in church attended to the
services with more reverential respect."
William White, who officiated at Christ Church in Philadelphia during
and after the Revolution and who was one of the chaplains in Congress
during Washington's presidency, made a similar comment. Washington, he
assured an inquirer in 1832, was "always serious and attentive" in church.
But he added that he never saw Washington kneeling during the services."'
Nelly Custis also declared that Washington "always stood during the
devotional parts of the service."
Regarding the Lord's Supper, we have the firsthand testimony of three
witnesses in a position to know what they were talking about-Nelly Custis,
Bishop White, and Dr. James Abercrombie, assistant rector of Christ Church
in Philadelphia--that Washington was not in the habit of partaking of the
sacrament. "On communion Sundays," according to Mrs. Custis, "he left the
church with me, after the blessing, and returned home, and we sent the
carriage back for my grandmother.'"" In 1835, Bishop White, in answer to
Colonel Hugh Mercer's question as to "whether General Washington was a
regular communicant in the Episcopal Church in Philadelphia," replied: "In
regard to tile subject of your inquiry, truth requires me to say, that
General Washington never received the communion, in tile churches of which
I am parochial minister. Mrs. Washington was an habitual communicant."" And
Dr. Abercrombie had an even more interesting story to tell about Washington
and the sacrament. It appeared in his letter to Origen Bacheler in 1831 and
Bacheler, for obvious reasons, chose not to make it public:

. . . observing that on Sacrament Sundays, Genl Washington immediately
after the Desk and Pulpit services, went out with the greater part of the
congregation, always leaving Mrs. Washington with the communicants, she
invariably being one, I considered it my duty, in a sermon on Public
Worship, to state tile unhappy tendency of example, particularly those in
elevated stations, who invariably turned their backs upon the celebration
of the Lord's Supper. I acknowledge the remark was intended for the
President, as such, he received it. A few days later, in conversation with,
I believe, a Senator of the U.S., he told me he had dined the day before
with the President, who in the course of the conversation at the table,
said, that on the preceding Sunday, he had received a very just reproof
from the pulpit, for always leaving the church before the administration of
the Sacrament; that he honored the preacher for his integrity and candour;
that he had never considered the influence of his example; that he would
never again give cause for the repetition of the reproof; and that, as he
had never been a communicant, were he to become one of them, it would be
imputed to an ostentatious display of religious zeal arising altogether
from his elevated station. Accordingly, he afterwards never came on the
morning of Sacrament Sunday, the' at other times, a constant attendant in
the morning."

Abercrombie's report that Washington "had never been a communicant,"
together with the statements of Mrs. Custis and Bishop White, surely must
be regarded as conclusive. It is reluctant testimony and as such carries a
high degree of credibility. Neither White nor Abercrombie had anything to
gain by their revelations; -Abercrombie, indeed, was admittedly displeased
by Washington's behavior. But like Bird Wilson, they seem to have believed
(as Wilson told Robert Dale Owen) that "truth..s truth, whether it makes
for or against us" and one can only respect them-and Washington-for their
candor." By contrast, the various stories collected by the pietists to
Prove that Washington received the sacrament at Morristown and elsewhere
are based on mere hearsay statements made many years after washington's
death.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: George Washington & Religion, by Paul F. Boller JR.
Southern Methodist University Press. (1963) pp 32-35

>:|
>:|"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... 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."
>:|
>:|> (4) Any supposition Washington was Christian is at best supported by only
>:|> the most
>:|> slender of reeds. He attended Episcopal services in the company of his
>:|> wife, who was Episcopalian. She took communion but he never did. He also
>:|> attended the services of several other Christian sects, starting a custom which
>:|> continues through today by U.S. presidents to show respect for (not affiliation
>:|> with)
>:|> the various faiths, including non-Christian ones. Inquiries early on were put
>:|> to the
>:|> pastors of the various churches Washington had attended as to whether he had
>:|> ever took communion, all stated he never did, one volunteered it was because
>:|> Washington was a Deist.
>:|
>:|Not every minister was asked. There are primary accounts of Washington
>:|receiving communion while with the troops in battle.

Evidence?

>:|
>:|If you allege that Washington rarely ever prayed as well (a subject you
>:|probably don't want to touch), the evidence is overwhelming that Washington
>:|was a fervent prayor.
>:|
>:|> Washington was acutely conscious of being the unifying figurehead of his
>:|> just-born
>:|> nation and felt it his obligation to maintain strict public neutrality. Yet
>:|> there is no
>:|> evidence that he ever worshipped in a private service, or for that matter even
>:|> indicated
>:|> to his closest acquaintances (other than doubtless his wife) what his religious
>:|> beliefs were
>:|
>:|Good point. His wife knew. And when he died his wife "resigned him without a
>:|murmur into the arms of his Savior and his God, with the assured hope of his
>:|eternal felicity."
>:|

The above is suppose to mean what?

In the book I have offered (cited above) there are six pages devoted to
that very subject and the Deist quote by a minister. It is rather
interesting reading.
(pp 80-86)

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Dec 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/14/99

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

Path:
news.infi.net!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!prairie.attcanada.net!newsfeed.attcanada.net!204.127.161.4!wn4feed!worldnet.att.net!wnmaster2!not-for-mail
From: Napoleon Bean <bim...@boom.com>

Newsgroups:
alt.history,alt.history.colonial,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.religion.christian,alt.deism
Subject: Re: George Washington not Christian

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 09:19:44 -0700
Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
Lines: 258
Message-ID: <37C417A0...@boom.com>
References: <mejercit-120...@134.139.52.32>
<37B36C...@entheosengineering.com>
<37b954e9...@news1.cheetah.net>

<37B4A7...@entheosengineering.com>
<7p2k9r$4i2$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
<37B4DD...@entheosengineering.com> <37b52972$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>
<7pcfv3$hpj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> <7pcl2t$ekb$1...@lure.pipex.net>
<mejercit-180...@134.139.62.88>
<37bbf79...@news1.cheetah.net>
<01beeb00$a8b03480$e0a532d4@development>
<mejercit-200...@134.139.69.86>
<37BE1B...@spambad.yahooo.com> <37BF477E...@boom.com>
<37C16E97...@pitnet.net>

NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.254.225.34

Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

X-Trace: bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net 935594506 28741 208.254.225.34 (25 Aug
1999 15:21:46 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@worldnet.att.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 Aug 1999 15:21:46 GMT
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
Xref: news.infi.net alt.history:11650 alt.history.colonial:2209
alt.politics.usa.constitution:78868 alt.religion.christian:451007
alt.deism:1406

Gardiner wrote:

> Napoleon Bean wrote:
> >
> > (1) One of the first laws passed in colonial Virginia was that anyone who
> > came
> > into the colony or found there who was not Christian was subject to enslavement.
> >
> > This naturally provided a potent incentive for anyone who was not Christian
> > to pretend to be one.
>
> Perhaps in 1607, but by Washington's time there were sure a lot of people in
> Virginia who were not Anglicans and who were not enslaved either. Therefore,
> your reasoning is out to lunch. Washington didn't have to swear to be a good
> Anglican or fear being a slave. Are you kidding??

Well, if I was out to lunch on that one you must be there picking up
the tab. There were
many Christians of differing persuasions in Virginia by Washington's time--
since when have
Anglicans ever had a monopoly claim on the title "Christian," as opposed to
a monopoly on some
governments such as colonial Virginia's? Yeah, perhaps my mention of that
law was a bit
tenuous. By the relevant time, there were plenty of Africans available for
enslavement, their
skin color was an easy mark of status, they could be born Christian and it
changed their status
not one whit. No need to try to enslave native Americans (which never
worked out for a number
of reasons), conduct inquisitions of whites, or shanghai Jews or Moslems by
then. Although
Christians of sects other than the one in power were persecuted,
imprisoned, and killed in the
Massachusetts Bay and Connecticut in the 17th century, I am unaware of
anything on a comparable
scale occurring in colonial Virginia.

> > (2) The Anglican church was the state religion of colonial Virginia.
> > Everyone
> > had to pay taxes to support it, whether they were Anglicans or not. Religious
> > oaths of adherence to the Anglican religion were required for anyone to hold any
> > public office of any consequence.
>
> So, what you are alleging is that Washington perjured himself in order that he
> might aspire to high political office? Are you saying that you would swear to
> believing a grand hoax if that might advance your political status? I
> wouldn't; and I don't think that I am a man of principles any more than Washington.
>

> > Source: St. George Tucker's Annotated Blackstone's Commentaries (1803)
> > Go to http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook-law.html
>
> The Virginia Constitution of 1776, article 16, disestablished the Anglican church.

My speculation on this point in my previous post, which is reasonable
given the historical
evidence available, stands if nothing more is offered. The very reason the
revolutionaries
detested religious oaths was that they compromised the integrity of good
people or deterred
them from holding public office, while demeaning the purpose of belonging
to the particular
faith which the oaths were supposed to benefit. Most of these
revolutionaries were in fact
Christians themselves. What is interesting is that you NOW identify
Washington's Christian oath
as having been made in 1763 (not 1765), which puts it closer to when
Washington began his
service in the colony's legislative house of burgesses. I would like you
if you could to
provide identifiers as to where this oath paper is (a web source would be
dandy) so I might
determine myself how close a correlation there might be. By your new date,
Washington was still
in his early thirties. No reflection on you, but usenet does teach one to
be wary of
uncorroborated assertions, particular when inconsistencies appear. And do
you have evidence of
any earlier Christian oaths of his that cannot be plausibly related to his
decision to enter
Virginia politics?

> Furthermore, his signature is also found in the Church Records of Truro Parish
> under the following inscription: "I, A.B., do declare that I will be
> conformable to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England, as by law established"
>
> No proof that he ever took a Christian oath, huh?

First, and perhaps a quibble, the closest equivalent today to a such
declaration under oath

would have "I, the undersigned..." not "I, A.B...." The use of "John Doe"
as a generic
substitute for a real name had been in common use for quite some time by
then at least in
England in legal writings, according to Blackstone's Commentaries (which
went into its first
printing about this same time). So too in those days there was a more
attention to phrasing
technicalities than substance in legal writings (the opposite is true
today). So I can only
wonder if in fact this was an oath punishable as perjury under the law in
Virginia at that
time, or merely what had become by then an acceptable no-risk semblance of
one. Whether there
were requirements imposed by the Crown in the colonial charter bearing on
this is something I
would like to check.
But whatever the date of the "oath paper" and its content, which I will
grant you whatever
you think they are at this juncture only for discussion's sake, they do not
settle the primary
point. If you interpret my previous observations as being an argument that
if Washington took
that oath he lied (a strawman, for reasons previously given), I could with
as much logic
construct a strawman of my own-- are you saying Washington violated this
oath to the Church of
England when he disaffiliated himself from it prior to 1776 or even up to
the day the Paris
Peace Treaty was inked? For to rebel against England was also to reject
its particular
Anglican brand of Christianity, since its government and church were also
legally and
functionally intertwined.

But I am curious as to why you seem to attach so much significance to
this oath-- is it
based on the charming notion that Washington never lied? It can't be based
on the old cherry
tree saw, which has been determined to have never been more than an
invention.
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/GW/moral.html
It can't be based on his generalship. Washington proved himself to be so
adept at deception
that his British opposites charged more than once he was a man with no
honor. It can't be
based on the fact that Washington was a human being, and as such could not
possibly have lived
a full life with a perfect track record for truth. Is it because-- despite
its circumstances--
to entertain the idea that if he was anything less than completely sincere
and serious about
that oath it must mean he was either non-Christian or a sinner? The moral
version of the
"Hobson's Choice"-- the forced choice between evils-- has attracted much
study over the
centuries by ethicists of all religious stripes and (yes) even secular
humanists. Even for
many Christians, the resolution of such a dilemma explains why, for
example, Samson's suicide
in bringing down the Philistine temple was no sin. A more modern and
verifiable example: Many
Christian Danes wore Stars of David during nazi occupation to impede the
roundup of Jews-- they
deliberately lied about their religious beliefs, but would anyone
reasonable dispute that that
was among Christianity's finest moments? [I do not mean to suggest
Anglicans and nazis are
"soul mates," even if the former over the centuries have had a few of their
own murderous
rampages.] What I do mean to state is that it would be wrong to suppose
Christians would be of
one mind about whether the moral issues posed by a government religion--
whose tenets are not
universally shared by the governed-- will invariably be clear-cut. Would
you really think less
of Washington the man-- as opposed to the icon-- if (hypothetically
speaking) you knew he swore
an Anglican oath with no sincerity, but only after a principled analysis of
any moral dilemma
posed-- and even if you might have come to a different decision? If the
moral course is so
easily charted at all times in human affairs, one wonders why so many
religions-- Christianity
included-- have struggled as mightily as they have to chart it
consistently.

> > In any event, a quarter century passed before Washington became the first
> > U.S.
> > president. It might be hard for a bible-thumper to understand, but normal
> > humans
> > often do change their minds about their beliefs as they go on in life.
>
> Nelly Custis lived at Mt. Vernon with Washington until the day of his death.
> This is what Nelly had to say about the "changes" in Washington's Christian beliefs:
>

> "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... 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."

Nelly, born 1779, was a probably a devout Episcopalian, she was a
grandchild of
Washington's spouse by a previous marriage, the Washingtons assumed a
parental role after her
parents died and she probably loved George and Martha as much as she would
parents. There are,
however several curious aspects to her quotes you mention. First (and I am
SURE this was just
inadvertence), you managed to omit some significantly damaging parts to her
statement, such as
"I never witnessed his private devotions. I never inquired about them" and
"He communed with
his God in secret." She actually had nothing to offer in terms of direct
observation to settle
the question of whether his convictions were Christian or something else,
and what she did say
doesn't make much sense-- how could she personally "know" while disclaiming
any way of
acquiring such knowledge? And this is again remarkable since she lived with
the Washingtons for
so long. This is one of these situations where the absence of evidence you
normally expect to
find is more significant than the evidence that turns up. And her bias,
however innocent and
well-intentioned, is also plain: "(S)he (Martha Washington) and her husband
were so perfectly
united and happy that he MUST have been a Christian." Now, I am not versed
in Episcopal church
history, but I would be surprised if its doctrine in that century
entertained for a moment that
any non-Christian, however otherwise eminently qualified, could ever reach
heaven. I do know
the Roman Catholic Church did not officially concede that until this
century. Thus if Nelly
believed her stepdad had to be in heaven, she had to believe he was
Christian-- did the times
and her faith allow any other option? From what I've learned about Nelly
she was a decent,
likable person, hardly the sort to engage in any knowing mendacity. But her
account hardly
convinces, if anything it moves speculation in the opposite direction. If
Washington conducted
himself as a devout Christian, the same conduct also can be said to
"demonstrate" his private
convictions were something different. And of course, few on either side of
the question would
agree with Nelly's pronouncement that direct evidence of Washington's
Christian beliefs is
unnecessary-- on what other evidence is verifiable, it is. I am not playing
favorites here, you
have noted the reliability issues I identified with an Episcopal minister's
emphatic
pronouncement that Washington was a Deist.

> > (4) Any supposition Washington was Christian is at best supported by only
> > the most
> > slender of reeds. He attended Episcopal services in the company of his
> > wife, who was Episcopalian. She took communion but he never did. He also
> > attended the services of several other Christian sects, starting a custom which
> > continues through today by U.S. presidents to show respect for (not affiliation
> > with)
> > the various faiths, including non-Christian ones. Inquiries early on were put
> > to the
> > pastors of the various churches Washington had attended as to whether he had
> > ever took communion, all stated he never did, one volunteered it was because
> > Washington was a Deist.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_3.html

> Not every minister was asked. There are primary accounts of Washington
> receiving communion while with the troops in battle.

Oh, really? Please enlighten me. I've only found one, at a web site
of a non-profit
organization which presumably has no psychic investment in either its truth
or falsity.
http://community.libertynet.org/~iha/valleyforge/youasked/060.htm
http://community.libertynet.org/~iha/valleyforge/washington/prayer.html
That one account, allegedly by a Presbyterian minister who witnessed it, is
highly dubious
employing usual tests of reliability. This minister purportedly
recollected seeing Washington
receive communion in front of all his officers during the revolutionary
war. With all those
people standing about witnessing this, it is decidedly strange that this
single eyewitness
account attributed to this minister did not surface until sometime after
1846 (about 60 years
later), the deification of Washington having commenced in earnest decades
before, questions of
his piety having been a subject of continuous public interest, and nobody
else in that supposed
crowd of witnesses seems to have ever mentioned it. The most likely
explanation is that this
account was as much a well-meaning fabrication as the old cherry tree saw
was.
At the sites referenced, there are also a couple of accounts of
Washington sneaking into the
woods alone on the eve of battle and talking to God out loud. The
credibility problems with
these are multiple and at times amusing, but even what was purportedly
overheard of his side of
the conversations with God hardly carried any Christian earmarks ("God of
the Armies" indeed--
sounds more like General Patton at prayer). Perhaps too he developed some
kind of prayer
laryngitis between then and when Nelly entered the picture. Suffice it to
say that in 1918 the
Valley Forge commission reviewed all available evidence purporting to
"prove" Washington prayed
at Valley Forge upon petition of a patriotic organization for a "prayer
marker" and found there
was nothing credible to support the conclusion that Washington did. And it
seems there were
other rascals
wandering around in early 19th century America claiming to have special
knowledge about
Washington. Mark Twain gives us an amusing account of some more.
http://rowlf.cc.wwu.edu:8080/~stephan/webstuff/twain.html

> If you allege that Washington rarely ever prayed as well (a subject you
> probably don't want to touch), the evidence is overwhelming that Washington
> was a fervent prayor.

I have no problem with it one way or the other, but I hope you have
something other
than what I have previously mentioned. I ran across an argument that
because Washington
showed no reluctance to invoke a generic God in public, it is unlikely that
he was
sneaking around praying privately. There is sense to that observation.
Obviously Martha
and Nelly wouldn't have been upset if they had happened to come upon
Washington in
Christian prayer. There is a difference between privacy and the total
secrecy he supposedly
engaged in to pray
in his own household! If he was a "closet praying," the more plausible
explanation is that
Washington didn't want his wife or Nelly to freak out about the substance
of it. Today, most
folks would think the "prayer behavior" Washington supposedly engaged in
with espionage or drug
problems. But can you identify any "other" Christian contemporary of his
who went to the
extremes Washington supposedly did to hide the "fact" he was "praying" from
other Christians?
The subject of this thread was whether Washington was a Christian. I
never alleged he was
an atheist, a Deist, or for that matter a Muslim, a Jew, a Buddhist, a
Taoist, a Hindu, a
pantheist, an ancestor worshipper, or a cargo cultist-- but do I have to go
on now and list
every set of convictions I never alleged he had? My position remains that
the inferences to be
drawn from equivocal evidence are simply too speculatory to resolve the
matter. I do not know
whether Deists once adopted a prayer like posture to meditate (even if the
"lotus position" or
whatever is more popular today) or whether they too engage in "re-linking"
comparable to
Christian prayer. But one of the most famous paintings of Washington
supposedly praying hardly
depicts a typically Christian prayer posture.
Of course, usenet is structured such that hyperbolic assertions always
get the most
attention, so it is understandable if more balanced ones are tried to be
treated as such at
times.

> > Washington was acutely conscious of being the unifying figurehead of his
> > just-born
> > nation and felt it his obligation to maintain strict public neutrality. Yet
> > there is no
> > evidence that he ever worshipped in a private service, or for that matter even
> > indicated
> > to his closest acquaintances (other than doubtless his wife) what his religious
> > beliefs were
>
> Good point. His wife knew. And when he died his wife "resigned him without a
> murmur into the arms of his Savior and his God, with the assured hope of his
> eternal felicity."

Why did you somehow neglect to mention that these were Nelly's words,
NOT
Martha Washington's? You weren't actually attempting such a tacky hat
trick
were you? Tsk, task. Nelly was NOT present when Washington died.
http://www.libertynet.org/iha/valleyforge/served/martha.html
In any event, unless there has been a major revamping of Christian
doctrine that somehow
has eluded my notice, Joshua the Christened One (i.e., "Jesus Christ" as
known today) is the
Savior of all, not just those who have recognized it. Sorry, no "smoking
gun" here, even if
Nelly could be her own corroboration.

Got anything else?
By the way, what "happened" to Washington's baptismal and/or
confirmation "records?" Why
did he die without benefit of clergy?

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Dec 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/14/99

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

>:|Adams' rarely missed a Sunday worship service. His diary is replete with his
>:|sentiments about Christianity http://www.universitylake.org/history/adamsdiary.html
>:|
>:|Jefferson was by no means a trinitarian, but the fact that he adored Jesus is
>:|beyond dispute. He considered himself "attached to the doctrines of Jesus in
>:|preference to all others." http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl153.htm
>:|
>:|Madison's seminary training speaks for itself. His views reflected those of
>:|his mentor, the Calvinist clergyman, John Witherspoon.
>:|
>:|I think you will find that Monroe was an Anglican with sentiments often
>:|following Jefferson.
>:|
>:|JQ Adams was quite orthodox, and yes, he did say "the birthday of the nation
>:|is indissolubly linked with the birth-day of the Saviour." John Quincy Adams,
>:|An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport, at
>:|Their Request, on the Sixty-first Anniversary of the Declaration of
>:|Independence, July 4th, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 5

>:|

Path: news.infi.net!not-for-mail
From: jal...@pilot.infi.net
Newsgroups:

alt.history.colonial,alt.atheism.satire,alt.athiesm,alt.history,alt.religion,alt.religion.christian,aus.religion,fr.soc.religion,alt.religion.christian.biblestudy,alt.religion.christianity,alt.religion.jehovahs-witn,es.charla.religion,alt.bible,alt.christnet.philosophy,alt.christnet.theology,alt.religion.christian

Subject: Re: George Washington not Christian

Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 14:43:42 GMT
Organization: InfiNet
Lines: 325
Message-ID: <37bf802b...@news.pilot.infi.net>
References: <37ACAA1C...@deism.com> <37AD8C98...@pitnet.net>
<37aebb2c...@news.pilot.infi.net> <37AED331...@pitnet.net>
<37b118bc...@news.pilot.infi.net> <37b039bd...@news.verio.net>
<37B073D6...@pitnet.net> <37b2832f...@news.pilot.infi.net>
<37B0BC3B...@pitnet.net> <37b15be...@news.pilot.infi.net>
<37B1F1EF...@pitnet.net>
Reply-To: jal...@pilot.infi.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm4-1-664.orf.infi.net

Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452
Xref: news.infi.net alt.history.colonial:2097 alt.atheism.satire:55257
alt.athiesm:40627 alt.history:11342 alt.religion:57070
alt.religion.christian:443172 aus.religion:23874 fr.soc.religion:114040
alt.religion.christianity:39363 alt.bible:175165
alt.christnet.philosophy:76574 alt.christnet.theology:85117

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

>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|> "Richard Weatherwax" <Weath...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> >:|Bobbi wrote in message <37AF9159...@home.com>...
>:|> >:|> >:|>Yet who was the last non-christian President????????????????
>:|> >:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> >:|
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> A better question is:
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> Who was the first Christian President?
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> Washington is somewhat of a mystery. Although he often attended church
>:|> >:|> services, it is known that he always left before communion.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|As you would say, citations please!
>:|>
>:|> Kewl, ask him.
>:|
>:|Ah, nice evasion. That's not how the academics do it, is it, Jim? Aren't you
>:|the one who is always so demanding about sources? You were the one who chose
>:|to invoke this guy's material. Therefore, you have the burden of showing the
>:|fellow's data to be reputable. At least that's what you say to others who
>:|invoke Barton, Federrer, Kennedy, Pat Robertson, etc.
>:|
>:|You don't like playing by your own rules, do you Jim?
>:|

Ask him, is that hard to do?

>:|> He isn't in this news group or this thread. But the information you need to
>:|> find him is given above.. By all means, ask him.
>:|
>:|As you would say, "its not my responsibility: you were the one who posted the
>:|material, you defend it."
>:|
>:|When you challenged me in that way, I often did a lot of searching to satisfy
>:|your demand for proof (successfully, of course). But I'll bet you won't lift a
>:|finger to validate these wild claims about these presidents ABSOLUTELY not
>:|being Christian.

LOL

>:|
>:|That's because you are an ideologue and not a scholar.
>:|

You forgot to say IYO

>:|
>:|> >:|Nonetheless, I'm not certain that leaving church early is proof positive of
>:|> >:|one's non-Christianity.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|> One of his
>:|> >:|> pastors stated, "Washington was a Deist."
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|Citation please.
>:|> >:|
>:|>
>:|> Ask him.
>:|
>:|You were the one who posted, Jim. Don't post what you don't want to defend.
>:|

Ask him. You afraid to?

>:|> >:|> Adams, Jefferson, and Madison were absolutely not Christian.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|John Adams?? Really?? The one who said that good citizenship required that the
>:|> >:|citizen be a Christian?
>:|> >:|
>:|>
>:|> Actually, Adams was considered to be a Universalist, with some Deist
>:|> leanings. He began as a Calvinist.
>:|
>:|Citations?
>:|

Ok,

Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation. Edwin S. Gaustad, Harper

& Row, (1987) pp 85 - 97 should be good.

For Washington:

Well the book I have been citing:

George Washington & Religion, by Paul F. Boller, Southern Methodist
University Press: Dallas TX (1962)

Then:

Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation. Edwin S. Gaustad, Harper
& Row, (1987) pp 71 - 85 has some good material

And don't forget this:

"Though the cool deism of Washington can hardly be distinguished in broad
outline from that of Jefferson, the public reaction to the two men and
their religious views differed sharply. Only Jefferson was denounced as the
'howling atheist,' never Washington. Only Jefferson was attacked as the
enemy of the churches and the clergy, never Washington. A curious public
probed and punches Adams, Franklin and Jefferson regarding their Christian
convictions, but never Washington."
Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation. Edwin S. Gaustad, Harper
& Row, (1987) pp 77

LOL

The founders were not as easy to classify as you would like to think and
try so hard to tell others.

They were complex, as most humans are, and that complexity extended to
their religious beliefs and thoughts as well.

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

And to his son a few months later, Adams expressed amazement that, after
all that had been written by samuel Clarke, Daniel Waterland, and Joseph
Priestly, John Quincy persisted in holding to the Athanasian creed.(18)
FOOTNOTE:
(18) JA to John Quincy Adams, November 3, 1815; Adams Papers, reel 122 On
January 3, 1817, John Quincy Adams wrote his father that all his "hopes
of a future life" were "founded upon the Gospel of Christ." Nor, he added,
would he "cavil or quibble away" was seemed to him clear assertions by
Jesus that he was God."You see my orthodoxy grows upon me." Adrienne Koch
and William Peden, eds., The Selected Writings of John and John Quincy
Adams (New York, 1946), 291-92
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation,
Edwin S. Gaustad, Harper and Row, (1987) pp 90

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

You also ought to have learned by now that when I post something, I will
either say I don't recall where I ran across it, and if that is the case it
won't be a quote but rather a paraphrase of something based on my memory,
or if it is a quote, I will provide a cite for it.

>:|> >:|Guess he was either a bad citizen or a major hypocrite, huh?
>:|> >:|
>:|>
>:|> Neither, he changed as many people do. he was not a standard every day type
>:|> Christian.
>:|
>:|what the heck is a standard Christian? I've never met one.

Sure you have.

>:|
>:|> >:|Jefferson was absolutely not a Christian?
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|ABSOLUTELY??
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|"I am a real Christian; that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."
>:|>
>:|> You know as I know that did not qualify one as a Christian as defined and
>:|> required at that time period. I see you again love to play games. Did he
>:|> believe in the trinity, nope, did he believe Jesus was divine, nope,
>:|> Jefferson would have flunked any of the religious tests required by any of
>:|> the states that had religious tests.
>:|
>:|The claim you are defending, however, is that Jefferson was ABSOLUTELY not a
>:|Christian. Absolute is a very exclusive term. It means that he was not a
>:|Christian in any way whatsoever. If you want to stand by that type of
>:|nonsense, go ahead and look like an idiot; it's never stopped you before.
>:|

Irrelevant. does not address my comment at all.

>:|> Your are also aware of the various times Jefferson was labeled as anything
>:|> but a Christian.
>:|
>:|I am aware that the Pope is labeled by many as a demonic Anti-Christian (I can
>:|give you cites if needed). Does that mean he is not a Christian?
>:|

Irrelevant.

Doesn't change that fact that Jefferson would not qualify as a "Christian"
according to the standards of his day as exhibited in the various religious
tests and oaths required.

>:|> >:|Jefferson to Charles Thomson (1/9/1816).
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|"To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the
>:|> >:|genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which
>:|> >:|he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to
>:|> >:|all others"
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|Jefferson to Rush (4/21/1803)
>:|>
>:|> Doesn't alter one single bit what was said.
>:|
>:|So Jefferson can say "I am a Christian" and you'll stand by "Jefferson was
>:|ABSOLUTELY not a Christian." Whatever.
>:|

Yep.

>:|> >:|Madison was absolutely not a Christian?
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|He had his Princeton Professors fooled!
>:|>
>:|> You back on that again, LOL
>:|>
>:|> Madison's life did not begin nor end at Princeton, you seem to have
>:|> forgotten that.
>:|
>:|If Madison was ABSOLUTELY not a Christian, then there would have been NO TIME
>:|in his life when it could be alleged of him.
>:|

LOL.

Irrelevant and totally silly.

You forgot IYO again.

To that I will add this comment by another from a discursion in another
news group.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
alt.bible,alt.christnet.philosophy,alt.christnet.theology,alt.religion.christian
Re: School Prayer Continued

"Richard Weatherwax" <Weath...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>:|
>:|Bobbi wrote in message <37AF9159...@home.com>...
>:|>Yet who was the last non-christian President????????????????
>:|>
>:|
>:|
A better question is:

Who was the first Christian President?

Washington is somewhat of a mystery. Although he often attended church
services, it is known that he always left before communion. One of his
pastors stated, "Washington was a Deist."

Adams, Jefferson, and Madison were absolutely not Christian. Therefore who
was the first Christian president?

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

and finally, since a certain person elected to toss my name into this, I
will finish with the following:

As maff91 likes to finish his posts with:

Gardiner ineffectually crosses swords with Jim Alison.

<http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/qs.xp?ST=PS&QRY=Gardiner+AND+%7Ea+%28jalison*%29&defaultOp=AND&DBS=1&OP=dnquery.xp&LNG=ALL&subjects=&groups=&authors=&fromdate=&todate=&showsort=date&maxhits=100>

**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

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

Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.

Page is a member of the following web rings:

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

Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring

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

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Dec 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/14/99

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

>:|JQ Adams was quite orthodox, and yes, he did say "the birthday of the nation
>:|is indissolubly linked with the birth-day of the Saviour." John Quincy Adams,
>:|An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport, at
>:|Their Request, on the Sixty-first Anniversary of the Declaration of
>:|Independence, July 4th, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 5
>:|

>:|

Newsgroups:
soc.history,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.history.colonial,alt.atheism.satire,alt.atheism,alt.history,alt.religion,alt.religion.christian,aus.religion,fr.soc.religion,alt.religion.christian.biblestudy,alt.religion.christianity,alt.religion.jehovahs-witn,es.charla.religion,alt.christnet.theology

Subject: Re: George Washington not Christian

Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 20:02:59 GMT
Organization: InfiNet
Lines: 268
Message-ID: <37c8aaf9...@news.pilot.infi.net>

References: <37ACAA1C...@deism.com> <37AD8C98...@pitnet.net>
<37aebb2c...@news.pilot.infi.net> <37AED331...@pitnet.net>
<37b118bc...@news.pilot.infi.net> <37b039bd...@news.verio.net>
<37B073D6...@pitnet.net> <37b2832f...@news.pilot.infi.net>
<37B0BC3B...@pitnet.net> <37b15be...@news.pilot.infi.net>

<37B1F1EF...@pitnet.net> <37d73f8f...@news.pilot.infi.net>
<37B872B6...@pitnet.net>
Reply-To: jal...@pilot.infi.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm4-1-282.orf.infi.net

Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452

Xref: news.infi.net soc.history:44221 alt.politics.usa.constitution:78608
alt.history.colonial:2176 alt.atheism.satire:56129 alt.atheism:748904
alt.history:11533 alt.religion:57886 alt.religion.christian:447504
aus.religion:24613 fr.soc.religion:115431 alt.religion.christianity:40181
alt.christnet.theology:86509

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

>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>

>:|> >:|That's because you are an ideologue and not a scholar.
>:|> >:|
>:|>
>:|> You forgot to say IYO
>:|

>:|No I didn't. This is not a matter of opinion.

Sure it is, your opinion.

>:|
>:|> >:|> >:|> Adams, Jefferson, and Madison were absolutely not Christian.

>:|> >:|> >:|
>:|> >:|> >:|John Adams?? Really?? The one who said that good citizenship required that the
>:|> >:|> >:|citizen be a Christian?
>:|> >:|> >:|
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> Actually, Adams was considered to be a Universalist, with some Deist
>:|> >:|> leanings. He began as a Calvinist.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|Citations?
>:|> >:|
>:|>
>:|> Ok,
>:|>
>:|> Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation. Edwin S. Gaustad, Harper
>:|> & Row, (1987) pp 85 - 97 should be good.

>:|
>:|Okay. I've got the book right here and I'm looking at the pages you cite. Dr.
>:|Gaustad never says that Adams was a Deist. The only place where Deism is
>:|mentioned in relation to Adams is on page 94:
>:|
>:|"Deists, it is often said, believe in God, freedom, and immortality. This
>:|description fits John Adams without difficulty..."
>:|

Yep, that fits.

>:|Is that the reason you are basing your "proof" on. I enjoyed attending Dr.
>:|Gaustad's classes as his student at Princeton, but if the implication here is
>:|that he has shown Adams to be a Deist, that's a load of crap.
>:|
>:|"...this description fits John Adams without difficulty"--- but it also fits
>:|the Pope without difficulty; it also fits Billy Graham without difficulty, it
>:|also fits all the Puritans without difficulty.

Those other folks are not the subject of this discussion.

>:|
>:|Gaustad's research does not show Adams to be a Deist.
>:|

Here we go again

My exact words were:

>:|> >:|> Actually, Adams was considered to be a Universalist, with some Deist
>:|> >:|> leanings. He began as a Calvinist.

>:|Now, instead of the secondary material, lets go right to the horse's mouth.
>:|You see, if Gaustad had read as much Adams' as he should have (like Page Smith
>:|did), he would have read Adams' assessment of Christianity vs. Deism:
>:|

LOL, now he is a lazy scholar, huh?

>:|"The Christian religion is, above all the Religions that ever prevailed or
>:|existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of Wisdom, Virtue, Equity,
>:|and Humanity, let the Blackguard Paine [a Deist] say what he will."
>:|
>:|(John Adams, DIARY, July 26, 1796)
>:|

!796, huh? Hmmmmmm, and his opinions etc remained forevermore locked in
that time period, never to advance or change in any way, huh?

I can match you quote for quote from John Adams, and the bottom line is,

You can quotes of his where he blasts religion, the clergy, etc as much as
Jefferson probably ever did, then you can find quotes where he praises it.

His son said it took him 60 years to arrive and decide what he believed.

As I stated before, people are complex, they don't fit molds all the time
or nice and neatly.

Deism seems to bother you for some reason, if someone mentions it you are
there denouncing.

I only lightly touched on Deism, I said with some Deist leanings. That is
very much in harmony with what Gaustad wrote.

His roots were that of your precious Calvin, as he grew older he altered
his views.

So I will say again:

>:|> >:|> Actually, Adams was considered to be a Universalist, with some Deist
>:|> >:|> leanings. He began as a Calvinist.

>:|> For Washington:

>:|>
>:|> Well the book I have been citing:
>:|>
>:|> George Washington & Religion, by Paul F. Boller, Southern Methodist
>:|> University Press: Dallas TX (1962)
>:|>
>:|> Then:
>:|>
>:|> Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation. Edwin S. Gaustad, Harper
>:|> & Row, (1987) pp 71 - 85 has some good material
>:|>
>:|> And don't forget this:
>:|>
>:|> "Though the cool deism of Washington can hardly be distinguished in broad
>:|> outline from that of Jefferson,

You know what, I will take Edwin S. Gaustad's experience, study, research,
and conclusions over you and yours anytime in this matter.

But maybe you have so much tunnel vision you can't understand what he is
saying at all.

>:|> the public reaction to the two men and

>:|> their religious views differed sharply. Only Jefferson was denounced as the
>:|> 'howling atheist,' never Washington. Only Jefferson was attacked as the
>:|> enemy of the churches and the clergy, never Washington. A curious public
>:|> probed and punches Adams, Franklin and Jefferson regarding their Christian
>:|> convictions, but never Washington."

>:|
>:|Maybe that's because their religious views differed sharply.
>:|

Maybe not nearly as much as you would like to try and convince people they
did.

>:|> Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation. Edwin S. Gaustad, Harper

>:|> & Row, (1987) pp 77
>:|>
>:|> >:|> There is at least one letter where he gets down on his son for being such a
>:|> >:|> orthodox Christian.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|Sounds like a distortion. Citations?
>:|> >:|
>:|>
>:|> LOL
>:|>
>:|> The founders were not as easy to classify as you would like to think and
>:|> try so hard to tell others.
>:|>
>:|> They were complex, as most humans are, and that complexity extended to
>:|> their religious beliefs and thoughts as well.

>:|>
>:|> And to his son a few months later, Adams expressed amazement that, after

>:|> all that had been written by samuel Clarke, Daniel Waterland, and Joseph
>:|> Priestly, John Quincy persisted in holding to the Athanasian creed.(18)

>:|

Why did you delete the rest of this? Too hot for you to handle?

That's ok, I will put it back.

Remember, you called this a distortion:

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

And to his son a few months later, Adams expressed amazement that, after

all that had been written by Samuel Clarke, Daniel Waterland, and Joseph

Priestly, John Quincy persisted in holding to the Athanasian creed.(18)
FOOTNOTE:
(18) JA to John Quincy Adams, November 3, 1815; Adams Papers, reel 122 On
January 3, 1817, John Quincy Adams wrote his father that all his "hopes
of a future life" were "founded upon the Gospel of Christ." Nor, he added,
would he "cavil or quibble away" was seemed to him clear assertions by
Jesus that he was God."You see my orthodoxy grows upon me." Adrienne Koch
and William Peden, eds., The Selected Writings of John and John Quincy
Adams (New York, 1946), 291-92
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation,
Edwin S. Gaustad, Harper and Row, (1987) pp 90

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

>:|To be surprised that your son hasn't followed the fad of the day is not
>:|necessarily to be critical of him. If I express my amazement that my daughter
>:|doesn't worship the Back Street Boys doesn't mean I think she should.

Irrelevant and non responsive to the subject. Nice try though
I guess it was the best you could do after saying it sounded like a
distortion to you.

John Adams was accusing his son of being religiously orthodox, not accusing
him of following the fad of the day.

>:|
>:|John Adams did not follow Priestly the way Jefferson did. That's a matter of record.

Who said he did?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, as mahab...@my-deja.com wrote:

Being snarly at people who disagree with you (even if they were snarly
first) isn't a very good reflection of Christian love, is it? The Tao
Teh Ching says, "The sage is just to the just, and also just to the
unjust, because the Tao is just." With struggle, perhaps Christianity
can rise to the same level as Taoism.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Dec 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/14/99

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

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

>:|> stn...@aol.com (StNeel) wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|>Robert L. Johnson" b...@deism.com wrote
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|>Many of America's key founders were Deists, that is they believed in God
>:|> >:|>based on nature and reason, not on the Bible or any other "holy" book.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|Actually this is not true. Jefferson & Franklin were Deists but most of the
>:|> >:|rest were conservative Christians. Also suggest a better definition of 'deist'
>:|> >:|please.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|StNeel
>:|>
>:|> Actually, the above isn't true either.
>:|> None of the first six Presidents, to mention just those men, would fit your
>:|> definition of "conservative Christians"
>:|
>:|I'm not sure what Mr. St. Neel's definition is of a conservative Christian.
>:|This I do know, the first six presidents, including Jefferson, were very
>:|devout men. Washington's religious character is clearly delineated by his
>:|daughter at http://www.universitylake.org/history/nelly.html
>:|

>:|Adams' rarely missed a Sunday worship service. His diary is replete with his
>:|sentiments about Christianity http://www.universitylake.org/history/adamsdiary.html
>:|
>:|Jefferson was by no means a trinitarian, but the fact that he adored Jesus is
>:|beyond dispute. He considered himself "attached to the doctrines of Jesus in
>:|preference to all others." http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl153.htm
>:|
>:|JQ Adams was quite orthodox, and yes, he did say "the birthday of the nation
>:|is indissolubly linked with the birth-day of the Saviour." John Quincy Adams,
>:|An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport, at
>:|Their Request, on the Sixty-first Anniversary of the Declaration of
>:|Independence, July 4th, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 5
>:|

Path: news.infi.net!not-for-mail
From: jal...@pilot.infi.net

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 15:49:32 GMT
Organization: InfiNet
Lines: 214
Message-ID: <37cda028...@news.pilot.infi.net>
References: <37B4DD...@entheosengineering.com>

<37b52972$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com> <7pcfv3$hpj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
<7pcl2t$ekb$1...@lure.pipex.net> <mejercit-180...@134.139.62.88>
<37bbf79...@news1.cheetah.net>
<01beeb00$a8b03480$e0a532d4@development>
<mejercit-200...@134.139.69.86>
<37BE1B...@spambad.yahooo.com> <37BF477E...@boom.com>

<37C16E97...@pitnet.net> <37cb7274...@news.pilot.infi.net>
<37C5CC03...@pitnet.net>
Reply-To: jal...@pilot.infi.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm4-1-s4-66.orf.infi.net

Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452

Xref: news.infi.net soc.history:44447 alt.politics.usa.constitution:78935
alt.history.colonial:2217 alt.atheism.satire:57067 alt.atheism:756685
alt.history:11660 alt.religion:58492 alt.religion.christian:452202
aus.religion:24866 fr.soc.religion:116886 alt.religion.christianity:41045
alt.christnet.theology:87735

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

>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>

>:|> >:|Perhaps in 1607, but by Washington's time there were sure a lot of people in

>:|> >:|Virginia who were not Anglicans and who were not enslaved either. Therefore,
>:|> >:|your reasoning is out to lunch. Washington didn't have to swear to be a good
>:|> >:|Anglican or fear being a slave. Are you kidding??
>:|> >:|
>:|>

>:|> Well, let's see, as late as the early 1770s Baptists and others were being
>:|> jailed for holding religious services, etc.
>:|

>:|That's because the Government wanted to tell people that they couldn't preach
>:|in public places (the way Baptist preachers were accustomed to doing),

Try just plain old fashioned persecution.

>:|the
>:|same way the Americans United for Sep of Church and State and the ACLU want to
>:|do today.
>:|

Wow, I see your political biases are well and alive.

Oh well, I'm not interested in your politics. Where you are coming from is
well known by anyone who has read many of your posts or replies.

>:|> >:|> (2) The Anglican church was the state religion of colonial Virginia.

>:|> >:|> Everyone
>:|> >:|> had to pay taxes to support it, whether they were Anglicans or not. Religious
>:|> >:|> oaths of adherence to the Anglican religion were required for anyone to hold any
>:|> >:|> public office of any consequence.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|So, what you are alleging is that Washington perjured himself in order that he
>:|> >:|might aspire to high political office? Are you saying that you would swear to
>:|> >:|believing a grand hoax if that might advance your political status? I
>:|> >:|wouldn't; and I don't think that I am a man of principles any more than Washington.

>:|> >:|
>:|>

>:|> I am curious why it is so important to you that you make Washington a full
>:|> fledged Christian?

>:|
>:|He probably wasnt
>:|

Kewl.

Then you are getting closer to what the majority of scholars write and
claim about him.

Most I have run across define him as a "cool" Deist.

That basically is what others and I have been telling you for some time
now.

>:|> There are certain things that I or others can post that is guaranteed to

>:|> bring you out of the woodwork, and I am really curious why this particular
>:|> subject is one of them.

>:|
>:|My strong reaction is to those who continuously allege that Washington was a
>:|full fledged Deist with anti-Christian sentiments.

Ahhhh, adding a qualifier. Well, I am not sure who you are referring to
when you state anti-Christian sentiments. It sure isn't me.

Actually Washington was so good at hiding himself and appearing as all
things to all people that all groups claim him as one of theirs. Catholics
claimed him, various Protestant groups claimed him, infidels claimed him,
Deist claimed him, Quakers claimed him.

He discriminated against none, not even atheists.

Again, most I have read consider him to be a Deist or at the very least to
have solid Deist leanings.

>:|
>:|> The fact of the matters is, most scholars will state that Washington was

>:|> not a die in the wool orthodox Christian.

>:|
>:|Maybe not. But the evidence that he was a died in the wool Deist is even weaker.
>:|

Sorry, most scholars who have far more experience and credentials then you
have disagree with you. I will go with them on this matter, especially
since they have a great deal of evidence to offer.

Your evidence seems to be very sparse and has been countered at every turn
by what pan@**psnw***.com (pan), Napoleon Bean <bim...@boom.com>, "Paul
Browning" <ps...@home.com>, myself, probably Mike, and possibly others have
posted.
I could have posted a great deal more had I wanted to take the time and
make the effort. I am sure the others could have as well.

Hard core deist, perhaps not, but very real deist leanings, yep.

>:|> If you are unaware of this, I do seriously have to question your research.

>:|> If you are aware of this, I have to question your ethics.
>:|

>:|Funny, you never seem to question Mr. Johnson's research or ethics when he
>:|continuously says that the founders were all deists. You are easily
>:|identifiable as a biased ideologue. Your assessment is not balanced.
>:|

LOL.

I don't have to play word games to make my points.

I learned many years ago that absolutes are *almost never* absolute.

I have spent a great deal of time pointing this out to, what by all
evidence, appears to be intelligent people. What I have discovered is that
usually gives them an opening to go off in some other direction, etc.bog
discussions down and proves to be a total waste of time. They still
continue to make absolute statements.

I am aware of that fact that not all of the founders were not Deist. All of
the founders couldn't be fit into any box,and labeled as being this or that
and be an accurate statement.

I didn't feel any great urge to "correct" Robert L. Johnson, I know what
he was saying, I knew what he meant. So did you.
Incidently, he has altered what he says to a more accurate comment now, and
you still come charging out of the woodwork.

He currently say the following now::

>:|Not all of the founders of the USA were Deists, but the key people were. People
>:|such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were Deists. And of
>:|course, Thomas Paine was a key factor in the US Revolution and was the most
>:|outspoken of all the Deists. Read Paine's interesting book THE AGE OF REASON.
>:|Also visit the site of the World Union of Deists at: http://www.deism.com for a
>:|lot of info on Deism.
>:|

You will note and in fact have noted that I did "correct" one of his recent
promotional sound bites.

My record stands intact. Since I began my involvement on Usenet in Feb
1995, I have ":corrected" a great many people, who were arguing for and
against the principle of separation of church and state, when they posted
incorrect historical or legal data.

Pissed a few people off who you would claim would be in my camp on the
issue.

In addition, I think that the facts show, I did not support his all claim,
that is your invention. I said some were, when you were implying none were.
So actually, you both were technically incorrect.

Damn, you didn't address any of the rest of the information I provided.
What a shame, but I understand why, it was pointing out other things you
were not quite correct on..

What a bummer, I even found the information where one person claimed that
disestablishment didn't completely take place in Va until the 1840s. (I had
said 1850s, but looking it over again I see it was 1840)

And I was going to post the information about the Minister who said
Washington was a Deist. You would love that because Jefferson was involved
in that story as well.

Ahh, well.

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Dec 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/14/99

Path: news.infi.net!not-for-mail
From: jal...@pilot.infi.net
Newsgroups:

alt.history,alt.history.colonial,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.religion.christian,alt.deism

Subject: Re: George Washington not Christian

Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 16:18:51 GMT
Organization: InfiNet
Lines: 576
Message-ID: <37f8d092...@news.pilot.infi.net>
References: <37bbf79...@news1.cheetah.net>

<01beeb00$a8b03480$e0a532d4@development>
<mejercit-200...@134.139.69.86>
<37BE1B...@spambad.yahooo.com> <37BF477E...@boom.com>
<37C16E97...@pitnet.net> <37cb7274...@news.pilot.infi.net>

<37C5CC03...@pitnet.net> <40fA3.9091$R84.2...@typ12.nn.bcandid.com>
<rt69qu...@corp.supernews.com> <37D35095...@pitnet.net>
<rt6on9...@corp.supernews.com> <37D3DBDE...@pitnet.net>
Reply-To: jal...@pilot.infi.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: pm4-1-979.orf.infi.net

Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452

Xref: news.infi.net alt.history:12040 alt.history.colonial:2327
alt.politics.usa.constitution:79864 alt.religion.christian:461828
alt.deism:1536

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

A person's knowledge defines their personality?

Well, Freud, when did you become qualified to practice psychology?

I bet the state of Wis. doesn't know about you doing this.

LOL

But, alas, it is the usual Gardiner personal attack because someone dared
challenge his proclamations..

>:|
>:|The religious roots of the American Revolution are generally acknowledged by
>:|academics and scholars, especially since Carl Bridenbaugh published MITRE AND
>:|SCEPTRE (New York: Oxford University Press, 1962). I don't have the time to
>:|educate you on the details, perhaps you could take a class at your local
>:|community college.

Oh yes, the usual advice to take some courses at a local community college.
How many people, since March, have you dispensed that advice to?

As to the religious roots, would you care to name some of these scholars
and academics. You see, that isn't what I find in the information I have
here. I also recall you once upon a time this past spring saying you had
co-written your book because the "establishment" did not acknowledge those
very religious roots. Make up your mind.

>:| For a synopsis, you could check out Page Smith's RELIGIOUS
>:|ORIGINS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. Dr. Gaustad, my prof. at Princeton, has
>:|published a short piece which is online
>:|http://americanrevolution.org/gaustad.html. You'll surely dismiss him as you
>:|did Dr. Heyrman, whose Ph.D. from Yale University must have been a fraud, right?

OH!!!!!!! Dr. Gaustad, your prof at Princeton [this is commonly called
name dropping ] has his stuff together in areas you might agree with him
on, BUT in areas you don't, like Washington being a cool Deist, etc, he
didn't read enough, or do his homework properly, huh?
How original.

Dr. Heyrman. A degree, no matter from what University, does not
automatically make someone correct. You know that, or you should.

>:|
>:|Phillips' book, COUSINS WARS, published just last year covers the issue with
>:|more detail than any book I've read in a long time. You also should read
>:|Bernard Bailyn's The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (1967),
>:|Nathan Hatch's The Sacred Cause of Liberty (1977), Peter Carroll's Religion
>:|and the Coming of the Revolution, Alice Baldwin's The New England Clergy and
>:|the American Revolution (1928), Alan Heimert's Religion and the American Mind
>:|(1965), Mason Lowance's The Language of Canaan, Ursula Brumm's American
>:|Thought and Religious Typology, and Carl Bridenbaugh's Mitre and Sceptre,
>:|Keith L. Griffin's Revolution and Religion: American Revolutionary War and the
>:|Reformed Clergy (New York: Paragon House, 1994). Then theres Patricia Bonomi's
>:|UNDER THE COPE OF HEAVEN, and Jonathan Clark's, The Language of Liberty
>:|(Cambridge University Press, 1994).
>:|
>:|Do I expect you to actually consider any of these books?? Of course not.
>:|You're not a scholar, but only an uneducated loud mouth who has no clue about
>:|what youre saying.

Ahhh, another insulting personal attack aimed at someone you know nothing
about.

Based on the way you post i.e. the apparent compulsion to personally insult
and attack others when they challenge you, you lack of providing evidence
when you make some your wild claims, and your silly straw men arguments you
engage in when it is pointed out to you you haven't and can't provide any
documentary evidence to back up these claims do not show you to be much of
a scholar.

I haver read a great many books by respected scholars in several fields
related to this subject, I have read a good many journal articles on the
same subject. I don't recall seeing anyone resort to the childish tactics
you do, even when they do disagree with another's work, or conclusions, or
opinions, or findings.

For no other reason then that you fail to qualify as a scholar, because a
scholar would not have to resort to such trash talk to try and establish
their claims.

I think it has been shown that Adams, along with some of your other
favorites, were not the orthodox Christian you want them to be.

This particular piece of work has some problems with it. It has been
pointed out to you before.

I love the way you like to trot out those credentials of those whom you
happen to agree with or like. Do try to pay the same honor and respect to
those whom you don't agree with.

At least 25 scholars with as many letters after their names, wrote a letter
to the LOC pointing out some of the problems with that particular exhibit
and book that was produced.

You are aware of that.

I can point things in the book they produced that would strongly disagree
with some of your claims. Wonder how you would try and spin that away?

There are at least one area, and perhaps more where the text is misleading.
If you check the footnote, you get a different story then what was said in
the plain text on the page in the book.

The work has problems.

Now, with that thought in mind, you might want to look over pages 37 and 38
of Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, by James H.
Hutson--the companion book to the LOC exhibit.

It does a better job of placing religion in its proper context regarding
the revolution then you seem to be doing.

From the same book, page 16 "Virginia was settled, not by religious
visionaries who were in command in the northern colonies, but by
businessmen. . . who wanted to get rich."

And I believe I ran across similar comments about a few of the other
colonies as well in the same book.

>:|
>:|Do you have any argument whatsoever, to show that the Library of Congress'
>:|manuscripts which prove the connection of religion to the revolution are fraudulent?

They don't have to be. There is a process known as selection, you know
about selection, don't you? Sure you do. You have brought up selection
before in discussions.

>:|
>:|If not, upon what grounds do you say that the Library of Congress' material is bullshit?

I'm not saying it is bullshit, I am saying there are problems with it and
it is not totally accurate.

>:|> >> Most people came to America for
>:|> >> mainly economic reasons and a better life.
>:|> >
>:|> >So, in your opinion, the reasons the immigrants actually gave were all lies too?
>:|> >
>:|> >(see http://members.aol.com/WinthropSQ/reasons.htm)
>:|>

People came to this country for a wide variety of reasons.
Some were convicts and were sent here by England.
Some were indentured servants
Some came for their own religious freedom, but not to give anyone else
religious freedom
Some came for economic reasons.

A couple excerpts to make my point:

=======================================================================
The Sociology of Frontiers

By definition, a frontier is an area of new settlement and rapid population
growth. As a result, frontiers are populated with newcomers and strangers.
Quite aside from whether those attracted to frontiers tend to be deficient
in moral character, wherever large numbers of people lack social ties, or
what are often called interpersonal attachments, the result is social
disorganization.

The real basis of the moral order is human relationships. Most of us
conform to laws and social norms most of the time because to do otherwise
would risk our relationships with others. When we are alone, even the most
respectable of us act in ways we would not were anyone present. People who
have no relationships with family or close friends, or whose relationships
are with Persons far away, are essentially alone all the time. They do not
risk their attachments if they are detected in deviant behavior, because
they have none to lose. Even in highly settled, stable communities some
people are deficient in attachments, and it is they who are apt to engage
in deviant behavior. In frontier areas, most people are deficient in
attachments, and hence very high rates of deviant behavior exist.

Moreover, in areas where people are constantly passing through and where
most people are strangers and newcomers, it is very difficult to sustain
organizations of any kind, be they churches, fraternal lodges, or political
clubs (Berry and Kasarda, 1978; Wuthnow and Christiano, 1979; Welch, 1983;
Finke, 1989). People are recruited into and kept active in such
organizations through social networks--through their attachments to others
who also take part (Stark and Bainbridge, 1980, 2985). Where such networks
are lacking, group actions are more apt to take the form of outbursts of
collective behavior, such as riots or mob actions, than to be structured
and directed by formal organizations.

As a result, frontiers will be short on churches, and long on crime and
vice, simply because they ave frontiers (Stark et al., 1983; Finke, 1989).
And this imbalance will be greatly amplified because of who tends to
migrate to frontiers.

Who Migrates?

Studies of migration stress two factors: those that push people to leave a
place and those that pull them to somewhere else. Among the major pushes
are (1) lack of opportunity (2) weak attachments, (3) fear of punishment,
(4) disgrace, and (5) persecution. Of the five, only the last (and then
only when groups are involved) is likely to cause "solid citizens" to
migrate. Lack of opportunity can produce desirable migrants too, but the
other three will tend to overproduce troubled and troublesome migrants.
Those who lack attachments tend to be people who have difficulty forming
and maintaining relationships. Those who fear punishment have usually
offended, as have those in disgrace.

The major pulls are (1) economic opportunity, (2) anonymity and escape,
and (3) greater freedom. Again, the last may attract very desirable
migrants--as it did in the case of persecuted religious minorities who came
to America. And economic opportunity can draw desirable mi- grants as well
as undesirables.

When the total set of pushes and pulls is examined, however, two typical
features of migrants to frontiers emerge. Many of them will be scoundrels,
misfits, and others of dubious past and character, who are fleeing their
pasts or seeking new opportunities to practice illegal or morally
stigmatized activities. And most migrants will be men--some free of
attachments, having no wife or family, some fleeing such responsibilities.

Thus we deduce the population of Dodge City, Tombstone, and
Deadwood--towns filled with male drifters, gamblers, confidence tricksters,
whores, and saloon keepers, and without churches, schools, or respectable
women. Thus we also deduce many aspects of the American frontier when it
was still back east. These deductions can be fleshed out with concrete
facts about colonial America.

Male America: Sex Ratios

The single best measure for locating frontiers is the sex ratio, usually
calculated as the number of males per 100 females. The higher the ratio-the
greater the imbalance of males to females--the more frontier-like the
place. This is especially the case for highly imbalanced sex ratios among
younger adults.

It is very significant, therefore, that, in his monumental study in
progress" of people leaving for America from England and Scotland between
December 1773 and spring 1776, Bernard Bailyn (1986) has found that almost
four out of five (77.8 percent) were males; and they were mostly younger
males. At a time when only 18 percent of the English and Scottish
populations were in the 15-24 age group, half of those leaving for America
were in this category. Bailyn's records of these people after their arrival
here show that they typically did not linger in the settled areas along the
coast, but headed to the frontier areas.

Given these patterns, it is no surprise that in the nation as a whole
there were substantially more men than women in the eighteenth century. But
it is the variation across colonies that is most instructive (seeTable
2.4). On the eve of the Revolution, while in the other colonies men
outnumbered women, in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, the women
had already come to outnumber the men, a sure sign that the frontier had
moved inland. Indeed, these data indicate that the nation was already
beginning to split into male and female sections: a settled East, lacking
men (especially men in the most marriageable age groups), and a western
frontier, lacking women. This regionalization of gender became extremely
pronounced in the nineteenth century, as we shall see in later chapters.

The second column of sex ratios in Table 2.4 comes from the first U.S.
Census, conducted in 1790. The westward drift of males and of the frontier
comes into even sharper focus. Aside from Maine, New York was the only
state for which earlier data exist in which the sex ratio had not declined.
By 1790 Connecticut had joined Rhode Island and Massachusetts as states in
which the women outnumbered the men. Where were the men of New England
going? A glance at a map will provide an answer and will also explain why
New York's ratio did not fall. Because New England is north of New York
City, many Americans have the impression it is also north of New York
State. But New Englanders heading due west are soon in New York. And by
1790 that is where the western frontier was located, and where the young,
migrating Males from Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut were to
be found.

It was long a favorite theme of western movies that when the "nice" women
arrived, it was time to build a church, a school, and a good jail. The part
about churches was most certainly true. The higher the male to female sex
ratio, the lower the rate of religious adherence. In fact, in colonial
America an extremely high negative correlation of -.95 exists (-1.0 is a
perfect negative correlation) between the sex ratios and rates of religious
adherence.

The immense importance of women for church life shows up very strongly
when actual membership roles are scrutinized. In a study based on 97
Congregational churches in Massachusetts and Connecticut, Richard D. Shiels
(1981) found that 64 percent of all new members were women--a fact he
described as the "feminization of American Congregationalism" (p. 46).
Recall from chapter 1 that the 1926 census of religious bodies showed the
national Methodist membership included but 66.8 males per 100 female
members. Similar sex imbalances in church membership, both here and abroad,
turn up in study after study (Shiels, 1981; Stark and Bainbridge, 1985;
Butler, 1990), thus confirming Cotton Mather's observation in 1691 that
"there are far more Godly Women in the World than there are Godly Men" (in
Cott, 1977, p. 127). One barrier to the churching of colonial America, and
especially the frontier areas, was the lack of women.

Scoundrels and Knaves

Substantial numbers of those who embarked for colonial America were of
solid farmer and merchant stock, coming in hopes of greatly improving their
lot through honest means. But it is also true, as Bailyn has described,
that among them were "many hardened criminals--thieves, blackmailers,
pimps, rapists, embezzlers, and thugs available for hire" (1986, p. 295).
It is estimated that from 1718 to 1775 at least 50,000 persons, most of
them convicted of capital crimes, were forcibly transported to America by
order of English courts. Another 16,000 or so were sent over by the courts
in Ireland (Bailyn, 1986).

Transported convicts were not the only source of scoundrels and knaves in
the colonies. Many immigrants of seemingly highly respectable backgrounds
were nothing of the sort. This seems to have been especially true of the
clergy. Unlike the Congregationalists, who were soon producing their own
clergy at Harvard and Yale, many of the denominations active in colonial
America were dependent on clergy sent from overseas. The Episcopal Church,
as the American branch of the Church of England, was served by clergy from
the mother country.

Many of the Presbyterian clergy were supplied by the Church of Seatland.
And the Lutherans, German and Dutch Reformed, and the Roman Catholics
depended on Europe for their pastors.

But who would come? Few were willing, and so these denominations always
were short of clergy--a fact that hindered the churching of the colonies.
Worse yet, in light of the constant complaints from their parishioners, we
must suspect that many if not most who did come seemed lacking in energy,
morals, or even authentic credentials. Edwin S. Gaustad (1987, p. 15) has
reported frequent grumbling by Anglican vestrymen "about clergy that left
England to escape debts or wives or onerous duties, seeing Virginia as a
place of retirement or refuge." Tn 1724 Giles Rainsford, an Antlican
clergyman in Maryland, sent this dispatch concerning three of his
colleagues to the Bishop of London: "Mr. Williamson is grown notorious and
consumate in villainy. He really is an original for drinking and swearing.
Mr. Donaldson is so vile that the other day, being sent for to a dying
person, came drunk, and the poor expiring soul, seeing his hopeful parson
in that condition, refused the Sacrament at his hands and died without it.
Mr. Maconchie is a mere nuisance, and makes ye church stink. He fights, and
drinks on all occasions, and as I am told alienas permolct uxoues [forces
his attentions on the wives of others]" (in Ritchie, 1976, p. 145).

Later in the century George Whitefield ([1756] 1969) noted in his journal
that the Church of England might "flourish" in the colonies "were her
ministers found faithful" (p. 386). Having heard of plans by the Society
for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts to send more
missionaries to America, Whitefield noted in his journal that it would be
better "that people had no minister than such as are generally sent over"
(p. 387). In response to his own rhetorical question regarding why the
Church of England was doing so poorly in America, he blamed the
missionaries "who, for the most part, lead very bad examples"
(p. 387).

Rainsford's and Whitefield's accusations were echoed later in the century
by Thomas Coke (1793), the first Methodist bishop in America. After kind
words for the Quakers and praise for the zeal of the Baptist clergy, Coke
wrote: "But what shall we say for the Clergy of the Church of England in
these states. . . . We would fain draw a veil over them, if the truth of
history would permit it .. . they were, with a few exceptions to the
contrary, as bad a set of men as perhaps ever disgraced the Church of God .
. ." (in Powell, 1967, p. 37).

There also seem to have been frequent instances of people pretending to
be clergy or falsely confessing to faiths they did not hold. In 1742, when
Henry Melchior Muhlenberg arrived in Pennsylvania, having been sent from
Germany to take charge of the Lutherans, his worst initial problem was with
self-appointed and venal clergymen. Muhlenberg's Notebook (1959) is filled
with complaints against greedy scoundrels posing as legitimate Lutheran
clergy, many of them ordained by Valentine Kraft, whose claims to official
standing were fraudulent.

December 1, 1742. I learned forthwith that Mr. Kraft' had traveled
through the whole province of Pennsylvania, appointed deacons and el
ders here and there, and established a general presbytery in the whole
country. . . . And besides all this, he had organized a consistory of
which he was the president. . . . The purpose of the presbytery was to
make it possible for Valentine Kraft and his assessor to travel around the
country and carry on their trade with the holy sacraments. The consistory
served the purpose of letting him ordain a few more lazy and drunken
schoolmasters and place them as preachers in vacant places.

January 4, 1743. Mr. Kraft now took off his hypocritical mask.... He
became the boon companion of some worthless, drunken schoolmasters
who wander about the country as preachers and make money with the
Lord's Supper, baptism, and weddings. He got drunk with these fellows
and carried on high.

January 9, 1743 ... Because the schoolmasters, already described, in-
tended to establish opposition congregations in various places and thus
vex me, I made two announcements to the congregation: (1) Thev were
not to pay anything when they had their children baptized, and (2) at the

Lord's Supper there was to be no offering of money at the altar for the
pastor. Since these vagabonds are concerned only to get a few shillings
for a baptism and the offerings at the Lord's Supper . . . I have abolished
this abominable custom. (pp. 10-14)

Perhaps the most notorious case of all involved the Catholics. Antonio de
Sedella claimed to be a Capuchin friar when he appeared in New Orleans in
1781, and he may have been. Whatever the case, Sedella rapidly became
superior of the Capuchins in New Orleans and vicargeneral and pastor of St.
Louis Cathedral. PPre Antoine, as he soon came to be called, was popular in
the city because of his reputation for being indulgent of moral weakness.
But even the most lukewarm Catholics in New Orleans were humiliated and
shocked when PPre Antoine died in 1829 and, in accord with his will, was
buried with Masonic rites (Hennesey, 1981).

Establishment

Thus major impediments to the churching of colonial America are common
features of all frontier settings: transience, disorder, too many men, too
many scoundrels, and too few effective and committed clergy. But there were
other important factors as well. Writing in 1776, Adam Smith noted how
legal establishment of the church saps the clergy of their "exertion, their
zeal and industry." He concluded, in a passage quoted at the end of this
chapter, that when clergy do not need to depend upon their parishioners for
their employment and pay, they neglect their duties and do not develop the
skills required to stir up commitment. Taking a similar position, Colonel
Lewis Morris, former governor of the New Jersey Colony, wrote from New York
to a friend about the impact of establishment upon the Episcopal Church:
"If by force the salary is taken from [the people] and paid to the
ministers of The Church, it may be a means of subsisting those Ministers,
but they wont make many converts.... Whereas [without establishment] the
Church will in all probability flourish, and I believe had at this day been
in a much better position, had there been no act [of legal establishment]
in her favor; for in the Jersies and Pennsylvania, where there is no act,
there are four times the number of church men than there are in this
province of N. York; and they are see, most of them, upon principle,
whereas nine parts in ten, of ours, will add no great credit to whatever
church they are of; nor can it well be expected otherwise" (in O'Callaghan,
1855, pp. 322-323). Morris may have slightly exaggerated the statistics,
but New York did have an unusually low adherence rate, 15 percent, compared
with New Jersey's rate of 26 percent and Pennsylvania's 24 percent (see
Table 2.2).

In any event, it must be noted that the two potentially most powerful
religious bodies in colonial America, the Congregationalists and the
Episcopalians, rested upon legal establishment. The Episcopalians enjoyed
legal establishment in New York, Virginia, Maryland, North and South
Carolina, and Georgia; the Congregationalists were established in New
England.

In Chapter 3 we will trace the slow process of disestablishment during the
first part of the nineteenth century and examine how having been
established helped to block the growth and westward expansion of both
denominations. But even in 1776 the effects of establishment show up
strongly in the geography of Congregationalism. Where it could rely on
taxpayer support, the Congregationalist Church dominated the religious
landscape, albeit this feat is made much less impressive by its very low
rate of market penetration (see Table 2.5). In Massachusetts,
Congregationalists made up 71.6 percent of adherents, in Vermont 65
percent, in Connecticut 64.2 percent, and in Maine 60.9 percent. But aside
from a weak 17.2 percent in Rhode Island, Congregationalism was effectively
nonexistent in the rest of the colonies, having not even one congregation
in five colonies. Neither the Congregationalists nor the Episcopalians were
long on clergy strongly motivated to Pursue church growth.
The Churching of America, 1776-1990, Roger Finke and Rodney Stark.
Rutgers University press. (1994) pp 31-40

>:|> Winthrop wasn't one of the founding fathers.
>:|
>:|When you were talking about "most people who came to America for economic
>:|reasons" were you referring to the founding fathers?? If you were, you really
>:|do need a grade school history education. It was clear from the context of
>:|your statement that you were referring to the colonial immigrants like
>:|Winthrop's fleet. Most of the founding fathers were not immigrants.
>:|

Another personal attack launched by Gardiner

>:|Geeze, you really don't know what youre talking about do you?
>:|

And another

and another

Why wasn't that point listed in the DOI if it as you say?

Why wasn't that point written into the Articles of Confederation is as you
say?

". . .Religion did not directly cause the revolt against Britian--which is
now seen as a conflict over political-constitutional ideas--it offered
powerful to the American cause at every step of the way."
Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, James H Hutson, LOC
(1998) pp 38

Now the latter can be questioned to a certain degree, because most of the
Anglican clergy remained loyal to England.

For some additional facts regarding the Clergy during the Revolution see:

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

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

>:|> Note, I checked the above, more Christian Right fantasy/opinion.
>:|> While it is true that most if not not all of our founding fathers were
>:|> religious, they never fought England for religion nor did they
>:|> set up the government to promote the Bible.
>:|
>:|You are fighting a straw horse. Although scholarship is clear that religion
>:|was a major factor in the American revolution, that is not to say that the
>:|goal was to establish a Biblical government. Where did that tangent come from??

The scholarship is not as clear as you are trying to claim it is.

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Dec 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/14/99

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

Gardiner had written previously:

>:| 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."
>:|

and:

ME:
John Adams was not an orthodox Christian. He was a combination Unitarian,
Deist, with some holdover Calvinist thoughts at times.

You will find as many writings of his that are highly critical and blasting
organized religion as you will find support of religion in general.

GARDINER:
>:|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."
>:|

ME:
THE ABOVE IS A BOGUS QUOTE

******************************************************************************
Did John Quincy Adams ever say that the American Revolution "connected in
one indissoluable bond the principles of civil government with the
principles of Christianity?"

Research by Jim Allison.

In the first edition of his videotape, America's Godly Heritage, David
Barton quotes John Quincy Adams as follows:

The highest glory of the American Revolution is this; it connected in
one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the
principles of Christianity.

While the quote doesn't appear in any of Barton's later works, it does turn
up in another popular Christian book, William J. Federer's, America's God
and Country: Encyclopedia of Quotations, p. 18. Federer provides a date for
the quotation (July 4, 1821), and gives the source as follows:

John Wingate Thornton, The Pulpit of the American Revolution 1860
(reprinted NY: Burt Franklin, 1860; 1970), p. XXIX.

We recently located this source and now suspect that John Quincy Adams
never uttered these words. Here's what we found:

Pages X through XXXVIII of the Thornton book are a historical introduction
to the subject of religion in the New England States, with a special focus
on the state of Massachusetts. Throughout this introduction, Thornton
quotes various early Americans on the subject of religion. At least some of
the quotations are footnoted, and all of them appear to be enclosed in
quotation marks. Sometimes portions of the quotations are italicized for
emphasis.

The words attributed to John Quincy Adams appear on page XXIX. None of
these words are placed in quotation marks. Rather, the sentence reads as if
Thornton is making his own conclusion about what John Quincy Adams
believed. Thornton's sentence reads as follows:

The highest glory of the American Revolution, said John Quincy Adams,
was this: IT CONNECTED IN ONE INDISSOLUBE BOND, THE PRINCIPLES OF CIVIL
GOVERNMENT WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIANITY (emphasis in the original).

No footnote for these words is given. Nor are the words attached to a date.
Hence, if these words are a quotation from Adams? it is impossible to trace
them back from Thornton's book to an original source. Elsewhere in the book
Adams' father (John Adams) is quoted properly, i.e., with footnotes and
quotation marks.

It appears, in other words, that somewhere down the line Thornton"s
conclusions about John Quincy Adams were passed off as Adam's own remarks.
In Federer's case, his reproduction of the quotation doesn't edit out the
words "said John Quincy Adams" and replace them with ellipses; either he
knowingly misreports Thornton's words, or he didn't check his sources for
accuracy. It is, of course, possible, that the printer made a mistake and
forgot the quotation marks but, until somebody can locate the original
source of the quote, there is no ground whatsoever to treat these words and
Adams' own. The quote should be regarded as bogus.

Please note: even if Adams did say these words it wouldn't bolster the
accomodationist's case; as we suggest elsewhere, Adams would simply be
wrong to argue that the federal Constitution embodies the principles of
Christianity. It doesn't, and Adams' saying so doesn't prove a thing.
Rather, the real importance of this quote is as a demonstration of just how
far some popular Christian authors will go to prove their case. Nothing in
the Thornton book justifies taking the "indissoluble bond" quote as John
Quincy Adams' own words, but because it says something the right wants to
hear, the words are pressed into service anyway. This isn't good
scholarship, and the consumers of Barton and Federer's work should be aware
of just how poor their research is.
TOM PETERS, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE

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

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

B. F. MORRIS a minister published in 1864 a 831 page book titled:
"Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United
States, Developed In The Official and Historical Annals of the republic.

The above mentioned book contains the same quote and attributes it to J. Q.
Adams, but it doesn't give a source, date or anything else for the quote.

Let me tell You what someone had to say about this book by Morris:
================================================================
Re: Cleveland without the Browns
Page 1

To: jal...@infi.net
Subject: Re: Cleveland without the Browns
From: John Vinci <jvi...@cybergate.net>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 22:02:47 +0000

jal...@infi.net wrote:

> On Fri, 31 Jan 1997 09:49:03 -0400, you wrote:
>:| >:ljal...@infi.net wrote:

JOHN Wrote:
I just happened to get it at a used book auction. At the time I didn't
realize what a find it was.

> But yes I will take you up on that offer.

> The pages are 153-154 (2 pgs)
> 213
>253-254 (2pgs)
> 272
> 318
> 320-321 (2 pgs)
> 323-328 (6 pgs)
> 15 pages total PLUS any and all footnotes used as references for these
> pages.

JOHN Wrote:
I'II tell you right now that there aren't a whole lot of references other
than maybe the authors' names. A little while back I did a little research
trying to find the sources in this book, hoping to possibly republish it.
It was quite a challenge. The ones that I did find where often quoted
sloppily or misquoted. In the end, the book was so bad that I gave up
altogether. That's not to say that I think it only has lies and error, it
does have some good stuff also.

I once tried to see if the Wallbuilders [the David Barton outfit,
LOL ] might want it, at which time I mentioned it's inaccuracies. When
they replied and told me that they had the book and that they found out the
same thing. They also said that while it has its inaccuracies, it could be
useful to give leads.

> John Vinci -- jvi...@cybergate.net
>Books for a Better America: http://www.wp.com/bba
> One Nation Under God: http://www.webcom.com/bba/onug
> An E-Newsletter on America's Christian Heritage.
> lf you don't have web access, e-mail me and I'II put you on the list.
> colonial Hall: http://www.webcom.com/bba/ch
> A look at America's Founders

What are all those web pages? You run them all? Have you checked ours
lately?

>Yes I run them, but I haven't had a chance lately to check out your
> page. I'II have to do it soon.

I guess I will have to check those pages out. Didn't know they existed

> Sincerely Yours,

> John

================================================================

Another book that gives no cite, no authority to the quote other then J Q
Adams.

Don't you find it is very interesting that there is never, I repeat, NEVER
an original cite to any document written by J Q Adams for this quote?
THAT INCLUDES YOUR OWN BOOK YOU CO-AUTHORED. You have the quote but no
cite, yet other quotes right along with it do have cites. LOL Shame,
shame.

Until an actual document can be located written by J Q Adams, this quote
has to be viewed as bogus.

m. benson

unread,

Dec 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/14/99

A great many of of founding fathers were definitely not conservative
christians. Several, including the Adams', John Hancock and several others,
especially those from the New England area were Unitarians and that is not
a conservative christian religion.

"Rick Gardiner" <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote in message

news:38559136...@pitnet.net...

> beyond dispute. He considered himself "attached to the doctrines of Jesus
in

> preference to all others."
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl153.htm
>
> Madison's seminary training speaks for itself. His views reflected those
of
> his mentor, the Calvinist clergyman, John Witherspoon.
>
> I think you will find that Monroe was an Anglican with sentiments often
> following Jefferson.
>

> JQ Adams was quite orthodox, and yes, he did say "the birthday of the
nation
> is indissolubly linked with the birth-day of the Saviour." John Quincy
Adams,
> An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport, at
> Their Request, on the Sixty-first Anniversary of the Declaration of
> Independence, July 4th, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 5
>
>

> But I'm surprised at you Jim. I thought you would have jumped into the
> "religious liberty in Virginia" thread in the colonial newsgroup by now.
>

> The data must be too overwhelming, huh?
>

> RG
> http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Dec 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/14/99

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

>:|> seminary
>:|> > trained Christians who clearly disagreed with you on this score.
>:|> >
>:|> > Try http://www.frii.com/~gosplow/sermons1.html
>:|> >
>:|> > RG
>:|>

>:|> When your responses are merely statements of the work in question, it is
>:|> hard to even take you seriously. Many of the great Christian philosophers
>:|> (many of whom have been giving saint status, such as St. Thomas Aquinas)

>:|> used critical thinking and reason to state their cases. You merely quote

>:|> and say "See, I told you so". It greatly decreases your credibility when
>:|> you use an unsupported argument. I'm am not trying to say that what you
>:|> choose to believe is wrong, merely lacking thought.
>:|
>:|I can't make heads or tails as to what you are trying to say. Please clarify.

>:|

I understood what he was saying:

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Dec 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/14/99

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

>:|> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|> >Jefferson was by no means a trinitarian, but the fact that he adored Jesus

>:|> is
>:|> >beyond dispute. He considered himself "attached to the doctrines of Jesus
>:|> in
>:|> >preference to all others."
>:|> http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl153.htm

>:|> >
>:|>
>:|> And he prepared the Jefferson Bible (actually called "The Life and Morals of

>:|> Jesus of Nazareth") - a careful and scholarly combination
>:|> of New Testament material directly by or about Jesus, with the
>:|> miracle-stories edited out of the mass. (His English-language version can
>:|> be found, apparently, at:
>:|> http://nothingistic.org/library/jefferson/jesus/toc.html )
>:|>
>:|> Although I don't know if someone who performed a cut-and-paste job on the
>:|> Christian
>:|> gospel, drawing from several traditional versions of them, would be
>:|> considered a "conservative Christian."
>:|
>:|Perhaps not. But certainly one who has such a
>:|devout interest in the morals of Jesus and who
>:|devotes a substantial portion of his intellectual
>:|life to the study of the new testament in the
>:|original language, etc., for the sake of his
>:|spiritual development, would have to be considered
>:|a "conservative" when juxtaposed to the likes of a
>:|Bill Clinton, or a Ted Kennedy.

I wonder why one will never find a word uttered by you regarding the views
Jefferson had about religion that go against your claims about him?
They do exist, and so many of them. The fact you totally ignore then says
volumes about your tunnel vision.

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Dec 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/14/99

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

>:|

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

>:|
>:|Good luck trying to get Mr. Johnson to support his claims with any evidence
>:|whatsoever. I have seen nothing substantive from him for over a year.
>:|

Which is worse, his [Robert L. Johnson] absolute statements or your
absolute statements?

I don't see a lot of difference between them.

BTW, you know full well the following isn't correct either.

>:|> Actually this is not true. Jefferson & Franklin were Deists but most of the

>:|> rest were conservative Christians. Also suggest a better definition of 'deist'
>:|> please.

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

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Dec 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/14/99

stn...@aol.com (StNeel) wrote:

>:|>Rick Gardiner Gard...@pitnet.net wrote
>:|

>:|>I'm not sure what Mr. St. Neel's definition is of a conservative Christian.
>:|>This I do know, the first six presidents, including Jefferson, were very
>:|>devout men. Washington's religious character is clearly delineated by his

>:|>daughter.......
>:|
>:|I entirely agree with you- President Washington rarely missed a Sunday at
>:|Church when he could go. All the founding fathers were devout. Jefferson can be
>:|taken at his word from the famous quote on the Jefferson monument at Wash. DC.
>:|I have sit in the pew used by Washington in Burton Church at Yorktown etc. (I
>:|used to live at Yorktown several years age).
>:|
>:| As an old man (well not that old I hope) I have see the PC bashing of the
>:|founding fathers & the errors (lies?) spread about over the last 30 years about
>:|church & state. Sad really. But I like Jay Leno's quizs showing the state of
>:|'learning' of the 'modern' students. One had astronomy at college & thought
>:|the earth had 5 moons.
>:|

So in other words what you are saying is, you don't give a damn about
truth, you just want to keep the myths alive?

How interesting, Gardiner loves people like you

He has a book he will be happy to sell you.

I assume you didn't bother to read any of the various posts I posted today
in answer to Gardiner's selected information?

Gardiner

unread,

Dec 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/14/99

jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>
> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >:|I'm not sure what Mr. St. Neel's definition is of a conservative Christian.
> >:|This I do know, the first six presidents, including Jefferson, were very
> >:|devout men. Washington's religious character is clearly delineated by his

> >:|daughter at http://www.universitylake.org/history/nelly.html
> >:|
>
> Dear readers, if there are any readers. This whole issue has been discussed
> before, and been documented. Each of Gardiner's tired pieces of evidence
> has ben countered by documented evidence

TRANSLATION: This is Mr. Alison's way of saying
that he has no evidence. Readers, dear readers, I
ask you whether Nellie Custis' (George
Washington's daughter) is a slightly more reliable
source than Mr. Alison, or Paul Boller, whom
Alison is sure to quote as a rebuttal?

Nellie's evidence is not tired, nor countered.
Alison is both.

> >:|Adams' rarely missed a Sunday worship service. His diary is replete with his

> >:|sentiments about Christianity http://www.universitylake.org/history/adamsdiary.html

> >:|
>
> And his writings are also full of the exact opposite as you know, or SHOULD
> know.

Are you kidding? The exact opposite?? I sure would
like to see that. I've never heard the "Adams was
a raving schizophrenic lunatic" theory before.
You'll have to do more for these fine readers than
make such an unjustifiable claim.

You'll have to give us some evidence. And don't
try to give us a tidbit here or there where John
Adams criticizes the persecutions of the
inquisition, etc., even Luther and Calvin did
that. Further, don't just give us a quote or two
where Adams disagrees with fine points of
Calvinist orthodoxy. To prove that Adams was a
deist, you have to show that he did not accept the
biblical revelation, etc. The evidence is entirely
to the contrary.

Go ahead, Jim. Give it your best shot. I can show
you where Adams was pretty brutal towards deism,
can you show me where he claimed that label for
himself??

I didn't think so.

> >:|Jefferson was by no means a trinitarian, but the fact that he adored Jesus is
> >:|beyond dispute. He considered himself "attached to the doctrines of Jesus in
> >:|preference to all others." http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl153.htm
>

> Note how the poster leaves out that fact that Jefferson rejected all the
> requirements of religion of that time to be considered a Christian. he did
> not believe the bible to be the inspired word of God,

Your ignorance on this score is revealing. Who are
you to determine what the criteria for being
considered a Christian in 1803 was? Many Christian
sects rejected practitioners of other
denominations as non-Christians. So, here comes
Alison in 1999, and he has the authoritative
criteria for what it meant to be a CHristian in
1803.

Well, under your criteria, Martin Luther certainly
was not a Christian, as he clearly rejected the
inspiration of the books in the Bible of James,
Jude, and II Peter.

Have there ever been any Christians in history,
Jim?

> >:|Madison's seminary training speaks for itself. His views reflected those of

> >:|his mentor, the Calvinist clergyman, John Witherspoon.
>

> Prove it.

It's done.

See James Smylie: "Madison and Witherspoon:
Theological Roots of American Political Thought,"
Princeton University Library Chronicle, 1961.

> >:|he did say "the birthday of the nation

> >:|is indissolubly linked with the birth-day of the Saviour." John Quincy Adams,
> >:|An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport, at
> >:|Their Request, on the Sixty-first Anniversary of the Declaration of
> >:|Independence, July 4th, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 5
>

> Duh, exactly what are you referring to here?

You have spent a boatload of time trying to prove
that he didn't say that the American Revolution
linked in an indissoluable bond the principles of
Christianity with the principles of civil
government. But he did say something with a
similar gist, proving that your interest is not in
disproving what he believed in this regard, but
prefering the letter to the spirit, the point you
want to prove is entirely missed.

RG
http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html

Gardiner

unread,

Dec 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/14/99

Alison's obviously unable to respond with any other approach than cut
and paste. Although I found it quite entertaining to read through a
dozen unrelated posts from last year, it sure would impress all of the
participants in this group if Alison was able to engage in a direct
debate on the subject matter at hand.

He has demonstrated an excellent ability to archive old posts. But not
quite as good as Deja.com. Alison would do us all a favor if he let the
experts be experts and the participants in a newsgroup interact with one
another in realtime.

Nope. Don't expect it. Expect more of the same.

I do recommend that participants read these old posts... when you retire
and you have a lot of time on your hands.

For those of you like me whose time is more valuable, just stick to the
interaction within the current thread.

Perhaps Alison doesn't realize just how ignored his massive cut and
pastes are.

Oh well.

RG
http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html

Gardiner

unread,

Dec 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/14/99

jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>
> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>

> >:|DulSm wrote:
> >:|>
> >:|> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote in message
> >:|> news:38559B8D...@pitnet.net...
> >:|> > Well, in the case of the American Revolution, there were boatloads of
> >:|> seminary
> >:|> > trained Christians who clearly disagreed with you on this score.
> >:|> >
> >:|> > Try http://www.frii.com/~gosplow/sermons1.html
> >:|> >
> >:|> > RG
> >:|>
>
> >:|> When your responses are merely statements of the work in question, it is
> >:|> hard to even take you seriously. Many of the great Christian philosophers
> >:|> (many of whom have been giving saint status, such as St. Thomas Aquinas)
> >:|> used critical thinking and reason to state their cases. You merely quote
> >:|> and say "See, I told you so". It greatly decreases your credibility when
> >:|> you use an unsupported argument. I'm am not trying to say that what you
> >:|> choose to believe is wrong, merely lacking thought.
> >:|
> >:|I can't make heads or tails as to what you are trying to say. Please clarify.
> >:|
>
> I understood what he was saying:

Okay, smart man, what is does Dullsman mean when he says "the work in
question." Go ahead, tell us "the work" which Dullman is referring to.

Gardiner

unread,

Dec 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/14/99

jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>
> >:| As an old man (well not that old I hope) I have see the PC bashing of the
> >:|founding fathers & the errors (lies?) spread about over the last 30 years about
> >:|church & state. Sad really. But I like Jay Leno's quizs showing the state of
> >:|'learning' of the 'modern' students. One had astronomy at college & thought
> >:|the earth had 5 moons.
> >:|
>
> So in other words what you are saying is, you don't give a damn about
> truth, you just want to keep the myths alive?

Uh, where do you read that in what St. Neel said? It sounds to me like
St. Neel is interested in preventing college students from believing
myths such as the fact that the earth has 5 moons, or such related
myths, like the myth that the founding of the U.S. was commenced by a
host of deists.

> How interesting, Gardiner loves people like you
>
> He has a book he will be happy to sell you.
>
> I assume you didn't bother to read any of the various posts I posted today
> in answer to Gardiner's selected information?

You mean your musty old reposts from years gone by and your massive
URLbot machine? Yes, Jim, you can assume that most people haven't
bothered to read through your tedious and unrelated material.

Try addressing someone in a personal fashion; you might actually learn
something.

DulSm

unread,

Dec 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/15/99

Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote in message

news:38571E3B...@pitnet.net...

DulSm: If you are at all familiar with argumentation, you would be aware
that the emotional argument is the weakest argument one can make.
Reading the statement I wrote earlier, I can see how it might be
confusing. So please, allow me to clarify my statement.
I was referring to the Bible as "the work in question". The reason I
say that the Bible is what is "in question" is because you reference it as
the word of God, the definitive source. Not only in this particular thread,
but in others as well. You do not confront the statement you respond to at
all. You merely denounce it and use a source as your evidence that is not
deemed credible by the audience. You do not use reasoning. That was the
point that I was trying to make.
By the way, do you actually know what my pseudonym is short for? After
all, name calling is the first resort of the weak. Tsk, Tsk.

Rick Gardiner

unread,

Dec 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/15/99

DulSm wrote:
>
> > > >:|> When your responses are merely statements of the work in question, it is
> > > >:|> hard to even take you seriously. Many of the great Christian philosophers
> > > >:|> (many of whom have been giving saint status, such as St. Thomas Aquinas)
> > > >:|> used critical thinking and reason to state their cases. You merely quote
> > > >:|> and say "See, I told you so". It greatly decreases your credibility when
> > > >:|> you use an unsupported argument. I'm am not trying to say that what you
> > > >:|> choose to believe is wrong, merely lacking thought.
> > > >:|
> > > >:|I can't make heads or tails as to what you are trying to say. Please clarify.
> > > >:|
> > >
> > > I understood what he was saying:
> >
> > Okay, smart man, what is does Dullsman mean when he says "the work in
> > question." Go ahead, tell us "the work" which Dullman is referring to.
> >
> > RG
>
> DulSm: If you are at all familiar with argumentation, you would be aware
> that the emotional argument is the weakest argument one can make.
> Reading the statement I wrote earlier, I can see how it might be
> confusing. So please, allow me to clarify my statement.
> I was referring to the Bible as "the work in question". The reason I
> say that the Bible is what is "in question" is because you reference it as
> the word of God, the definitive source.

You are in another world, pal. You have never seen me reference the Bible as
the word of God or the definitive source in these discussions. Kindly show
where I have done so, or admit that your own ability for argumentation is
entirely washed up.

If you are at all familiar with argumentation, you know what it means to build
a straw horse. Unless you can show where I have referenced the Bible as the
definitive authority, then you have built a straw horse, which demonstrates a
very weak ability to argue.

> Not only in this particular thread,
> but in others as well.

Oh yeah? I'm really interested in this allegation. Show me all the threads
where I have appealed to the Bible as the authoritative source.

If anything, in the most recent lengthy discusssion about the Jews and the
massacre of the innocent Amalekite children, one might get the sense that I
have argued that the Bible is filled with immoral commands. I don't know what
threads you have been reading, but you are obviously lost. I'm sure that if
you are this great arguer that you think you are, you will be able to point
out where I have appealed to the Bible as the definitive and authoritative
word of God.

I await an intelligent response.

Rick Gardiner

unread,

Dec 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/15/99

m. benson wrote:
>
> A great many of of founding fathers were definitely not conservative
> christians. Several, including the Adams', John Hancock and several others,
> especially those from the New England area were Unitarians and that is not
> a conservative christian religion.

Samuel Adams a Unitarian? what have you been smoking?

Bryan J. Maloney

unread,

Dec 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/15/99

In article <3856451F...@pitnet.net>, Gard...@pitnet.net wrote:

> I can't make heads or tails as to what you are trying to say. Please clarify.

You disagreed with a narrow-minded ideologue. Therefore, you must be
stupid, at least according to him.

When one has no facts, attack the technique.

--
"NASA": From the Attic Greek for "oopsie".

Gardiner

unread,

Dec 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/15/99

"Bryan J. Maloney" wrote:
>
> In article <3856451F...@pitnet.net>, Gard...@pitnet.net wrote:
>
> > I can't make heads or tails as to what you are trying to say. Please clarify.
>
> You disagreed with a narrow-minded ideologue. Therefore, you must be
> stupid, at least according to him.

Ah.... that explains it.

> When one has no facts, attack the technique.

That does seem to be the method of choice for those whose evidence is
lacking.

RG
http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html

B. Hill

unread,

Dec 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/15/99

to Gardiner

> > Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> > >:| Washington's religious character is clearly delineated by his
> > >:|daughter at http://www.universitylake.org/history/nelly.html
>

> Readers, dear readers, I
> ask you whether Nellie Custis' (George
> Washington's daughter) is a slightly more reliable
> source than Mr. Alison, or Paul Boller, whom
> Alison is sure to quote as a rebuttal?
>
> Nellie's evidence is not tired, nor countered.
>

As almost everybody knows, George Washington did NOT have a daughter! He had no children at
all. I have visited the above cited website, which refers to Nelly Custis as George
Washington's ADOPTED daughter. That, too, is too much of a stretch! Nelly was in fact George
Washington's step-granddaughter. To take this letter (which I strongly suspect is a fake!!)
and first of all translate her relationship to George Washington into that of an adopted
daughter, so that you can then call her his "daughter," is tantamount to TELLING A LIE -
something a good God-fearing Christian should never do!

Eleanor (Nelly) Parke Custis was born on March 31, 1779, at Abingdon, Virginia. On February
22, 1799, she married Lawrence Lewis (1767-1839) as his second wife. Nelly died on July 15,
1852 at Audley, Clarke County, Virginia. She appears to have had eight children, three of
whom grew to adulthood and left descendants.

Nelly's parents were John ("Jack") Parke CUSTIS (son of Martha Washington, stepson of George
Washington) who was born November 1754 and died November 5, 1781; he married Eleanor (Nelly)
CALVERT (1757-1811) on Feb. 3, 1774.

I would like to know the exact whereabouts of the ORIGINAL copy of Nelly's supposed "letter."
I would also like to know where the text of this "letter" was published for the very first
time. There is something about it that just doesn't ring true, and I am strongly disinclined
to believe a word of it.

Gardiner

unread,

Dec 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/15/99

"B. Hill" wrote:
>
> > > Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> > > >:| Washington's religious character is clearly delineated by his
> > > >:|daughter at http://www.universitylake.org/history/nelly.html
> >
> > Readers, dear readers, I
> > ask you whether Nellie Custis' (George
> > Washington's daughter) is a slightly more reliable
> > source than Mr. Alison, or Paul Boller, whom
> > Alison is sure to quote as a rebuttal?
> >
> > Nellie's evidence is not tired, nor countered.
>
> As almost everybody knows, George Washington did NOT have a daughter! He had no children at
> all.

As you clearly do not know, the Washingtons formally adopted Nelly
Custis and George Washington Parke Custis. Nelly Custis never knew
another home other than Mt. Vernon. Her parents were dead by the time
she was 2 years old. If George and Martha were not her adoptive parents,
who were? She resided at Mt. Vernon until she was 20 years old.

> I have visited the above cited website, which refers to Nelly Custis as George
> Washington's ADOPTED daughter. That, too, is too much of a stretch! Nelly was in fact George
> Washington's step-granddaughter.

In her correspondence, Nellie referred to George and Martha as her
parents. She is the one who is the liar and the "stretcher" I guess.

> To take this letter (which I strongly suspect is a fake!!)
> and first of all translate her relationship to George Washington into that of an adopted
> daughter, so that you can then call her his "daughter," is tantamount to TELLING A LIE -
> something a good God-fearing Christian should never do!

LOL! The only thing that is a fake is your attempt to deny the obvious.
The fact that the Washingtons adopted these children is common knowledge
to anyone with a modicum of historical knowledge. Just read his adopted
son's book entitled "Recollections and Private Memoirs of Washington by
his Adopted Son George Washington Parke Custis," New York, 1860.

The fact that Melly wrote the letter is also well documented (The
Writings of George Washington, Jared Sparks, editor (Boston: Ferdinand
Andrews, Publisher, 1838), Vol. XII, pp. 399-411).

Something tells me I wont get an apology from you for calling me a fake
and a liar.

> Eleanor (Nelly) Parke Custis was born on March 31, 1779, at Abingdon, Virginia.

You leave out the fact that she spent the next 20 years of her life as
the child of George and Martha at Mt. Vernon. If anyone was in a
position to evaluate the religious character, the person who observed
him day in and day out would be the best candidate.

> On February
> 22, 1799, she married Lawrence Lewis (1767-1839) as his second wife. Nelly died on July 15,
> 1852 at Audley, Clarke County, Virginia. She appears to have had eight children, three of
> whom grew to adulthood and left descendants.
>
> Nelly's parents were John ("Jack") Parke CUSTIS (son of Martha Washington, stepson of George
> Washington) who was born November 1754 and died November 5, 1781; he married Eleanor (Nelly)
> CALVERT (1757-1811) on Feb. 3, 1774.

Jack Custis and Nelly Calvert were both dead by 1781; Nelly was barely
2, she never knew her real parents. She called George Washington her
parent.

> I would like to know the exact whereabouts of the ORIGINAL copy of Nelly's supposed "letter."

The manuscript is in the papers of Jared Sparks.

> I would also like to know where the text of this "letter" was published for the very first
> time. There is something about it that just doesn't ring true, and I am strongly disinclined
> to believe a word of it.

No problem. See: The Writings of George Washington, Jared Sparks, editor
(Boston: Ferdinand Andrews, Publisher, 1838), Vol. XII, pp. 399-411.

Your desperate attempt to reject the obvious has you blinded. You
wouldn't accept Nelly's opinion if you were transported in a time
machine and went to Mt. Vernon and saw for yourself.

A fake..... Ha Ha Ha. What is your next joke?

RG
http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html

Gardiner

unread,

Dec 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/15/99

Lynden1000 wrote:
>
> >Please tell me the names of the Unitarian churches that the Adamses attended.
>
> Both John Adams and John Quincy Adams attended the First Unitarian Church,
> Quincy, Mass.

JQA....maybe. However, in light of the fact that William Ellery Channing
founded the Unitarian denomination in 1825, and in light of the fact
that John Adams died in 1826, I'd like to see some documentation for
your claim that John Adams attended a Unitarian church. Even if he did
attend such a church in the last year of his life, one would have to
agree that for most of his life he did not attend a Unitarian Church,
and thus, it is a bit deceitful to categorize him based upon a scanty
bit of church attendance. The same justification could be used for
calling him a presbyterian, as his diary indicates he attended
Presbyterian churches quite regularly.

RG
http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html

DulSm

unread,

Dec 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/16/99

Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote in message

news:3857912A...@pitnet.net...

> DulSm wrote:
> >
> > > > >:|> When your responses are merely statements of the work in
question, it is
> > > > >:|> hard to even take you seriously. Many of the great Christian
philosophers
> > > > >:|> (many of whom have been giving saint status, such as St. Thomas
Aquinas)
> > > > >:|> used critical thinking and reason to state their cases. You
merely quote
> > > > >:|> and say "See, I told you so". It greatly decreases your
credibility when
> > > > >:|> you use an unsupported argument. I'm am not trying to say that
what you
> > > > >:|> choose to believe is wrong, merely lacking thought.
> > > > >:|

> > > > >:|I can't make heads or tails as to what you are trying to say.
Please clarify.

First of all, I will start off by saying that I have never made any claims
of being a great arguer. Quite the opposite actually, I seek to improve my
skills all the time because I know that is the only way for one to grow. It
is frustrating to spend time reading pointless responses to intriguing
questions or statements. As you have probably already figured out, I am new
to the newsgroup readings. I mistook a message you quoted for a message
that you wrote. I had just spent quite a while reading the various threads,
and seeing someone quoting the bible over and over, and so when I came
across your rebuttal, I mistook it for your statement. Probably the most
difficult part of good discussion or argument is keeping in mind that one
must be willing to 'not win'. It is with a swallowing of misdirected pride
that I concede that I was wrong. Please accept my apologies.

DulSm

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Dec 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/16/99

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

>:|Alison's obviously unable to respond with any other approach than cut

Oh well is right.

But, not a word concerning any of the actual historical facts that were
presented and that countered much of your comments.

What else is new.

Actually, this came about because you show over and over again that you
seem to be incapable of correcting your own biased misconceptions.

You keep posting over and over again the sane material that has been sown
by me and others that was faulty.

One has to wonder what you would call someone who does that?

I mean, it is one thing to post something that is faulty, does not give the
full story, etc, but quiet another to keep posting the same thing when it
has been shown by several people, using various sources, to be faulty.

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Dec 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/16/99

"B. Hill" <bh...@uclink4.berkeley.edu> wrote:

>:|> > Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|> > >:| Washington's religious character is clearly delineated by his
>:|> > >:|daughter at http://www.universitylake.org/history/nelly.html
>:|>
>:|> Readers, dear readers, I
>:|> ask you whether Nellie Custis' (George
>:|> Washington's daughter) is a slightly more reliable
>:|> source than Mr. Alison, or Paul Boller, whom
>:|> Alison is sure to quote as a rebuttal?
>:|>
>:|> Nellie's evidence is not tired, nor countered.
>:|>
>:|
>:|As almost everybody knows, George Washington did NOT have a daughter! He had no children at

>:|all. I have visited the above cited website, which refers to Nelly Custis as George

>:|Washington's ADOPTED daughter. That, too, is too much of a stretch! Nelly was in fact George

>:|Washington's step-granddaughter. To take this letter (which I strongly suspect is a fake!!)

>:|and first of all translate her relationship to George Washington into that of an adopted
>:|daughter, so that you can then call her his "daughter," is tantamount to TELLING A LIE -
>:|something a good God-fearing Christian should never do!

>:|
>:|Eleanor (Nelly) Parke Custis was born on March 31, 1779, at Abingdon, Virginia. On February

>:|22, 1799, she married Lawrence Lewis (1767-1839) as his second wife. Nelly died on July 15,
>:|1852 at Audley, Clarke County, Virginia. She appears to have had eight children, three of
>:|whom grew to adulthood and left descendants.
>:|
>:|Nelly's parents were John ("Jack") Parke CUSTIS (son of Martha Washington, stepson of George
>:|Washington) who was born November 1754 and died November 5, 1781; he married Eleanor (Nelly)
>:|CALVERT (1757-1811) on Feb. 3, 1774.

>:|
>:|I would like to know the exact whereabouts of the ORIGINAL copy of Nelly's supposed "letter."
>:|I would also like to know where the text of this "letter" was published for the very first

>:|time. There is something about it that just doesn't ring true, and I am strongly disinclined
>:|to believe a word of it.

>:|
===============================================================
HERE IS SOME INFO GARDINER DOES NOT TELL YOU ABOUT
==================================================================

===============================================================
From: Napoleon Bean <bim...@boom.com>

Newsgroups:
alt.history,alt.history.colonial,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.religion.christian,alt.deism
Subject: Re: George Washington not Christian

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 09:19:44 -0700

>Gardiner wrote:

Napoleon Bean wrote:

> Nelly Custis lived at Mt. Vernon with Washington until the day of his death.
> This is what Nelly had to say about the "changes" in Washington's Christian beliefs:
>
> "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... 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."

normally expect to find is more significant than the evidence that turns

up. And her bias, however innocent and well-intentioned, is also plain:
"(S)he (Martha Washington) and her husband were so perfectly
united and happy that he MUST have been a Christian." Now, I am not versed
in Episcopal church history, but I would be surprised if its doctrine in
that century entertained for a moment that any non-Christian, however
otherwise eminently qualified, could ever reach heaven. I do know the
Roman Catholic Church did not officially concede that until this century.
Thus if Nelly believed her stepdad had to be in heaven, she had to believe
he was Christian-- did the times and her faith allow any other option?
From what I've learned about Nelly she was a decent, likable person, hardly
the sort to engage in any knowing mendacity. But her account hardly
convinces, if anything it moves speculation in the opposite direction. If
Washington conducted himself as a devout Christian, the same conduct also
can be said to "demonstrate" his private convictions were something
different. And of course, few on either side of the question would
agree with Nelly's pronouncement that direct evidence of Washington's
Christian beliefs is unnecessary-- on what other evidence is verifiable, it
is. I am not playing favorites here, you have noted the reliability issues
I identified with an Episcopal minister's emphatic pronouncement that
Washington was a Deist.

> If you allege that Washington rarely ever prayed as well (a subject you

> probably don't want to touch), the evidence is overwhelming that Washington
> was a fervent prayor.

> His wife knew. And when he died his wife "resigned him without a

> murmur into the arms of his Savior and his God, with the assured hope of his
> eternal felicity."

Why did you somehow neglect to mention that these were Nelly's words,
NOT Martha Washington's? You weren't actually attempting such a tacky hat
trick were you? Tsk, task. Nelly was NOT present when Washington died.
http://www.libertynet.org/iha/valleyforge/served/martha.html
In any event, unless there has been a major revamping of Christian
doctrine that somehow has eluded my notice, Joshua the Christened One
(i.e., "Jesus Christ" as known today) is the Savior of all, not just those
who have recognized it. Sorry, no "smoking gun" here, even if
Nelly could be her own corroboration.

Got anything else? By the way, what "happened" to Washington's baptismal
and/or confirmation "records?" Why did he die without benefit of clergy?

=========================================================
From: "Paul Browning" <ps...@home.com>
Newsgroups:
soc.history,alt.history,alt.history.colonial,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.religion.christian,alt.deism
,alt.atheism,alt.religion.deism
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 02:56:58 GMT

Washington, like many of our founding fathers was a Deist,
not a Christian.

Unlike Thomas Jefferson--and Thomas Paine, for that matter--Washington
never even got around to recording his belief that Christ was a great
ethical teacher. His reticence on the subject was truly remarkable.
Washington frequently alluded to Providence in his private correspondence.
But the name of Christ, in any correspondence whatsoever, does not appear
anywhere in his many letters to friends and associates throughout his life.
(Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion, Dallas: Southern Methodist
University Press, 1963, pp. 74-75.)
... if to believe in the divinity and resurrection of Christ and his
atonement for the sins of man and to participate in the sacrament of the
Lord's Supper are requisites for the Christian faith, then
Washington, on the evidence which we have examined, can hardly be
considered a Christian, except in the most nominal sense. (Paul F. Boller,
George Washington & Religion, Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press,
1963, p. 90.)

As President, Washington regularly attended Christian services, and he was
friendly in his attitude toward Christian values. However, he repeatedly
declined the church's sacraments. Never did he take communion, and when his
wife, Martha, did, he waited for her outside the sanctuary.... Even on his
deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered no prayer to Christ, and
expressed no wish to be attended by His representative. George Washington's
practice of Christianity was limited and superficial because he was not
himself a Christian. In the enlightened tradition of his day, he was a
devout Deist--just as many of the clergymen who knew him suspected. (Barry
Schwartz, George Washington: The Making of an American Symbol, New York:
The Free Press, 1987, pp. 174-175.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From me:

For Washington:

Well the book I have been citing:

George Washington & Religion, by Paul F. Boller, Southern
Methodist University Press: Dallas TX (1962)

Then:

Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation. Edwin
S. Gaustad, Harper & Row, (1987) pp 71 - 85 has some good material

And don't forget this:

"Though the cool deism of Washington can hardly be distinguished in broad

outline from that of Jefferson, the public reaction to the two men and

their religious views differed sharply. Only Jefferson was denounced as the
'howling atheist,' never Washington. Only Jefferson was attacked as the
enemy of the churches and the clergy, never Washington. A curious public
probed and punches Adams, Franklin and Jefferson regarding their Christian
convictions, but never Washington."

Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation. Edwin S. Gaustad,
Harper & Row, (1987) pp 77

=====================================================

From: jal...@pilot.infi.net
Newsgroups:
alt.history,alt.history.colonial,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.religion.christian,alt.deism
Subject: Re: George Washington not Christian

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 17:12:50 GMT

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

>:|Nelly Custis lived at Mt. Vernon with Washington until the day of his death.

>:|This is what Nelly had to say about the "changes" in Washington's Christian beliefs:

Glad you bought this up:

The book that I have referred to time and time again regarding Washington
mentions

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
On May 24, 1774, the Virginia Assembly, whose sessions Washington was
attending in Williamsburg, voted to observe a day of fasting, humiliation,
and prayer on the first day of June to demonstrate its sympathy with
Massachusetts on the day that the Boston Port Bill went into effect.
Washington, accordingly, noted in his diary on June 1: "Went to Church and
fasted all day.""' Here, as elsewhere, there have been attempts to read
profound spiritual significance into Washington's notation. "Will the
reader mark especially die latter clause of this note," exclaimed one
writer.

He went to church in conformity with the order passed by the
house of burgesses. But not only so-he did that also which,
perhaps, was not known to any mortal; which was known only
to Cod,-he faded all day. Who is not struck with the sincerity
and piety of this account?

==========================================================

He (Washington) did not, as Jared Sparks and many other writers after him
have asserted--as an instance of his "lively interest in church
affairs"--serve in two parishes at the same time.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: George Washington & Religion, by Paul F. Boller JR.
Southern Methodist University Press. (1963) pp 27

===============================================================
Washington transacted business on Sundays, visited friends and relatives,
traveled [in fact, he was once detained --by the "Sabbath police" for
traveling on Sunday when he was President] and sometimes went fox-hunting
instead of going to church.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: George Washington & Religion, by Paul F. Boller JR.
Southern Methodist University Press. (1963) pp 29
=============================================================
Washington's earliest biographers-even those who refused to place any
credence in Parson Weems's imaginative little improvisations about
Washington's piety-assumed, without laboring the point, that Washington was
a Christian. Aaron Bancroft (1807) declared simply Washington was Christian
in "principle and Practice," and John Marshall (1804-7) said briefly:
"Without making ostentatious profess ions of religion, he was a sincere
believer in the Christian faith, and a truly devout man." ,The doubts
raised by Robert Dale Owen Frances Wright in the
1830's seem to have had little immediate effect on biographers. Jared
Sparks (1837) and Washington Irving (1855-59), while making no use of
Weems's sentimentalities as source material for describing Washington's
religious life, also regarded his Christianity as unquestioned.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: George Washington & Religion, by Paul F. Boller JR.
Southern Methodist University Press. (1963) pp 67

Gardiner

unread,

Dec 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/16/99

jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>
> Nelly, born 1779, was a probably a devout Episcopalian, she was a
> grandchild of Washington's spouse by a previous marriage, the Washingtons
> assumed a parental role after her parents died and she probably loved
> George and Martha as much as she would parents. There are, however several
> curious aspects to her quotes you mention. First (and I am SURE this was
> just inadvertence), you managed to omit some significantly damaging parts
> to her statement, such as "I never witnessed his private devotions. I
> never inquired about them" and "He communed with his God in secret."

Is it damaging to Washington's Christianity that he followed Jesus'
mandate to "pray in secret" (Luke 6)?

> She
> actually had nothing to offer in terms of direct observation to settle the
> question of whether his convictions were Christian or something else, and
> what she did say doesn't make much sense-- how could she personally "know"
> while disclaiming any way of acquiring such knowledge?

She never disclaimed a way of acquiring knowledge about his convictions.
She said that she never "witnesses his private devotions." I have an
uncle who runs a Bible School in Pennsylvania, and I know his religious
convictions. But he conducts his prayers in private each day. I have
never witnessed his private devotions, he communes with his God in
secret.

Am I disclaiming any way of knowing his convictions? hardly.

> And this is again
> remarkable since she lived with the Washingtons for
> so long.

That is why her strong statement supporting the fact that Washington was
unquestionably a Christian is so persuasive. You can't live with someone
for twenty years and not know a thing or two about what they believe.

> This is one of these situations where the absence of evidence you
> normally expect to find is more significant than the evidence that turns
> up. And her bias, however innocent and well-intentioned, is also plain:
> "(S)he (Martha Washington) and her husband were so perfectly
> united and happy that he MUST have been a Christian." Now, I am not versed
> in Episcopal church history, but I would be surprised if its doctrine in
> that century entertained for a moment that any non-Christian, however
> otherwise eminently qualified, could ever reach heaven. I do know the
> Roman Catholic Church did not officially concede that until this century.
> Thus if Nelly believed her stepdad had to be in heaven, she had to believe
> he was Christian-- did the times and her faith allow any other option?

I see. You engage in a Freudian analysis of Nelly Custis in order to
explain away her clear testimony. That's desperate.

> From what I've learned about Nelly she was a decent, likable person, hardly
> the sort to engage in any knowing mendacity. But her account hardly
> convinces, if anything it moves speculation in the opposite direction.

You have not provided any such reason for that speculation. And indeed,
it would be "speculation."

> If
> Washington conducted himself as a devout Christian, the same conduct also
> can be said to "demonstrate" his private convictions were something
> different. And of course, few on either side of the question would
> agree with Nelly's pronouncement that direct evidence of Washington's
> Christian beliefs is unnecessary-- on what other evidence is verifiable, it
> is.

It was unnecessary for her, a person who lived with him for twenty
years, the same way it is unnecessary for anyone to give me evidence
that my father was a fisherman.

> I am not playing favorites here, you have noted the reliability issues
> I identified with an Episcopal minister's emphatic pronouncement that
> Washington was a Deist.

I don't think an episcopal minister who knew Washington only in passing
possesses the same level of first hand knowledge as does a person who
lived with George day in and day out.

> > If you allege that Washington rarely ever prayed as well (a subject you
> > probably don't want to touch), the evidence is overwhelming that Washington
> > was a fervent prayor.
>
> I have no problem with it one way or the other, but I hope you have
> something other than what I have previously mentioned. I ran across an
> argument that because Washington showed no reluctance to invoke a generic
> God in public, it is unlikely that he was sneaking around praying
> privately.

When Washington issued his days of prayer and thanksgiving, he never
stated that those who keep those rituals should do so in public. There
is no contradiction in a man insisting publicly that one ought to devote
oneself to God privately. I know my uncle does that.

> There is sense to that observation. Obviously Martha and Nelly
> wouldn't have been upset if they had happened to come upon Washington in
> Christian prayer. There is a difference between privacy and the total
> secrecy he supposedly engaged in to pray in his own household! If he was a
> "closet praying," the more plausible explanation is that Washington didn't
> want his wife or Nelly to freak out about the substance of it.

Or perhaps, more likely, he was doing as the Lord taught him to do.

> > His wife knew. And when he died his wife "resigned him without a
> > murmur into the arms of his Savior and his God, with the assured hope of his
> > eternal felicity."
>
> Why did you somehow neglect to mention that these were Nelly's words,
> NOT Martha Washington's? You weren't actually attempting such a tacky hat
> trick were you? Tsk, task. Nelly was NOT present when Washington died.

Tsk, tsk on you! Do you not think that the event of Washington's death
was never a matter of conversation between Martha and her adopted
daughter? Do you not think that Nellie knew her mother's predisposition
regarding religion either?

> In any event, unless there has been a major revamping of Christian
> doctrine that somehow has eluded my notice, Joshua the Christened One
> (i.e., "Jesus Christ" as known today) is the Savior of all, not just those
> who have recognized it. Sorry, no "smoking gun" here, even if
> Nelly could be her own corroboration.
>
> Got anything else? By the way, what "happened" to Washington's baptismal
> and/or confirmation "records?" Why did he die without benefit of clergy?

Check em out. Theyre still at Truro Parish, IIRC.

> Washington, like many of our founding fathers was a Deist,
> not a Christian.
>
> Unlike Thomas Jefferson--and Thomas Paine, for that matter--Washington
> never even got around to recording his belief that Christ was a great
> ethical teacher. His reticence on the subject was truly remarkable.
> Washington frequently alluded to Providence in his private correspondence.
> But the name of Christ, in any correspondence whatsoever, does not appear
> anywhere in his many letters to friends and associates throughout his life.
> (Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion, Dallas: Southern Methodist
> University Press, 1963, pp. 74-75.)

Here we go quoting Boller again. Asking us to believe that Boller would
know better than a person who lived with Washington for 20 years.

> ... if to believe in the divinity and resurrection of Christ and his
> atonement for the sins of man and to participate in the sacrament of the
> Lord's Supper are requisites for the Christian faith, then
> Washington, on the evidence which we have examined, can hardly be
> considered a Christian, except in the most nominal sense. (Paul F. Boller,
> George Washington & Religion, Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press,
> 1963, p. 90.)

I wonder if Boller can prove to me that my father was not a fisherman.

> As President, Washington regularly attended Christian services, and he was
> friendly in his attitude toward Christian values. However, he repeatedly
> declined the church's sacraments. Never did he take communion, and when his
> wife, Martha, did, he waited for her outside the sanctuary.... Even on his
> deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered no prayer to Christ, and
> expressed no wish to be attended by His representative. George Washington's
> practice of Christianity was limited and superficial because he was not
> himself a Christian. In the enlightened tradition of his day, he was a
> devout Deist--just as many of the clergymen who knew him suspected. (Barry
> Schwartz, George Washington: The Making of an American Symbol, New York:
> The Free Press, 1987, pp. 174-175.)

ooo, a new guy, Scwartz: notice how swartz takes the speculation of the
clergymen above the relentless insistance of the young lady who lived
with Washington.

> From me:
>
> For Washington:
>
> Well the book I have been citing:
>
> George Washington & Religion, by Paul F. Boller, Southern
> Methodist University Press: Dallas TX (1962)

Yep. That the source... about two hundred years after Nelly lived with
GW.

> Then:
>
> Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation. Edwin
> S. Gaustad, Harper & Row, (1987) pp 71 - 85 has some good material
>
> And don't forget this:
>
> "Though the cool deism of Washington can hardly be distinguished in broad
> outline from that of Jefferson, the public reaction to the two men and
> their religious views differed sharply. Only Jefferson was denounced as the
> 'howling atheist,' never Washington.

Perhaps that's because Washington was not a deist.

[snipped more quotes from a twentieth century speculator, not related to
the issue of Nellie's letter]

But this part is worth preserving:

jal...@infi.net

unread,

Dec 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/17/99

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

>:|Michael Burton wrote:
>:|>
>:|> In article <3856446C...@pitnet.net>, Gard...@pitnet.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> > Lynden1000 wrote:
>:|> > >
>:|> > > Add Thomas Paine, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Paul Revere, and Ethan Allen
>:|> > > to the list.They all attended Unitarian churches...they might not be Deists,
>:|> > > but were obviously not "conservative christians" by a long shot.
>:|> >
>:|> > Please tell me the names of the Unitarian churches that the Adamses attended.
>:|> >
>:|> > RG
>:|>
>:|> To my knowledge, Adams attended St John's Epospical church when in in
>:|> Washington DC? The current structure was built after the War of 1812, but
>:|> I believe that there was an earlier mission.
>:|
>:|Thanks for that info. If you read his diary, you find that Adams attended
>:|church just about every sunday, regardless of where he was. When he was in
>:|Philadelphia, which was quite often, he generally worshipped with the
>:|Presbyterians (very much anti-Deists), and when in Boston he attended the
>:|Congregational Churches.
>:|
>:|If you look at the demographic statistics for the time, you will find that
>:|there really were no Unitarian churches per se in Adams time. There were
>:|unitarian theologians such as Priestly and Jefferson. But Lynden's comment
>:|(above) that Adams attended a Unitarian church is simply mindless and muddleheaded.
>:|

Unitarian Universalist Origins Our Historic Faith
Mark W. Harris

Unitarians and Universalists have always been heretics. We are heretics
because we want to choose our faith, not because we desire to be
rebellious.

“Heresy” in Greek means “choice.” During the first three centuries of the
Christian church, believers could choose from a variety of tenets about
Jesus. Among these was a belief that Jesus was an entity sent by God on a
divine mission. Thus the word “Unitarian” developed, meaning the oneness of
God. Another religious choice in the first three centuries of the Common
Era (CE) was universal salvation. This was the belief that no person would
be condemned by God to eternal damnation in a fiery pit. Thus a
Universalist believed that all people will be saved. Christianity lost its
element of choice in 325 CE when the Nicene Creed established the Trinity
as dogma. For centuries thereafter, people who professed Unitarian or
Universalist beliefs were persecuted.

This was true until the sixteenth century when the Protestant Reformation
took hold in the remote mountains of Transylvania in eastern Europe. Here
the first edict of religious toleration in history was declared in 1568
during the reign of the first and only Unitarian king, John Sigismund.
Sigismund’ s court preacher, Frances David, had successively converted from
Catholicism to Lutheranism to Calvinism and finally to Unitarianism because
he could find no biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity.
Arguing that people should be allowed to choose among these faiths, he
said, “We need not think alike to love alike.”

In sixteenth-century Transylvania, Unitarian congregations were established
for the first time in history. These churches continue to preach the
Unitarian message in present-day Romania. Like their heretic forebears from
ancient times. these liberals could not see how the deification of a human
being or the simple recitation of creeds could help them to live better
lives. They said that we must follow Jesus, not worship him.

During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Unitarianism appeared
briefly in scattered locations. A Unitarian community in Rakow, Poland,
flourished for a time, and a book called On the Errors of the Trinity by a
Spaniard, Michael Servetus, was circulated throughout Europe. But
persecution frequently followed these believers. The Polish Unitarians were
completely suppressed, and Michael Servetus was burned at the stake.

Even where the harassment was not so extreme, people still opposed the
idea of choice in matters of religious faith. In 1791, scientist and
Unitarian minister Joseph Priestley had his laboratory burned and was
hounded out of England. He fled to America where he established American
Unitarian churches in the Philadelphia area.

Despite these European connections, Unitarianism as we know it in
North America is not a foreign import. In fact, the origins of our faith
began with some of the most historic congregations in Puritan New England
where each town was required to establish a congregationally independent
church that followed Calvinist doctrines.
Initially these congregational churches offered no religious choice
for their parishioners, but over time the strict doctrines of original sin
and predestination began to mellow.

By the mid-1700s a group of evangelicals were calling for the revival
of Puritan orthodoxy. They asserted their belief in humanity’s eternal
bondage to sin. People who opposed the revival, believing in free human
will and the loving benevolence of God, eventually became Unitarian. During
the first four decades of the nineteenth century, hundreds of these
original congregational churches fought over ideas about sin and
salvation, and especially over the doctrine of the Trinity. Most of the
churches split over these issues. In 1819, Unitarian minister William
Ellery Channing delivered a sermon called “Unitarian Christianity” and
helped to give the Unitarians a strong platform. Six years later the
American Unitarian Association was organized in Boston, Massachusetts.

Universalism developed in America in at least three distinct
geographical locations. The earliest preachers of the gospel of universal
salvation appeared in what were later the Middle Atlantic and Southern
states. By 1781, Elhanan Winchester had organized a Philadelphia
congregation of Universal Baptists. among its members was Benjamin
Rush, the famous physician and signer of the Declaration of Independence.

At about the same time, in the rural, interior sections of New
England, a small number of itinerant preachers, among then Caleb Rich,
began to disbelieve the strict Calvinist doctrines of eternal punishment.
They discovered from their biblical studies the new revelation of God’s
loving redemption of all. John Murray, an English preacher who
immigrated in 1770, helped lead the first Universalist church in
Gloucester, Massachusetts, in the battle to separate church and state.

From its beginnings, Universalism challenged its members to reach out
and embrace people whom society often marginalized. The Gloucester church
included a freed slave among its charter members, and the Universalists
became the first denomination to ordain women to the ministry, beginning in
1863 with Olympia Brown.

Universalism was a more evangelical faith than Unitarianism. After
officially organizing in 1793, the Universalists spread their faith across
the eastern United States and Canada. Hosea Ballou became the
denomination’s greatest leader during the nineteenth century, and he and
his followers, including Nathaniel Stacy, led the way in spreading their
faith.

Other preachers followed the advice of Universalist publisher Horace
Greeley and went West. One such person was Thomas Starr King, who is
credited with defining the difference between Unitarians and Universalists:
“Universalists believe that God is too good to damn people, and the
Unitarians believe that people are too good to be damned by God.” The
Universalists believed in a God who em-braced everyone, and this
eventually became central to their belief that lasting truth is found in
all religions, and that dignity and worth is innate to all people
regardless of sex, color, race, or class.

Growing out of this inclusive theology was a lasting impetus in both
denominations to create a more just society. Both Unitarians and
Universalists became active participants in many social justice movements
in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Unitarian preacher Theodore Parker was a prominent abolitionist,
defending fugitive slaves and offering support to American abolitionist
John Brown.

Other reformers included Universalists such as Charles Spear who
called for prison reform, and Clara Barton who went from Civil War “angel
of the battlefield” to become the founder of the American Red Cross.
Unitarians such as Dorothea Dix fought to “break the chains” of people
incarcerated in mental hospitals, and Samuel Gridley Howe started schools
for the blind. For the last two centuries, Unitarians and Universalists
have been at the forefront of movements working to free people from
whatever bonds may oppress them.

Two thousand years ago liberals were persecuted for seeking the
freedom to make religious choices, but such freedom has become central to
both Unitarianism and Universalism. As early as the 1830s, both groups were
studying and promulgating texts from world religions other than
Christianity. By the beginning of the twentieth century, humanists within
both traditions advocated that people could be religious without believing
in God. No one person, no one religion, can embrace all religious
truths.

By the middle of the twentieth century it became clear that Unitarians
and Universalists could have a stronger liberal religious voice if they
merged their efforts, and they did so in 1961, forming the Unitarian
Universalist Association. Many Unitarian Universalists became active in
the civil rights movement. James Reeb, a Unitarian Universalist
minister, was murdered in Selma, Alabama, after he and twenty percent of
the denomination’s ministers responded to Martin Luther King, Jr.'s call to
march for justice.

Today we are determined to continue to work for greater racial and
cultural diversity. In 1977, a women and religion resolution was passed by
the Association, and since then the denomination has responded to the
feminist challenge to change sexist structures and language, especially
with the publication of an inclusive hymnal. The denomination has affirmed
the rights of bisexuals, gays, lesbians, and transgendered persons,
including ordaining and settling gay and lesbian clergy in our
congregations, and in 1996, affirmed same-sex marriage.

All these efforts reflect a modern under-standing of universal
salvation. Unitarian Universalism welcomes all to an expanding circle of
understanding and choice in religious faith.

Our history has carried us from liberal Christian views about Jesus
and human nature to a rich pluralism that includes theist and atheist,
agnostic and humanist, pagan, Christian, Jew, and Buddhist. As our history
continues to evolve and unfold, we invite you to join us by choosing our
free faith.
UUA Main Page Search Our Site Contact Us

Unitarian Universalist Association
25 Beacon Street, Boston, MA 02108 -- Telephone (617) 742-2100 -- Fax
(617)
725-4979

Information
Feedback

This page was last updated November 12, 1999 by the UUA
Webmaster. All material copyright © 1998, Unitarian Universalist
Association. There have been 4188 accesses to this page since April 8,
1999.
Address of this page:
http://www.uua.org/info/origins.html

http://www.jjnet.com/famousuus/history.htm

jal...@infi.net

unread,

Dec 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/19/99

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

>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>

>:|> >:|I'm not sure what Mr. St. Neel's definition is of a conservative Christian.

>:|> >:|This I do know, the first six presidents, including Jefferson, were very

>:|> >:|devout men. Washington's religious character is clearly delineated by his
>:|> >:|daughter at http://www.universitylake.org/history/nelly.html
>:|> >:|
>:|>

Dear readers, this poster, as is his habit, speaks out of his as* instead
of his mouth, or in this case fingers.

As readers know, what followed this post was a series of posts, providing
all the evidence anyone needs to counter this poster.

Not only that but provided evidence by a man whom this poster has claimed
was one of his professors in college. (Edwin S. Gaustad )
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

ME:
>:|> Actually, Adams was considered to be a Universalist, with some Deist
>:|> leanings. He began as a Calvinist.
>:|

GARDINER:
>:|Citations?
>:|

ME:
Ok,

Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation. Edwin S. Gaustad, Harper

& Row, (1987) pp 85 - 97 should be good.

For Washington:

Well the book I have been citing:

George Washington & Religion, by Paul F. Boller, Southern Methodist
University Press: Dallas TX (1962)

Then:

Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation. Edwin S. Gaustad, Harper
& Row, (1987) pp 71 - 85 has some good material

And don't forget this:

'howling atheist,' never Washington. Only Jefferson was attacked as the
enemy of the churches and the clergy, never Washington. A curious public
probed and punches Adams, Franklin and Jefferson regarding their Christian
convictions, but never Washington."

Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation. Edwin S. Gaustad, Harper

& Row, (1987) pp 77

ME:
>:|> There is at least one letter where he gets down on his son for being such a
>:|> orthodox Christian.
>:|

GARDINER:
>:|Sounds like a distortion. Citations?
>:|

ME:
LOL

The founders were not as easy to classify as you would like to think and
try so hard to tell others.

They were complex, as most humans are, and that complexity extended to
their religious beliefs and thoughts as well.

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

GARDINER:
>:|> >:|Guess he was either a bad citizen or a major hypocrite, huh?
>:|> >:|
>:|>

ME:
>:|> Neither, he changed as many people do. he was not a standard every day type
>:|> Christian.
>:|
_____________________________________________________________

Ultimately he offered the lame excuse that, according to him, his ex
professor (Edwin S. Gaustad) hadn't studied or read enough. Yea, right,
LOL

Readers, dear readers, when you read her letter you see that she didn't
really see anything, is speculating, and last but not least, what would she
say?
BTW adopted daughter.

In the series of posts that followed this post was information pertaining
to her letter, and other such facts.

>:|Nellie's evidence is not tired, nor countered.

>:|Alison is both.

It was put in its proper context, all the padding you are adding to it was
removed.

>:|
>:|> >:|Adams' rarely missed a Sunday worship service. His diary is replete with his

>:|> >:|sentiments about Christianity http://www.universitylake.org/history/adamsdiary.html
>:|> >:|
>:|>
>:|> And his writings are also full of the exact opposite as you know, or SHOULD
>:|> know.
>:|
>:|Are you kidding? The exact opposite?? I sure would
>:|like to see that. I've never heard the "Adams was
>:|a raving schizophrenic lunatic" theory before.
>:|You'll have to do more for these fine readers than
>:|make such an unjustifiable claim.

I would recommend that these "fine readers" check out "Faith of Our
Fathers, Religion and the New Nation," by Edwin S. Gaustad. Haper & Row,
Publishers, San Francisco. (1987) pp 59-110 especially.

Then I would recommend the various references to religion, etc that can be
found in The Adams-Jefferson Letters, The Complete Correspondence Between
Thomas Jefferson and Abigial and John Adams, Edited by Lester J Cappon, U
of North Carolina Press. (1959 renewed 1987)

Adams tended to speak his mind.

He frequently made angry shots aimed at Calvinism, he decided to be a
lawyer instead of a minister so that he could exercise freedom of thought,
he scorned the Athanasian doctrine of trinity.

>:|
>:|You'll have to give us some evidence. And don't

>:|try to give us a tidbit here or there where John
>:|Adams criticizes the persecutions of the
>:|inquisition, etc., even Luther and Calvin did
>:|that. Further, don't just give us a quote or two
>:|where Adams disagrees with fine points of
>:|Calvinist orthodoxy. To prove that Adams was a
>:|deist, you have to show that he did not accept the
>:|biblical revelation, etc. The evidence is entirely
>:|to the contrary.

>:|

I leave the proving up to the scholars.

But just to set the record straight, here is my position:

"Actually, Adams was considered to be a Universalist, with some Deist
leanings. He began as a Calvinist."

You want to invent other positions for me, have a ball, but don't try and
claim they are mine.

>:|Go ahead, Jim. Give it your best shot. I can show

>:|you where Adams was pretty brutal towards deism,
>:|can you show me where he claimed that label for
>:|himself??

Deism is such a fearful thing to you, and I am beginning to understand why.
To establish your claims, you have to totally destroy any other potential
competing thought. But again, life has never been as black and white and
you want to paint it,

Deism took as many subtle forms as did Christianity in the late 1700s.
Deism was not non-religious. That seems to be a standard tactic back then
and still seems to be today, to try and paint anyone who was deist, or
shared some deist thinking were atheists or infidels, etc, . They weren't

Thomas Paine was not the official spokesman of it. He spoke of his thoughts
of it, those thoughts, in total or on part, might or might not be held by
others..

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

But the Creator in eighteenth-century deism, who, having established that
order, does not interfere in its operations, is scarcely the activist deity
invoked by fundamentalism; nor does the narrowly sectarian America of
fundamentalist interpretation at all resemble the broadly religious
commonwealth envisioned by the founders.

[snip]

The facts, I believe, are otherwise. In 1765, John Adams wrote that the
motivation that created America "was not religion alone, as is commonly
supposed." It was also "the love of universal liberty, and a hatred, a
dread, a horror" of the "confederacy of temporal and spiritual tyranny"
that characterized the reign of the House of Stuart in England. In
other words, America was founded, by Adams's account, out of humanistic
yearnings for freedom from ideological conformity and in abhorrence of
single-minded theocratic politics.
[Take the above quote as you will. It is not footnoted in the book, and I
don't have a cite for it. If anyone does I would be interested in having
it. I am always suspicious of un cited quotes, therefore, take it exactly
what it is, an un cited quote which may be valid and may not be.]

[snip]

When Thomas Jefferson introduced in the Virginia legislature a bill to
guarantee religious freedom, he made unmistakably clear his own preference
for a pluralistic society in which political qualification bore no relation
whatever to ideological profession. He wrote:

" Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more
than our opinions in physics and geometry; therefore the proscribing of
any citizen as unworthy of the public confidence by laying upon him an
incapacity of being called to office of public trust ... unless he profess
or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of
those privileges and advantages to which he has a natural [note the term]
right."(6)

[snip]

James Madison shared Jefferson's conviction that political institutions
have no business promoting or endorsing sectarian practices. So far was
Madison from believing that the national legislature had need of an
official chaplain for spiritual invocation and guidance, that he held such
chaplaincy to be "a palpable violation of equal rights as well as of
Constitutional principles."

William Lee Miller, who has made a special study of the
role of religion in the nation's founding, summarized the
conclusion of that study in these striking words:

Did "religious freedom" for Jefferson and Madison extend
to atheists? Yes. To agnostics, unbelievers, and pagans? Yes. To
heretics and blasphemers and the sacrilegious? Yes. To "the
Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohametan, the
Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination?" Yes. To Papists?
Yes. To "irreligion"? Yes. To people who want freedom from
religion? Yes. To people who want freedom against religion?
Yes.(9)

Fundamentalist reading, or misreading, of American history
notwithstanding, the Founding Fathers in the persons of Adams, Madison, and
Jefferson were not the nation's founding fundamentalists. Indeed, if
Jefferson were alive today, he would be denounced by Jerry Falwell as a
liberal apostate.

Jeffrson's regard for the Hebrew-Christian scriptures was so selective and
so contrary to fundamentalist notions of scripture's plenary authority that
it permitted him to choose some portions and to reject others, finally
creating and publishing a distinctive Jefferson Bible. Martin Marty
describes Jefferson as "militant against orthodoxy" and pictures him
spending "evenings cutting and pasting moral and non-miraculous elements of
the Gospels together in a multilingual The Life and Morals of Jesus of
Nazareth--while in the White House!"
FOOTNOTES
(6) Thomas Jefferson, "An Act for establishing Religious freedom" (1779)

(9) William Lee Miller, "The Ghost of freedoms Past," in The Washington
Post National Weekly Edition (13 October 1886), p. 23.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Religious Right, Religious Wrong. A Critique of the
Fundamentalist Phenomenon. By Lloyd J. Averill. The Pilgrim Press (1989) pp
99-103 (Lloyd J. Averill is a member of the faculty at the School of
Social Work, University of Washing, and Professor of Theology and
Preaching at Northwest Theological Union, Seattle.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>:|> >:|Jefferson was by no means a trinitarian, but the fact that he adored Jesus is

>:|> >:|beyond dispute. He considered himself "attached to the doctrines of Jesus in
>:|> >:|preference to all others." http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl153.htm
>:|>
>:|> Note how the poster leaves out that fact that Jefferson rejected all the
>:|> requirements of religion of that time to be considered a Christian. he did
>:|> not believe the bible to be the inspired word of God,
>:|
>:|Your ignorance on this score is revealing. Who are
>:|you to determine what the criteria for being
>:|considered a Christian in 1803 was? Many Christian
>:|sects rejected practitioners of other
>:|denominations as non-Christians. So, here comes
>:|Alison in 1999, and he has the authoritative
>:|criteria for what it meant to be a CHristian in
>:|1803.

Irrelevant smoke screen, lots of bluster, no facts.

[snip]

>:|> >:|Madison's seminary training speaks for itself. His views reflected those of

>:|> >:|his mentor, the Calvinist clergyman, John Witherspoon.
>:|>
>:|> Prove it.
>:|
>:|It's done.
>:|
>:|See James Smylie: "Madison and Witherspoon:
>:|Theological Roots of American Political Thought,"
>:|Princeton University Library Chronicle, 1961.
>:|

That's prove, huh?

I have not read the above, but I can say with complete assurance that it
will support your viewpoint.

However, I can say with equal assurance that there are a vast array of
historians, etc out there, as credentialed, respected, experienced as the
above named man who does not exactly say the same things he does.

In addition, I have mentioned several times James Madison A Biography by
Ralph Ketcham,The U Of Virginia Press, (1990) especially Chapter III (The
College New Jersey at Princeton pp 25-51.

For those who do check the above out, they will find some things that match
some of what this poster is claiming, they will also find things that do
not especially fit such and some things that seem to conflict with what
this poster keeps trying to claim.

Madison attended Princeton from July-August 1769 to September 1771.

Madison's teacher for his first year ( actually would have been his
sophomore year since he passed his freshman exams and didn't have to take
his freshman year as such) at Princeton was James Thompson
His Instructor for his junior year was William Churchill

He studied under Witherspoon as a senior and the six months he remained
there after graduation.

From this foundation, this poster builds all his wonderful padded theories
concerning the influence Witherspoon had on Madison for the rest of his
life.

>:|> >:|he did say "the birthday of the nation

>:|

False and you seem to be the one working so hard to salvage something to
protect the fact you included a bogus quote in your book, and it stands out
like a sore thumb, because you have no cite for it, yet did cite other
quotes.

As far as the above, where in J Q Adams papers, writings, works, etc can
the speech or quote be found?

You see, even speeches have notes, or the full speech is written out.

Do you have the original source?
===================================================================

Research by Jim Allison.

quotation marks. Sometimes portions of the quotations are italicized for
emphasis.

The words attributed to John Quincy Adams appear on page XXIX. None of

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

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

jal...@infi.net wrote:

> Sincerely Yours,

> John

================================================================

Gardiner

unread,

Dec 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/20/99

jal...@infi.net wrote:

>
> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >:|Go ahead, Jim. Give it your best shot. I can show
> >:|you where Adams was pretty brutal towards deism,
> >:|can you show me where he claimed that label for
> >:|himself??

There was my challenge, and here was your "evidence:"--

> Ladyhank: History is not my forte, so I'll leave the "America's founders"
> statements for someone else to respond to. Quite frankly, I feel I'm also
> being rather simplistic in offering you a better definition of "deist"
> since
> the info was so readily available on the net. I quote the following in the
> hopes that it will provide the better definition of "deist" that you are
> looking for. No arrogance is intended by the simplicity.
>
> First, a deist is simply a person who believes in deism. I don't think
> that's what you are asking, though. I gather that what you are asking is a
> definition of deism other than the one you have received in Robert
> Johnson's
> statement. I offer the following. As you will see, they concur with the
> above.
>
> Per dictionary at infoplease.com: Deism is: 1) belief in the existence of
> a
> God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of
> supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism). 2) belief in a God who
> created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.
>
> Per encyclopedia at infoplease.com: under the heading Deist: ...held that
> the course of nature sufficiently demonstrates the existence of God. For
> them formal religion was superfluous, and they scorned as spurious claims
> of
> supernatural religion. ... The term *freethinkers* is almost synonymous.
> Voltaire and J. J. Rousseau were deists, as were Benjamin Franklin, Thomas
> Jefferson, and George Washington. Bibliography: See E.R. Pike, *Slayers of
> Superstition* (1931, repr 1970); G. A. Koch, *Religion of the American
> Enlightenment* (1933, repr 1968).
>
> Per WWWebster Dictionary online: Deism: a movement or system of thought
> advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century
> denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe.
>
> Per Encyclopedia Britannica online: Deism: ...In general, it refers to
> what
> can be called natural religion, the acceptance of a certain body of
> religious knowledge that is inborn in every person or that can be acquired
> by the use of reason, as opposed to knowledge acquired through either
> revelation or the teaching of any church. The proponents of natural
> religion were strongly influenced by three intellectuals concerns: a
> growing
> faith in human reason, a distrust of religious claims of revelation that
> lead to dogmatism and intolerance, and, finally, an image of God as the
> rational architect of an ordered world.
>
> Per Encarta online: Deism: ...Generally, Deists held that a certain kind of
> religious knowledge is either inherent in each person or accessible through
> the exercise of reason. However, they denied the validity of religious
> claims based on revelation or on the teachings of any church.
>
> Hope this helps define Deism for you and for anyone else who may be
> curious.
>
> Peace, ladyhank

Now, you're gonna have to point out the paragraph of your huge
cut-and-paste above where John Adams identifies himself as a deist.

Perhaps you should have cut and pasted the Chicago Phone Book. It would
have proven about as much as your cut-and-paste above did, but it would
have been a lot longer, which would have fulfilled your
"smother-them-in-irrelevant-material" strategy in a much more profound
manner.

jal...@infi.net

unread,

Dec 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/20/99

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

Perhaps I don't involve myself in the discussions you invent.

But just to set the record straight, here is my position:

"Actually, Adams was considered to be a Universalist, with some Deist
leanings. He began as a Calvinist."

You want to invent other positions for me, have a ball, but don't try and
claim they are mine.

But since you did bring this up let me add the following:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[emphasis added]

LETTER TO SAMUEL MILLER, July 8, 1820

You know not the gratification you have given me by your kind, frank,
and candid letter. I must be a very unnatural son to entertain any
prejudices aginst the Calvinists, or Calvinism, according to your
confession of faith; for my father and mother, my uncles and aunts, and all
my predecessors, from our common ancestor, who landed in this country two
hundred years ago, wanting five months, were of that persuasion. Indeed, I
have never known any better people than the Calvinists. ***Nevertheless, I
must acknowledge that I cannot class myself under that denomination. My
opinions, indeed, on religious subjects ought not to be of any consequence
to any hut myself. To develop them, and the reasons for them, would
require a folio larger than Willard's Body of Divinity, and, after all, I
might scatter darkness rather than light.***
John Adams to Samuel Miller, July 8, 1820
In God We Trust, The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of the American Founding
Fathers, by Norman Cousins. Harper & Brothers N Y pp 111
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So according to the above excerpted letter we know what he didn't consider
himself to be in 1820

----------------------------
He identified himself with and became one of the leading Unitarians in
America.
In God We Trust, The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of the American Founding
Fathers, by Norman Cousins. Harper & Brothers N Y pp 75
-------------------

There is probably 40 pages or so devoted to Adams in the Cousins book, much
of it involving quotes from Adams writings on the subject of religion.

I recommend it be added to the list of other publications I have cited or
recommended.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, as mahab...@my-deja.com wrote:

As maff91 likes to finish his posts with:

Gardiner ineffectually crosses swords with Jim Alison.

<http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/qs.xp?ST=PS&QRY=Gardiner+AND+%7Ea+%28jalison*%29&defaultOp=AND&DBS=1&OP=dnquery.xp&LNG=ALL&subjects=&groups=&authors=&fromdate=&todate=&showsort=date&maxhits=100>

Rick Gardiner

unread,

Dec 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/20/99

Do you know what a non-sequitur is, Jimmy? If I say, "show me the declaration
of independence" and you post a cat-food recipe, you are lost.

If I say, "show me where Adams labeled himself a deist" and you post 500 lines
of ladyhank quoting various dictionaries, you are just as lost.

I know it's very very hard for you, but try to stay focused for a change.

> But since you did bring this up let me add the following:

[followed by more cut-and-pastes, none in which Adams identifies himself as a deist]

You see, Jimmy, the first time you do this to someone who thinks you are a
person of goodwill, they will actually read everything that you post, hoping
to find there the answer to the question you have been asked (cf. Richard
Tree), after the second and third time of asking you to provide an answer to a
question, and you posting phone books full of non-answers, people just start
to ignore everything you post, knowing that its a crap shoot as to whether the
question may be answered in the material.

jal...@infi.net

unread,

Dec 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/20/99

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

>:|jal...@infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|Go ahead, Jim. Give it your best shot. I can show
>:|> >:|you where Adams was pretty brutal towards deism,
>:|> >:|can you show me where he claimed that label for
>:|> >:|himself??
>:|
>:|There was my challenge, and here was your "evidence:"--

HERE IS SOME OF IT:
===============================================================
Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:

>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|I'm not sure what Mr. St. Neel's definition is of a conservative Christian.
>:|> >:|This I do know, the first six presidents, including Jefferson, were very
>:|> >:|devout men. Washington's religious character is clearly delineated by his
>:|> >:|daughter at http://www.universitylake.org/history/nelly.html
>:|> >:|
>:|>
>:|> Dear readers, if there are any readers. This whole issue has been discussed
>:|> before, and been documented. Each of Gardiner's tired pieces of evidence
>:|> has ben countered by documented evidence
>:|
>:|TRANSLATION: This is Mr. Alison's way of saying
>:|that he has no evidence.

Dear readers, this poster, as is his habit, speaks out of his as* instead
of his mouth, or in this case fingers.

As readers know, what followed this post was a series of posts, providing
all the evidence anyone needs to counter this poster.

Not only that but provided evidence by a man whom this poster has claimed
was one of his professors in college. (Edwin S. Gaustad )
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

ME:
>:|> Actually, Adams was considered to be a Universalist, with some Deist

>:|> leanings. He began as a Calvinist.

>:|

GARDINER:
>:|Citations?
>:|

ME:
Ok,

For Washington:

ME:
LOL

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

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

[emphasis added]

---------------------------
But on the administration of Christianity, he could swing just as strongly
in the opposite direction: "...ever since the Reformation, when or where
has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A Free
Inquiry of The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the
most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and
applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of sect,
though capable of the dearest proof, and you will soon find you have
disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands and
fly into your face and eyes."

In God We Trust, The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of the American Founding

Fathers, by Norman Cousins. Harper & Brothers N Y pp 74
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike George Washington, whose writings or statements having to do
with religion caused various groups to claim him as their own, john Adams
was fairly successful in convincing most religious bodies that he and they
were on opposite sides. The Deists might go along with his criticism of
church organization, but they would immediately be confronted with a
caustic attack by Adams on Thomas Paine, one of the most prominent
Deists of the age. Or the orthodox would be attracted by his statement that
he "had never known any better people than the Calvinists," among them
his own ancestors. But then Adams would turn around and say that Calvinism
was not to his own taste and ask how it "happened that millions of
fables, tales, legends have been blended with both jewish and Christian
revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"

In God We Trust, The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of the American Founding

Fathers, by Norman Cousins. Harper & Brothers N Y pp 74-75

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

To be called a Puritan, deist, Orthodox Christian, and Humanist in one
lifetime was no small achievement, but Adams was easily equal to it and
certainly untroubled by it.
In God We Trust, The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of the American Founding
Fathers, by Norman Cousins. Harper & Brothers N Y pp 75
---------------------
There is probably 40 pages or so devoted to Adams in the Cousins book, much
of it involving quotes from Adams writings on the subject of religion.

I recommend it be added to the list of other publications I have cited or
recommended.

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

>:|Readers, dear readers, I

>:|ask you whether Nellie Custis' (George
>:|Washington's daughter) is a slightly more reliable
>:|source than Mr. Alison, or Paul Boller, whom
>:|Alison is sure to quote as a rebuttal?

Readers, dear readers, when you read her letter you see that she didn't
really see anything, is speculating, and last but not least, what would she
say?
BTW adopted daughter.

In the series of posts that followed this post was information pertaining
to her letter, and other such facts.

>:|Nellie's evidence is not tired, nor countered.
>:|Alison is both.

It was put in its proper context, all the padding you are adding to it was
removed.

Readers who are interested will find the posts pertaining to this. In this
thread. Gardiner seems to have serious problems with senility.

He seems to think that is he pretends no such replies exist then others
will believe him.

>:|
>:|> >:|Adams' rarely missed a Sunday worship service. His diary is replete with his
>:|> >:|sentiments about Christianity http://www.universitylake.org/history/adamsdiary.html
>:|> >:|
>:|>
>:|> And his writings are also full of the exact opposite as you know, or SHOULD
>:|> know.
>:|
>:|Are you kidding? The exact opposite?? I sure would
>:|like to see that. I've never heard the "Adams was
>:|a raving schizophrenic lunatic" theory before.
>:|You'll have to do more for these fine readers than
>:|make such an unjustifiable claim.

See above in the info from the Cousins book.

I would recommend that these "fine readers" check out "Faith of Our

Fathers, Religion and the New Nation," by Edwin S. Gaustad. Harper & Row,

Publishers, San Francisco. (1987) pp 59-110 especially.

Adams tended to speak his mind.

He frequently made angry shots aimed at Calvinism, he decided to be a
lawyer instead of a minister so that he could exercise freedom of thought,
he scorned the Athanasian doctrine of trinity.

I leave the proving up to the scholars.

But just to set the record straight, here is my position:

"Actually, Adams was considered to be a Universalist, with some Deist
leanings. He began as a Calvinist."

You want to invent other positions for me, have a ball, but don't try and
claim they are mine.

>:|Go ahead, Jim. Give it your best shot. I can show
>:|you where Adams was pretty brutal towards deism,
>:|can you show me where he claimed that label for
>:|himself??

Deism is such a fearful thing to you, and I am beginning to understand why.

To establish your claims, you have to totally destroy any other potential
competing thought. But again, life has never been as black and white and
you want to paint it,

Thomas Paine was not the official spokesman of it. He spoke of his thoughts
of it, those thoughts, in total or on part, might or might not be held by
others..

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

Peace, ladyhank

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

[snip]

When Thomas Jefferson introduced in the Virginia legislature a bill to

[snip]

That's prove, huh?

Research by Jim Allison.

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

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

jal...@infi.net wrote:

> Sincerely Yours,

> John

================================================================

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Dec 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/27/99

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

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

"B. Hill" <bh...@uclink4.berkeley.edu> wrote:

>Gardiner wrote:

Napoleon Bean wrote:

Nelly, born 1779, was a probably a devout Episcopalian, she was a

grandchild of Washington's spouse by a previous marriage, the Washingtons
assumed a parental role after her parents died and she probably loved
George and Martha as much as she would parents. There are, however several
curious aspects to her quotes you mention. First (and I am SURE this was
just inadvertence), you managed to omit some significantly damaging parts
to her statement, such as "I never witnessed his private devotions. I

never inquired about them" and "He communed with his God in secret." She

actually had nothing to offer in terms of direct observation to settle the
question of whether his convictions were Christian or something else, and
what she did say doesn't make much sense-- how could she personally "know"

while disclaiming any way of acquiring such knowledge? And this is again

remarkable since she lived with the Washingtons for

so long. This is one of these situations where the absence of evidence you

normally expect to find is more significant than the evidence that turns
up. And her bias, however innocent and well-intentioned, is also plain:
"(S)he (Martha Washington) and her husband were so perfectly
united and happy that he MUST have been a Christian." Now, I am not versed
in Episcopal church history, but I would be surprised if its doctrine in
that century entertained for a moment that any non-Christian, however
otherwise eminently qualified, could ever reach heaven. I do know the
Roman Catholic Church did not officially concede that until this century.
Thus if Nelly believed her stepdad had to be in heaven, she had to believe
he was Christian-- did the times and her faith allow any other option?

From what I've learned about Nelly she was a decent, likable person, hardly
the sort to engage in any knowing mendacity. But her account hardly

convinces, if anything it moves speculation in the opposite direction. If

Washington conducted himself as a devout Christian, the same conduct also
can be said to "demonstrate" his private convictions were something
different. And of course, few on either side of the question would
agree with Nelly's pronouncement that direct evidence of Washington's
Christian beliefs is unnecessary-- on what other evidence is verifiable, it

is. I am not playing favorites here, you have noted the reliability issues

I identified with an Episcopal minister's emphatic pronouncement that
Washington was a Deist.

> If you allege that Washington rarely ever prayed as well (a subject you

> probably don't want to touch), the evidence is overwhelming that Washington
> was a fervent prayor.

privately. There is sense to that observation. Obviously Martha and Nelly

wouldn't have been upset if they had happened to come upon Washington in
Christian prayer. There is a difference between privacy and the total
secrecy he supposedly engaged in to pray in his own household! If he was a
"closet praying," the more plausible explanation is that Washington didn't
want his wife or Nelly to freak out about the substance of it.

> His wife knew. And when he died his wife "resigned him without a

> murmur into the arms of his Savior and his God, with the assured hope of his
> eternal felicity."

http://www.libertynet.org/iha/valleyforge/served/martha.html

In any event, unless there has been a major revamping of Christian
doctrine that somehow has eluded my notice, Joshua the Christened One
(i.e., "Jesus Christ" as known today) is the Savior of all, not just those
who have recognized it. Sorry, no "smoking gun" here, even if
Nelly could be her own corroboration.

Got anything else? By the way, what "happened" to Washington's baptismal
and/or confirmation "records?" Why did he die without benefit of clergy?

=========================================================

From: "Paul Browning" <ps...@home.com>
Newsgroups:
soc.history,alt.history,alt.history.colonial,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.religion.christian,alt.deism
,alt.atheism,alt.religion.deism
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 02:56:58 GMT

Washington, like many of our founding fathers was a Deist,
not a Christian.

... if to believe in the divinity and resurrection of Christ and his
atonement for the sins of man and to participate in the sacrament of the
Lord's Supper are requisites for the Christian faith, then
Washington, on the evidence which we have examined, can hardly be
considered a Christian, except in the most nominal sense. (Paul F. Boller,
George Washington & Religion, Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press,
1963, p. 90.)

As President, Washington regularly attended Christian services, and he was

friendly in his attitude toward Christian values. However, he repeatedly
declined the church's sacraments. Never did he take communion, and when his
wife, Martha, did, he waited for her outside the sanctuary.... Even on his
deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered no prayer to Christ, and
expressed no wish to be attended by His representative. George Washington's
practice of Christianity was limited and superficial because he was not
himself a Christian. In the enlightened tradition of his day, he was a
devout Deist--just as many of the clergymen who knew him suspected. (Barry
Schwartz, George Washington: The Making of an American Symbol, New York:
The Free Press, 1987, pp. 174-175.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From me:

For Washington:

Well the book I have been citing:

George Washington & Religion, by Paul F. Boller, Southern
Methodist University Press: Dallas TX (1962)

Then:

Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation. Edwin
S. Gaustad, Harper & Row, (1987) pp 71 - 85 has some good material

And don't forget this:

Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation. Edwin S. Gaustad,

=====================================================

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

SOURCE OF INFORMATION: George Washington & Religion, by Paul F. Boller JR.

Southern Methodist University Press. (1963) pp 32-35

==========================================================

He (Washington) did not, as Jared Sparks and many other writers after him
have asserted--as an instance of his "lively interest in church
affairs"--serve in two parishes at the same time.

SOURCE OF INFORMATION: George Washington & Religion, by Paul F. Boller JR.

Southern Methodist University Press. (1963) pp 27

SOURCE OF INFORMATION: George Washington & Religion, by Paul F. Boller JR.

Southern Methodist University Press. (1963) pp 29
=============================================================
Washington's earliest biographers-even those who refused to place any
credence in Parson Weems's imaginative little improvisations about
Washington's piety-assumed, without laboring the point, that Washington was

a Christian. Aaron Bancroft (1807) declared simply Washington was Christian

Rick Gardiner

unread,

Dec 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/27/99

Is it damaging to Washington's Christianity that he followed Jesus' mandate
to "pray in secret" (Luke 6)?

She never disclaimed a way of acquiring knowledge about his convictions. She
said that she never "witnesses his private devotions." I have an uncle who
runs a Bible School in Pennsylvania, and I know his religious convictions. But
he conducts his prayers in private each day. I have never witnessed his

private devotions, he communes with his God in secret.

Am I disclaiming any way of knowing his convictions? hardly.

> And this is again
> remarkable since she lived with the Washingtons for
> so long.

That is why her strong statement supporting the fact that Washington was
unquestionably a Christian is so persuasive. You can't live with someone for
twenty years and not know a thing or two about what they believe.

I see. You engage in a Freudian analysis of Nelly Custis in order to explain
away her clear testimony. That's desperate.

You have not provided any such reason for that speculation. And indeed, it
would be "speculation."

It was unnecessary for her, a person who lived with him for twenty years, the
same way it is unnecessary for anyone to give me evidence that my father was a fisherman.

> I am not playing favorites here, you have noted the reliability issues
> I identified with an Episcopal minister's emphatic pronouncement that
> Washington was a Deist.

I don't think an episcopal minister who knew Washington only in passing
possesses the same level of first hand knowledge as does a person who lived
with George day in and day out.

When Washington issued his days of prayer and thanksgiving, he never stated
that those who keep those rituals should do so in public. There is no
contradiction in a man insisting publicly that one ought to devote oneself to
God privately. I know my uncle does that.

Or perhaps, more likely, he was doing as the Lord taught him to do.

Tsk, tsk on you! Do you not think that the event of Washington's death was
never a matter of conversation between Martha and her adopted daughter? Do you
not think that Nellie knew her mother's predisposition regarding religion either?

Check em out. Theyre still at Truro Parish, IIRC.

Here we go quoting Boller again. Asking us to believe that Boller would know
better than a person who lived with Washington for 20 years.

I wonder if Boller can prove to me that my father was not a fisherman.

ooo, a new guy, Scwartz: notice how swartz takes the speculation of the
clergymen above the relentless insistance of the young lady who lived with Washington.

> From me:
>
> For Washington:
>
> Well the book I have been citing:
>
> George Washington & Religion, by Paul F. Boller, Southern
> Methodist University Press: Dallas TX (1962)

Yep. That the source... about two hundred years after Nelly lived with GW.

Perhaps that's because Washington was not a deist.

[snipped more quotes from a twentieth century speculator, not related to the
issue of Nellie's letter]

But this part is worth preserving:

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Dec 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/28/99

NUMBER 3 in this series. My full reply to Gardiner's position

3/7/99

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

>:|In regards to the fascinating new book on the founding of the U.S., 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
>:|

[Gardiner wrote ]

[I wrote]
This is true, So, what is your point?

>:|
>:| 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

>:|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.

Evidence?

>:|
>:| 3) The following "key founders" were strongly Christian, and by that,
>:|I mean traditional orthodox believers in the trinity:
>:|

Before we get into all this let me post the following:

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

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

Not all of the above applies to what follows, but a lot does.

>:|Patrick Henry (give me liberty)

Patrick Henry is mentioned above.

>:|Samuel Adams (boston tea party)

Something to bear in Mind. The mindset regarding religion carried by many
who lived in or came from one of the New England states was quite different
then the mind set regarding religion of people from most of the other
states. Three of those New England states continued with established
religions long after all other states had ended theirs. (Mass. didn't end
its establishment of religion until the 1830's)

>:|Roger Sherman (member of the Dec of Ind committee)
>:|James Otis (taxation w/o rep)
>:|James Madison (father of the constitution)

Whoa, you will find little if any evidence that Madison was highly
religious, highly Christian, etc.

And as is stated on the section I posted on quotations, it really doesn't
matter how religious or non religious a person was. The founders separated
religion and government.

Charles Pinckney offered the clause that directly separated church and
state at the Constitutional convention. He also led the fight in his home
state to disestablish religion in the revised South Carolina Constitution
in 1790.

>:| 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?

Jefferson went to W&M, he was one of the major forces for religious liberty
in this nation. He founded a secular University

Madison went to Princeton, and his role in religious liberty in this
country is well documented

>:|
>:| 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).

You had better go back and read those people's findings again. You are
leaving out a very large part of what they discovered.

On page 17 of Mr. Eidsmoe's advidavit he mentions the work of Dr. Donald S
Lutz and Dr. Charles Hyneman. In Feb past, Tom Peters was preparing for a
debate with some Fundamentalists in Louisville, Ky over one of David
Barton's commercial videos claiming this is a Christian nation, separation
is a myth, etc. On the Video in question which was going to be used as the
focus of the debate, David Barton had made mention of this same material.
Tom Peters asked me via email what I (Jim Allison) knew about this
information, and the following was my answer back to him in regards to that
matter. Uncensored I might add, :-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ok here we go, CHRISTIANITY AND THE CONSTITUTION, The Faith of Our
Founding
Fathers, by John Eidsmoe with forward by D. James Kennedy
Page 51

"Two professors (now u know you can't trust professors, LOL) Donald S
Lutz, and Charles S Hyneman have reviewed an estimated 15,000 items, and
closely read 2,200 books (these must be two really old people 2,200 books
closely read? ) pamphlets, newspaper articles, and monographs with
explicitly political content printed between 1760 and 1805. They reduced
this to 916 items, about 1/3 of all public political writings longer than
2000 words.

From these items, Lutz and Hyneman identified 3,154 references to other
sources. The source most often cited by the founding fathers was the bible,
which accounted for 34 percent of all citations. The Fifth book of the
bible, Deuteronomy, because of its heavy emphasis on biblical law, was
referred to frequently.

At the top of page 52 there is a chart and the first line of the chart
shows the percentage the bible was referred to
1760's 24%
1770's 44%
1780's 34%
1790's 29%
1800 - 05 38% for an over all average of 34%

Next in line was enlightenment and it carries an overall average of 22%
Whig is next with an overall average of 18%
Next is Common Law which is listed at 11% followed by
classical at 9% peers at 4% and others at 2%

Where this was published is suppose to have been Donald S Lutz, THE
RELATIVE INFLUENCE OF EUROPEAN WRITERS ON LATE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY POLITICAL
THOUGHT." AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW 189 (1984) 189-197.

Ok that's it, there are some other charts listing individual people like
Blackstone, Locke, Hume, Coke Milton etc in the order he claims they were
cited and Blackstone came in second at 7.9% with Montesquieu leading among
individuals with 8.3%..

I have some problems with the above information. All the numbers seems like
just that a lot of numbers but I am not sure any real bridges are
established between them definning exactly what all is considered. We also
are covering a 45 year period of time and only the vague term founding
fathers used. Lower case letters at that for founding fathers so how many
people and who exactly are these people. How many were fire and brimstone
New England preachers of the time frame 1760 to 1780 are there using
speeches delivered from Sunday Pulpits prior to and during the war of
Independence.

How many of these people were the people who really were Founders and were
considered for the time frame of the creation of this government.

Now to be fair he lists 216 items were examined for the 1760s, 544 for the
1770's, 1306 for the 1780's 674 for the 1790's, and 414 for the 1800-05

But again no way of knowing just what those items are or who said them or
wrote them etc.

But here is what I have to offer as rebuttal show and tell again.

if you want to go to which ever one of your libraries (regular or law) that
has them and look at the 12 published volumes of THE DOCUMENTARY HISTORY
OF THE RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION. (Don't be fooled by the numbering,
the books aren't published in a proper order. The published volumes thus
far are 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18

if you look at volume 13 you will find on page 601 of the index the heading
Biblical References and it contains 24 page numbers listed for it. Volume
13 contains at least 579 pages of material from the people of those times.

For the three Virginia volumes you will find in the index under Biblical
References 46 page numbers which contain Biblical references on them. These
three books contain at least 1692 pages of historical material from the men
of those times.

So what we find is 67 pages listed as containing some reference to the
Bible out of a total of at least a total of 2271 pages of actual historical
documents, letters, newspaper articles, pamphlets, etc.

You can look at the remaining volumes there and you will find some indexes
don't even list Biblical references but the % doesn't change for the other
volumes that do contain such references.

If you take one of these book to your debate and let people see for
themselves I think the point will be made quite clearly.

(Our Secret, Susan's and mine. We go to Pat Robertson's Regent University,
School of Law and use the law Library there to research a lot of the
material we gather to use against the Christian Coalition, and the
religious right in general. its is such an enjoyable ironic situation.)

Ok first level of stuff from Regent.

While there we found and copied the ten pages that make up the Lutz
article as it appeared when it was published in 1984 in the AMERICAN
POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW.

Some additional light is shed on the information. Some of the material
that was used is given after all and some of it was THE COMPLETE
ANTI-FEDERALIST,
I have researched those six volumes that make up THE COMPLETE
ANTI-FEDERALIST in the past, and am aware of the religious references that
are in those books and was not impressed with their quanity.

Some other anti-federalist material unnamed, and some federalist material
which is unnamed.

It does say that "the proceedings of legislatures and conventions were not
included." it doesn't say why.

Another point made was that, "a citation count need not distinguish between
positive and negative citations."

The bible could have been cited in a positive way or negative way, doesn't
matter it was counted both ways..

Weaknesses of this method is, "that it cannot distinguish among citations
that represent the borrowing of an idea, the adapting of an idea, the
approval of an idea, the opposition of an idea, or an appeal to authority."

The purpose of this research was to try and determine the influence
European writers etc had on American political thought and in regards to
the Bible no real effort was made to determine just why the results or the
actual meaning of the results. But the highest % in regards to the Bible
was in the 1760's to 1780's period, the period of time when the actual
Constitution and BOR was being written debated ratified etc had the lowest
Biblical citations the 1780's and 1790's were 34% and 29% respectively
which was the lowest citation periods. (we know from the experiment above
had that material been included it would have been even lower)

Much of the Bible citations were a result of sermons that were published in
pamphlet forms and handed out much of the pre war of Independence period.
In fact this form of publishing represented about 10% of the total
publishing done in this nation at that time. Of course we have 16 years of
this 45 year period of time (1760 to 1776) with 9 of the colonies still
being under various forms of establishments. This study may give some
insights into what influence the Europeans had on American Political
thought but it is a far cry from giving any meaning or insight as to what
if any accurate meaning the figures they came up with concerning the bible
citation indicated or really meant.

The pattern of citations during the years 1787 and 1788 was, "The Bible's
prominence disappears, which is not surprising since the debate centered
upon specific institutions which the bible had little to say. The
anit-federalists do drag it in with respect to basic principles of
government but the federalists inclination to enlightenment is most evident
here in their failure to consider the bible relevant."

They include a chart here that lists the total for citations for the bible
for 1780's at 34% a repeat of the other chart but it lists only federalists
and anti-federalits and list federalists at 0% and anti-federalists at 9%
apparently whomever made up the other 25% were neither federalists or
anti-federalists. So it makes one think who were they? They didn't appear
to be very political since the two named groups mad up the bulk of the
political thinking of the times.

There is no further additions to the Bible findings added in the conclusion
and that isn't surprising since it was just an interesting sidelight found
while conducting a study of something else totally different.

So depending on exactly what Barton tries to make of this information it
really isn't that important. I also don't particularly like the fact that
so much of the entire political debate as indicated in the 12 volume set of
books appears to have been left out. Those results would have lowered the
overall Bible citation % quiet a bit for that time period. I also cannot
for the life of me recall anything like one third of any possible
citations in the Complete anti federalist being religious in any form There
just wasn't that much in there and I made note of and checked out every
reference to religion that was given in the index for all six volumes.

Anyways that is that.

I just sent you the results of my work with this claim and have only one
more thing to add.

The selection process predetermines the outcomes.

While in the world of scholarship and academia the research that was done
might have been acceptable, I find that the lack of naming the source
material in any better way then they did and the total opposite results to
be found in the books I consulted is disturbing.

Of course there is also the issue of who cited anything and how often did
people cite anything.

That wasn't addressed and is important to know.

I suppose that cites on 67 pages out of roughly 2100 pages pertaining to
the bible might represent 34% of the total cites to be found in those 2100
pages. But what does it mean if that was the case. It means people didn't
cite anything much and the bible even less. No conclusions such as Barton
might be trying to form or might want to imply to others is gonna be
supported by that information.
(BTW one additional item. In those 67 pages the reference might have only
been ne single sentence on the entire page, it doesn mean all that was
contained on that page was about the Bible.)

******************************************************************************
***
And

Separation of Church and State Home Page
How often did the founders quote the Bible?
Research by Jim Allison and Tom Peters.
In the first version of his videotape, America 's Godly Heritage, David
Barton makes reference to two University of Houston researchers who studied
the most frequently cited authors in the writings of the founding fathers.
According to Barton, these researchers concluded that 94% of all the
citations found in these writings were either to the Bible, or to authors
who based their conclusions on the Bible. This, he concludes, demonstrates
the profound influence of the Bible on the Constitution.

While Barton doesn't name the researchers in his videotape, he refers to
them in his recent book, Original Intent. Barton's reference is to The
Origins of American Constitutionalism (hereafter, Origins), a 1988 book by
political scientist Donald Lutz. On pages 136-149 of Origins, Lutz
summarizes the results of a 1984 paper in which he and colleague Charles
Hyneman analyze some 15,000 items of American political commentary
published between 1760 and 1805 ("The Relative Influence of European
Writers on Late Eighteenth-Century American Political Thought," The
American Political Science Review, 78 (1984), pp. 189-197; hereafter,
Relative Influence). The purpose of the paper was to determine the sources
that most influenced the development of American political thought during
our nation's founding period.

Does Lutz's and Hyneman's research support Barton's conclusions about the
Bible and the Constitution? In some ways, the answer is "yes." In
particular, Lutz and Hyneman demonstrate that the Bible was the most
frequently quoted source between 1760 and 1805, and he concludes that
future research on the development of American political thought should
include increased attention to "biblical and common law sources" (Relative
Influence, p. 190). It is perfectly reasonable that Barton would use this
evidence to support his argument, and we have no quarrel with that aspect
of Barton's case.

But this isn't all that Lutz concludes. Lutz also devotes a full section of
his article to political writings about the Constitution, and these data
largely refute Barton's conclusions. Needless to say, Barton doesn't report
these data, despite their relevance to his argument. Additionally, Barton
attributes to Lutz and Hyneman conclusions they do not reach about the
importance of the Bible during the founding period. Accordingly, Barton's
treatment of Lutz's data is both selective and dishonest.

Let's begin with Barton's 94% figure. In the videotape, Barton breaks it
down as follows: 34% ofthe founder's quotations were taken directly from
the Bible, and 60% were from authors that base their conclusions on the
Bible. The 34% figure, at least, is accurate; this corresponds exactly to
Lutz's and Hyneman's conclusions with respect to the total percentage of
citations between 1760 and 1805. But where does the 60% figure come from?
Not from the paper; Lutz and Hyneman provide no category of citations that
even remotely corresponds to "authors that base their conclusions on the
Bible." Rather, the 60% figure is manufactured by Barton himself on the
basis of his own reading of other authors that scored highly in Lutz and
Hyneman's survey people like Montesquieu, Blackstone, and Locke. You would
not know this from the videotape, which reports the 60% figure as if it
were the conclusions of Lutz and Hyneman themselves. [Note: there are a
number of problems with this 60% figure. In particular, Barton overstates
the degree to which these authors used the Bible in reaching their own
conclusions. We'll do an article on this issue at a later time.]

Beyond this, what exactly does this 94% figure prove? Barton wants us to
think that because the founders quoted at length from the Bible, or people
that quoted the Bible, the Constitution must somehow embody Biblical law,
be "based" on the Bible. or otherwise have the Bible in mind. But this
doesn't follow; the fact that the Bible was frequently quoted is not the
same thing as saving it was quoted for the purpose of creating a legal code
or the Constitution, Indeed, Lutz's and Hyneman's data suggest that the
Bible was for the most part irrelevant to the Constitution, and that what
connections there were between the Bible and the Constitution are not of
the type that support Barton's claims.

First, Barton does not report the most relevant evidence from Lutz's
article: in addition to their general citation count from 1760 to 1805,
Lutz and Hyneman compile a count specific to political debate on the
Constitution between the years 1787 and 1788 (the years corresponding to
the drafting and ratification of the Constitution). According to Lutz, this
sample "comes close to exhausting" the literature written on the
Constitution during this period (Relative Influence, p. 194). If the
founders believed that the Bible was truly relevant to the Constitution,
Biblical citations should appear in abundance in this sample, but, they
don't. On the contrary, Biblical citations are virtually nonexistent in
this sample. According to Lutz, federalist (i.e., pro-Constitution) writers
never quoted the Bible in their political writings between 1 787 and 1 788.
Conversely. anti-federalist writers quoted the Bible only 9% of the time.
According to Lutz:
The Bible's prominence disappears, which is not surprising since the
debate centered upon specific institutions about which the Bible has little
to say. The Anti-Federalists do drag it in with respect to basic principles
of government, but the Federalist's inclination to Enlightenment
rationalism is most evident here in their failure to consider the Bible
relevant....The debate surrounding the adoption of the Constitution was
fought out mainly in the context of Montesquieu, Blackstone, the English
Whigs, and major writers of the Enlightenment (Relative /nfluence, pp.
194-195, emphasis ours).

Additionally, Barton omits Lutz's breakdown of sources for his 34% figure.
Three fourths of the Biblical citations in Lutz's 1760 to 1805 sample come,
not from secular sources, but from reprinted sermons (one of the most
popular types of political writing during these years). Conversely the
Bible accounts for only 9% of all citations in secular literature, about
equal to the number of citations from classical authors (Origins, p. 140).
Hence, were it not for the political activity of religious clergy, the
Bible would be tied for fourth place among source citations during 1760 and
1805.

Interestingly, Barton's reference to Lutz's work in Original Intent is not
to Lutz's article, but to Origins, Lutz's later book. Lutz's book reports
his 1984 data in abbreviated form, and does not refer to his citation count
for the years 1787 to 1788, or the conclusions he draws from that count. A
reader that simply follows Barton's citations, in other words, would be
ignorant of this data. At the same time, no reader of Lutz book would
likely come away with the feeling that the Constitution was written with
the Bible particularly in mind. As Lutz documents, by the time of the
Constitution, American political theory was a rich tapestry of ideas drawn
from many different sources; the Bible and colonial covenant theology were
simply two of many influences that played in the minds of the American
founders.

In the end, Lutz's work is far more supportive of separation than of
accomodationism. Did the founder's quote the Bible in their political
writings? Of course they did, and there is nothing remarkable about that
fact. Lutz's data suggest that, whatever the cultmal influence of the
Bible, it did not play much of a role in the construction of the
Constitution. On the contrary, the Constitution is a secular document
concerned with the nuts and bolts issues of how to create a workable nation
in a land of economic, cultural, and religious diversity. It simply did not
touch on matters relevant to the Bible.
TOM PETERS, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE

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

>:|Blackstone was a full fledged believer in revealed religion (i.e., the
>:|bible),

Irrelevant
His works that were cited were Commentaries on the Laws of England.
There was only one chapter or so that had anything to do with Religion, and
one must remember, England had an established church. reliigon and
government were very much in a union with each other.

>and most of his content was rooted in medieval (Catholic) political
>:|philosophy (e.g., the Magna Carta).

I don't even know what that is suppose to mean.

>:|What's more, the entire Common Law
>:|tradition was rooted in orthodox Christianity.
>:|

The above is disputed, Disputed in fact by Thomas Jefferson, who presents a
great deal of evidence showing that Christianity is not part of the English
Common Law

>:| 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!
>:|

In 1776 only 17% of the American population was churched.

In 1800 when the government began functioning in Washington D C there was
only one church in D C and it had less then 20 members. The following year
the church had shut its doors.

>:| 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!!

The historical facts are that Washington was not a very committed
Christian. The common accepted preception is, he shared Deist thought,
was a Mason, fully believed in religious freedom and equality and attended
church regularly at times in his life and very infrequent at other times.
he was never known to partake of communion, his wife would but Washington
would leave first.

Do you have a original cite for the above "prayer"

Without an original cite it is meaningless. Second hand sources that do not
provide original sources cites are highly suspect.

>:|
>:| 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."

John Adams was not an orthodox Chrisitian. He was a combination Unitarian,
Deist, with some holdover Calvinist thoughts at times.

You will find as many writings of his that are highly critical and blasting
organizied religion aas you will find support of religion in general.

>:|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."
>:|

THE ABOVE IS A BOGUS QUOTE

Research by Jim Allison.

TOM PETERS, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE

******************************************************************************
****
>:| 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.
>:|

You will have to do better then the above. You really seem to be working
hard at trying to claim Jefferson as one of your own.
Solid examples would go much father in trying to establish your claims. Do
yoo have any examples of his writings etc that would do this?

>:| 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.

There is much that could be offered to the above but for this installment I
will only add the following:

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

Did Montesquieu base his theory of separation of powers on the Bible?

Barren Charles Louis Joseph de Secondat Montesquieu was a nobleman who
wrote extensively about political theory. In his famous work The Spirit of
the Laws, Montesquieu became the first to articulate in a detailed way the
doctrine of separation of powers (i.e., the theory that liberty is best
protected when government distributes executive, legislative, and judicial
power among three branches of government, so that no one branch can control
all three). By all accounts America's founding fathers were deeply
influenced by Montesquieu; citations to Montesquieu pop up with great
frequency in the political discourse of revolutionary America, and his
work was a major justifrcation for the structure of the American
Constitution.

In his book America's God and Country (p. 453), William Federer claims
that Montesquieu based his theory of divided powers on two Biblical
passages: Isaiah 33:22, and Jeremiah 17:19. The Isaiah passage reads as
follows:

The LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king.

The Jeremiah passage reads:

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who
can know it?

According to Federer, the Jeremiah passage provides the motive for
separated powers; since the heart is wicked it's best to divide powers to
minimize the amount ofpower that any one individual person can possess. The
Isaiah passage, on the other hand, provided Montesquieu with the structure
for a divided government. Federer references these verses to page 457 of
Anne Cohler's 1989 translation of The Spirit of the Laws, These same
verses are also referred to by David Barton in his work The Myrh of
Separation, pp. 195-196. Unlike Federer, harvever, Barton does not
explicitly claim that Montesquieu based his work on these verses, and does
not provide relevant citations to Montesquieu's text.

The problem with Federer's argument is that it is not true. Montesquieu
develops his argument for separation of powers in Book XI of The Spirit
ofthe Laws, and nowhere in this book does he reference Isaiah, Jeremiah, or
am other book of the Bible. On the contrary. Montesquieu's examples in
this section are all drawn from contemporary European and pre-Christian
Roman and Germanic histoly. Nor can we find references to Isaiah and
Jeremiah elsewhere in the book. While Montesquieu does occasionally
reference the Bible in The Spirit ofthe Laws, these references are mostly
to the Pentateuch, and are never to the prophetic books of the Old
Testament.

It is difficult to argue that Montesquieu based his theory of divided
powers on Isaiah and Jeremiah when he doesn't quote from these books, and
when he bases his examples on other sources. We corrclude that Federer has
either misunderstood Montesquieu, is simply repeating someone else's
inaccurate argument, or is intentionally misleading his readers.

But what of Federer's reference to page 457 of Cohler's translation of The
Spirit of the Laws? We've located a copy of this work, and this page turns
out to be nothing more than the title page for the fifth section of
Cohler's translation; it has no text except the words "Part 5. We will
charitably assume that the reference is a misprint, but sloppy editing on
Federcr's part does little to convince us that he knows what he's talking
about with respect to Montesquieu. Additionally, Cohler's work contains an
detailed appendix in which she indexes all the sources Montesquieu used in
writing The Spirit of the Laws, and while we find several references to
various books oflhe Bible, there are no references to Isaiah and Jeremiah.
Far from proving his argument Cohler's translation is further proof that
Federer's claim is incorrect..

For what it's worth, we don't think Federer is the originator of the myth
that Montesquieu derived his theory from the Bible. Barton's The Myth of
Separation predates Federer, and Barton makes essentially the same argument
(albeit without footnotes). The idea was probably circulating long before
either Federer or Barton wrote their books. But it makes no difference. It
is a myth. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Montesquieu
derived his ideas from the Bible. The myth should be put to rest
before it does am more disservice.
TOM PETERS, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
________________________________________________________________________

Does the Constitution Embody Christian Thought and Morality?

Contrary to the claims of many accomodationists, virtually nothing in the
Constitution references Christian thought and morality. The only explicit
mention of religion is the article VI declaration that "no religious Test
shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust
under the United Stales. Otherwise, the Constitution is wholly concerned
with the secular issues of defining federal power. and distributing that
power among the various branches of government. Quite against the practice
of state constitutions, the federal Constitution does not quote or refer to
the Bible, does not set up any religion above another, does not refer to
God. and does riot raise or rule upon religious questions. It is a
remarkably secular document for its day and age.

Our e-mail correspondents have occasionally argued that that the structure
of our federal government is derived from the Bible: this claim rests on
little more than wishful thinking. The most inuportant features of our
federal government include (1) a separation of powers among three branches
of government, (2) a bicameral legislature, (3) different modes of
representation in each chamber of the legislature, (4) a limited executive,
(5) and independent judiciary and (G) a complex system of checks and
balances. No model of government found in the Bible corresponds to this
outline. Ancient Israel was governed first by Judges and then by Kings: in
neither system was there separation of powers (i.e., the executive acted as
both lawmaker and judge). nor was there am clear distinction between
secular and religious law. Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find anvthing
like a bicameral legislature, or an independent judiciary. Conversely the
New Testament does not contain a model of government: It simply does not
fanction as a political document in the same way as, eg., the Q'uran does
in Islam.

Some accomodationists claim that founders derived the principle of
separation of powers from Isaiah 33:22, "For the LORD is our judge, the
LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our King: he will save us. Apart from the
fact that there is no evidence that this verse was ever referred to by the
founders in this context, this argument fails on it's own assumptions: the
Constitution sets up an elected executive, riot a King. and the tenor of
the verse is anti separation-of-powers; it says that all three branches are
properly united in one person, the LORD. That the founders would read this
verse and derive from it a mandate for divided
powers is neither logical nor plausible.

Nor is there any relationship between the Constitution and the 10
Commandments. The Constitution fairly repudiates the first two commandments
(i.e., it leaves us free to worship other Gods than the LORD, and to make
graven images), and is silent on commandments three through ten. Laws
against blasphemy, Sabbath breaking, dishonoring parents, murder, adultery,
stealing, false witness. and coveting are left entirely to the states.

The secular ethos of the Constitution extends even to the taking of the
oath of office. Quite against the practices of the states, the oath of
offrce described in Article II section 2 of the Constitution is completely
secular; it is described as an "oath or affrrmation." contains no religious
references, and need not be taken on the Bible. The practice of saying "so
help me God" is not required by the Constitution; it is a voluntary
practice initiated by later presidents.

The absence of Christian thought and morality in the Constitution is a
powerful evidence that the founders did not intend to create a Christian
nation. Indeed, a popular early criticism of the Constitution is that it
allowed non-Christians to serve in federal offices. and did nothing to
promote Christianity (see Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore. The Godless
Constitution. ch. 2). If the founders wanted to favor Christianity or
Judeo- Christian morality, they failed utterly in that lask. This should
make us suspect that the Constitution was never intended to set up
Christianity as a preferred religion in the first place.
TOM PETERS, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
******************************************************************************
******

>:|
>:| 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...
>:|

Kewl then I can assume you will respond to this?

=================================================================

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Dec 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/28/99

NUMBER 4 in this series, Gardiner begins his defense of his position.

3/10/99

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

>:|Dear Jim,
>:|
>:|Here is a response to your criticism of the thesis of the book, Never Before
>:|in History (http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html).

I don't know anything about the book.

I posted my replies to the statements that you had posted. [For some reason
this part of the thread has been separated from the part that has your
original post and my replies to that post]

If what posted came from a book, so be it, but it was the comments you had
posted that I was replying.

>I think you may have
>:|mistakingly pigeon-holed me. This book does not argue "accomodationism."

Nor am I. I posted some material from Tom Peters web page, which I had
contributed material and information to. He structured some of his
arguments in a separationist/accommodationist point counter point. I posted
that specific material because of the over all argument, not because of the
separationist/accommodationist flavor.

>:|Rather it 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.

>:|
>:|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.

>:|Well, for what it's worth...here's a response to your response:

>:|
>:|> >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 is why I included the quoting information.

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.

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.

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.

>:|
>:|> > 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.

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.

___________________________________________________________________
Paine returned (1787) to England after the war and published The Rights of
Man (1791-92), in which he defended the French Revolution in response to
Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790). Outlawed
for treason, Paine fled (1792) to France, became a French citizen, and was
elected to the National Convention. Imprisoned (1793-94) during the Reign
of Terror, Paine wrote the first part of Age of Reason (1794), a deistic
statement of his religious views. All Paine's works reflect his belief in
natural reason and natural rights, political equality, tolerance, civil
liberties, and the dignity of man. 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.
______________________________________________________________________

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.

>:|

>:|> >His religious perspective did not represent the consensus of the
>:|> >colonists.
>:|> >

See above, it is irrelevant.

>:|>From the graduation requirements at Princeton @ 1812:
>:|
>:|"He [all graduates] must have read and digested the principal arguments and
>:|writings relative to what has been called the deistical controversy. --Thus
>:|will he be qualified to become a defender of the Christian faith."
>:|

I don't see Paine's name mentioned above. No one else ever wrote any
Deistic thoughts?
Who ran Princeton at the time?

You seem to be giving Paine influence and power he never really had. You
seem to be focusing on him far more then what he said or did really
deserves. Of course, in so called Christian circles Deists thinking was
hated and feared. But then the same could be said of most religious
dissenters of the time. Any sect, religion, denomination, etc not in the
majority would in a given area would frequently qualify quite nicely.

>:|> >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.

>:|
>:|The framers intended that the constitution favor the will of the people.
>:|Insofar as the will of the people was Christianity, the framers sought to
>:|allow the people the freedom to exercise that disposition whenever and
>:|wherever they saw fit. Granted, the Federalist #10 speaks of the protection of
>:|the dissenter, but Madison never believed that the dissenter should be
>:|protected at the cost of the oppression of the majority.

You have evidence for this I presume?

Here is some:
______________________________________________________________________

Majority Rule
There is no maxim in my opinion which is more liable to be misapplied, and
which therefore more needs elucidation than the current one that the
interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong.
Taking the word "interest" as synonymous with "Ultimate happiness:' in
which sense it is qualified with every necessary moral ingredient, the
proposition is no doubt true. But taking it in the popular sense, as
referring to immediate augmentation of property and wealth, nothing can
be more false. In the latter sense it would be the interest of the majority
in every community to despoil and enslave the minority of individuals; and
in a federal community to make a similar sacrifice of the minority of the
component States. In fact it is only reestablishing under another name and
a more specious form, force as the measure of right.
To James Monroe, 5 Oct. 1786
PPM 9:141

All civilized societies are divided into different interests and factions,
as they happen to be creditors or debtors--Rich or poor-husbandmen,
merchants or manufacturers-members of different religious sects--followers
of different political leaders--inhabitants of different districts--owners
of different kinds of property &c &c. In republican Government the majority
however composed, ultimately give the law. Whenever therefore an apparent
interest or common passion unites a majority what is to restrain them from
unjust violations of the rights and interests of the minority, or of
individuals? Three motives only 1. a prudent regard to their own good as
involved in the general and permanent good of the Community. This
consideration although of decisive weight in itself, is found by experience
to be too often unheeded. It is too often forgotten, by nations as well as
by individuals that honesty is the best policy. 2dly. respect for
character. However strong this motive may be in individuals, it is
considered as very insufficient to restrain them from injustice.

In a multitude its efficacy is diminished in proportion to the number which
is to share the praise or the blame. Besides, as it has reference to public
opinion, which within a particular Society, is the opinion of the majority,
the standard is fixed by those whose conduct is to be measured by it....
3dly. will Religion the only remaining motive be a sufficient restraint? It
is not pretended to be such on men individually considered. Will its effect
be greater on them considered in an aggregate view'i quite the reverse. The
conduct of every popular assembly acting on oath, the strongest of
religious Ties, proves that individuals join without remorse in acts,
against which their consciences would revolt if proposed to them under the
like sanction, separately in their closets.
"Vices of the Political System,"
April 1787
PJM 9:355-56

Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of
oppression. In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the
Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended,
not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but
from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major
number of the constituents.... Wherever there is an interest and power to
do wrong, wrong will generally be done, and not less readily by a
powerful and interested party than by a powerful and interested prince.
To Thomas Jefferson, 17 Oct. 1788
PJM 11:298
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: James Madison's ADVICE TO MY COUNTRY, Edited by
David B. Mattern. University of Virginia Press (1997) p 68-69)
________________________________________________________________________

In addition to Federalist # 10 there is at least one other of the
Federalist Papers written by Madison that deals with factions, majorities
vs minorities. I think you picked the wrong person to make your claims
about.

>:|
>:|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."
[From Jefferson's autobiography]

Somewhere around here I have some comments from Washington showing he did
not look down on non-believers.

In addtion, just for fun:
_____________________________________________________________________
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)
_________________________________________________________________________

Truth of the matter is, some of the founders were as biased narrow minded
as some people of today are. Facts are that Catholics Unitarians, Deists,
Jews, Quakers were viewed by many as non believers, Dissenting groups such
as the Baptist and others were viewed by some in the same manner.

>They believed in what
>:|are traditionally referred to as the teleological and cosmological arguments
>:|for God's existence (the "first mover" and the "watchmaker" arguments). With
>:|Jefferson, they believed that the existence of a Creator was "self-evident."
>:|(i.e., indisputable)

Creator does not automatically translate into the Christian God as taught
about in the various doctrines and dogmas of existing organized Christian
sects and denominations of the 18th century.

If you want to bring Jefferson into this discussion, you had better be
ready to explain why he seldom referred in any positive ways to that
"Christian God" as contained in said dogmas, doctrines, etc.

> They believed that atheism was demonstrably,
>:|scientifically disproven, and they did not believe that the state should
>:|protect stupidity.

You are beginning to enter your own opinions into this now.

>Many of them, e.g., Washington, Franklin, Adams,
>:|(regardless of their own views) believed that religion was necessary to
>:|undergird public morality.

Washington and Adams were politicians. Good political speeches, etc contain
a nugget for everyone. How strong this so called belief that religion was
so necessary for public morality is a bit hard to calculate in this day and
age.

One also has to take into account, that the separation of church and state
that was taking place was very radical, didn't exist anywhere else {though
I do recall Madison making reference to Holland as having done something
like it] and all these men had grown up under some form of the old system.

Having such thoughts really isn't so unusual, now is it. New radical ideas
are usually heavily resisted and put down.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 has 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 or with very little toleration of
others makes a part [pact?] 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
toleration with the establishment of a particular creed, it was taken for
granted, that an exclusive & intolerant 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)

>:|
>:|> > 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.

>:|
>:|How wrong and uninformed you are.

Hmmmmmm, I wondered how long it would be before it moved into this.

I may be incorrect about something. You may feel I am incorrect about
something, but I am never wrong. [There is a big difference between a
person being wrong and a person being incorrect about something.]

Uninformed I am far from being. LOL

>Read your history.

I have. Quite possibly as much if not more then you have. One should not
make such judgements about one they know nothing about.

> The anti-federalists
>:|almost played as important role in the outcome of the constitution as did the
>:|federalists.

What exactly was said above?

>:|>>More to the point, Henry

>:|> >was an anti-federalist, and vigorously opposed the Constitution when
>:|> >Virginia discussed ratification.

That is what was said regarding any mention of anti-federalits. Now, are
you going to deny that
(1) Henry was an anti-federalist?
(2) He vigorously opposed the Constitution when Virginia discussed
ratification?

>:|The fact is, WITHOUT THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS, THERE NEVER WOULD HAVE
>:|BEEN A BILL OF RIGHTS!! (viz., the First Amendment!)

That may or may not be true. However, that was not the parameter of the
material from Tom Peters web page. The discussion was not centered on the
politics between the feds and anti-feds.

There was a whole different point being made there that you seem to have
missed or elected to over look.

>Additionally, many of the
>:|compromises in the Constitution which make it such an excellent
>:|document were a result of attempting to concede various points to the states'
>:|rights proponents.

Irrelevant to the subject of this discussion, and might very well be quite
debatable how correct your comment is.

In addressing that comment, a very large and powerful segment of the
anti-feds wanted to defeat ratification of the Constitution so that they
could get a second Constitutional convention called. Reason, to produce a
constitution more in line with the Articles of Confederation i.e. with a
much weaker central government.

That was the point of the Patrick Henry reference. Patrick Henry would not
be a person to ask about the Constitution if you wanted an unbiased opinion
since he was anti that Constitution.

>:|
>:|Furthermore, whose words ("wall of separation") are quoted most often by
>:|separationists as the appropriate interpretation of the first amendment??
>:|Answer: an ANTI-FEDERALIST and a person who was not one of the framers. I
>:|would gladly concede and never mention Patrick Henry again in regards to the
>:|constitution, if the separationists would stop using Jefferson's "separation"
>:|of church and state as the authoritative interpretation of the first
>:|amendment. Please please please begin to heed your own rhetoric.

I'm sorry, but the above makes no sense at all.

Who is this anti-federalist you speak of?

I could care less if you ever mention Patrick Henry again or not. Mention
him all you want, I have no problems setting the record straight as it
concerns him.

Why do you have such a hard time with Jefferson's letter to the Danbury
Baptists?

>:|
>:|> > 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.

>:|
>:|You see, there you go...

Let me ask you a simple question. Why are you spending so much time and
effort on one item that I posted in a very long reply to your overall post.
This one item was in response to your list of men, many of whom were not
founders.

> In your last paragraph you say "in this debate about
>:|the constitution, do not use those who were not framers as evidence." Now in
>:|this paragraph you say, "the framers were not such-and-such...Jefferson, for
>:|example..." You first want to exclude Patrick Henry from the company of
>:|framers (which is fine), but then you insist upon including Jefferson. The
>:|hypocrisy is glaring.

Did you really not understand what you read?

What is the above about? is it not about the separation of personal beliefs
regarding religion and the founding of a nation that separated church and
state?

Hope can you fail to grasp that?

Jefferson was used as an example of a man who was, in his own private way,
quite religious, a man who even believed in religion having a place in
helping to maintain public morality {Hello, didn't you try and argue that
very point earlier] BUT was a firm advocate of separation of church and
state.

Patrick Henry played a very small role in the founding of this nation. He
played a rather large role in the founding of the nation of Virginia. But
he played next to no role in the founding of the United States of America.

But you can bring Patrick Henry into your posts anytime you want.

>:|

>:|> >Samuel Adams (boston tea party)
>:|>
>:|> Something to bear in Mind. The mindset regarding religion carried by many
>:|> who lived in or came from one of the New England states was quite different
>:|> then the mind set regarding religion of people from most of the other
>:|> states. Three of those New England states continued with established
>:|> religions long after all other states had ended theirs. (Mass. didn't end
>:|> its establishment of religion until the 1830's)
>:|

>:|To quote you, "So, what's your point?" Is this response supposed to nullify
>:|that the Puritan influence was not present during the founding?

It was of minor or no importance outside of the New England region.

>:|

>:|> >James Madison (father of the constitution)
>:|>
>:|> Whoa, you will find little if any evidence that Madison was highly
>:|> religious, highly Christian, etc.

>:|
>:|Uh...I don't know; I suppose everyone without a religious disposition attends
>:|divinity school and allows oneself to be mentored, discipled, and shepherded
>:|by a flaming Calvinist preacher (viz., Witherspoon). Have you ever read
>:|through Madison's notes which he took at Princeton? Do so and then say that
>:|there is "little if any evidence." Have you read Smylie's work on Madison
>:|which demonstrates that his political disposition was formed at the feet of
>:|Witherspoon? Do you contest the fact that Witherspoon was an orthodox
>:|Presbyterian theologian? Is your thesis that although Madison was steeped
>:|in Calvinism through his college education, he rejected all that he imbibed
>:|in his formative years and became averse to it?

All of the above makes nice reading. [and yes, I have several pages of
material that Madison wrote or made notes about while at Princeton]

Can you link any of it to the James Madison that Wrote this question to a
former fellow class mate at princeton in Dec. 1772?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Is an Ecclesiastical Establishment absolutely necessary to support civil
society in a supream Government & how is it hurtful to a dependent state?"
(Guess by the time he got around to writing the letter to jasper Adams I
posted above he figured he had his answer)

To the same person a month later:
If the Church of England had been the established and general Religion In
all the Northern Colonies as it has
been among us hem and uninterrupted aanquillty had prewiled throughout the
Continent, It is clear to me that slavery and SubSection might and would
have been gradually insinuated among us. Union of Religious Sentiments
begets a surprizfng confidence and Ecclesiastical Establishments tend to
great ignorance and Corruption all of which facilitate the Execution of
mischievous Profects. But away with Politicks! Let me address you as a
Student and Philosopher & not as a Patriot now.

That Diabolical Hell conceived principle of persecution rages among and to
their eternal Infamy the Clergy can furnish their quota of Imps for such
business. This vexes me the most of any thing whatever. There are at this
[time?] in the adjacent County not less than 5 or 6 well meaning men in
close Goal [in jail] for publishing their religious Sentiments which in the
main are very orthodox. I have neither patience to hear talk or think any
thing relative to this matter, for I have squabbled and scolded abused and
ridiculed so long about it, [to so lit]tle purpose that I am without common
patience. So I [leave you] to pity me and pray for Liberty of Conscience
[to revive among us.].

_____________________________________________________________________

Now your task, should you accept it, is to show that from 1772 to 1836
Madison was Highly Christian. He did attend church on occasion, but no
records exist of him actually joining a church per se. I have read several
places that he, like Washington, did not take part in communion, etc. His
personal writings rarely mention, if mention at all, any personal religious
beliefs of his.

If he was highly religious then it was highly personal and highly private.
At any rate the historical record does not supply enough info on the
subject for you to prove your claim.

>:|
>:|> >And as is stated on the section I posted on quotations, it really doesn't

>:|> >matter how religious or non religious a person was. The founders separated
>:|> >religion and government.
>:|

>:|You need to look closer. The founders separated government and doctrine, or
>:|government and denominationalism, but they believed that the divinely given
>:|rights of the human were the bedrock upon which a social contract is
>:|established. Jefferson says the fact that all men are created equal is a
>:|"self-evident" truth. Implied in that statement is that it is a self-evident
>:|truth that there is a creator. No creator, no rights. No rights, no
>:|government. That's Jefferson's logic. You cannot say that the founders
>:|separated theism and government. You're just demonstrably wrong. You have
>:|Jefferson to blame for that.

I don't have Jefferson to blame for anything.

We have a nation that was founded with one of its constitutional principles
being a separation of religion and government.

That is my point, my only point.
A child of that constitutional principle was and is religious freedom. One
can believe or not believe as they wish. They can practice or not practice
[within the confines of civil law and not doing harm to another or the
others rights] as they see fit or not.

The founders had a variety of religious beliefs, some would be right at
home within the Christian Coalition of today, while others were very
unorthodox.

>:|

>:|> > Charles Pinckney
>:|>
>:|> Charles Pinckney offered the clause that directly separated church and
>:|> state at the Constitutional convention. He also led the fight in his home
>:|> state to disestablish religion in the revised South Carolina Constitution
>:|> in 1790.
>:|

>:|Disestablishmentarianism was a movement begun by Luther in the 1520's,
>:|championed by the Puritan John Milton in 1648, by Locke in 1689, and by a
>:|number of Baptist ministers during the founding. It's goal is to prevent the
>:|government from prescribing a particular doctrine or denominational standard
>:|or forcing the collection of taxes to support a particular church. We are
>:|quite thankful that the Protestant view of "separate kingdoms" (Luther) found
>:|its way into the constitution. I, for one, do not want the government telling
>:|me where I can and can't go to church. Nonetheless, the founders, such as
>:|Pinckney understood that the authority for government rests in the consent of
>:|the governed. Therefore, even Pinckney would have been opposed to having
>:|government open on Sundays, public nakedness, polygamy, etc.,--all government
>:|decisions based upon religious convictions.

Opposed to having government open on Sundays? Hmmmm, interesting. post
offices were open on Sundays, mail was delivered on Sundays. Even Congress,
on occasion met in session on Sundays.

>:|

>:|> > 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?

>:|
>:|I guess you think that the founders in unison all rejected their intellectual
>:|and spiritual formation which they received as young men? Upbringing has
>:|nothing to do with your socio-cultural and socio-political values?? Please
>:|take a course in sociology.

Intellectual and Spiritual formations? LOL Are you one of these that view
the founders as saints? They weren't. Some were downright dishonest.
Drunkenness, womanizing, corruption, fighting, even in Congress, was
fairly common traits of the day, even among some of the founders. Would
that be called rejecting intellectual and spiritual formations? I think it
would be called humans being human, I think it would be going along with
the Biblical phrase about nothing new under the sun.

>:|
>:|> >Jefferson went to W&M, he was one of the major forces for religious liberty
>:|> >in this nation.
>:|

Oh I see you deleted some of my comments here, how interesting.

>:|Right on. When one is steeped in Protestant theology, one learns, with Luther
>:|and Locke, that God requires voluntary commitment. Thus religious liberty is
>:|the only way to foster true religion. That was Jefferson's view.

I have read a good deal of Jefferson's writings on the subject of religion.
[Have read more of Madison's] I don't see a whole lot of these things you
are attributing to Jefferson present in his writings.

I do know, that he was a product of the enlightenment, of reason and
rational. I do know that he fully rejected most, if not all of the
religious doctrines and dogmas of the day. He rejected most of the beliefs
that one was suppose to have to be a "Christian" He was accused time and
time again of being an atheist. he identified himself as Unitarian, based
on the thoughts and writings of Prestley as he understood them.

He was very anti Calvin.

In his own private personal way I suppose he was quite religious, but i
don't really see all these wonderful things you are saying he was all about
being there.

He actually began his University as an alternative to the Religious based
W&M. He tried to alter the courses taught at W&M, trying to make them less
religious.
>:|
>:|> >Madison went to Princeton, and his role in religious liberty in this
>:|> >country is well documented
>:|
>:|You don't have to be irreligious to believe in liberty of conscience. "Liberty
>:|of Conscience" is one of the chapters in the Westminster Confession, the creed
>:|of the Presbyterians which Madison imbued as a college student. Luther also
>:|believed in liberty of conscience and the priesthood of all believers. Do you
>:|think he was also against religion?

Against religion?

>:|
>:|> >Does Lutz's and Hyneman's research support Barton's conclusions about the

>:|> >Bible and the Constitution? In some ways, the answer is "yes." In
>:|> >particular, Lutz and Hyneman demonstrate that the Bible was the most
>:|> >frequently quoted source between 1760 and 1805, and he concludes that
>:|> >future research on the development of American political thought should
>:|> >include increased attention to "biblical and common law sources" (Relative
>:|> >Influence, p. 190). It is perfectly reasonable that Barton would use this
>:|> >evidence to support his argument, and we have no quarrel with that aspect
>:|> >of Barton's case.

>:|
>:|I concede that the methodology and interpretation of Lutz and Hyneman are
>:|highly open ended and in some respects very suspect. Simply counting the
>:|number of citations doesnt seem to me to necessarily demonstrate the
>:|biases of the founders. For example, Lutz shows Hume as one of the most
>:|frequently cited sources. But what about context? In our generation, one might
>:|be able to show that O.J. Simpson and Monica Lewinsky are the among the names
>:|who are most often mentioned in the media. Does that mean that we approve of
>:|them? I will not become a defender of Lutz and Hyneman to make my point. I
>:|think there are much better approaches to arguing the same thesis.
>:|

Well, I am very glad to hear that. it is not a position one can defend,
even more so since they set out to discover the influence Europeans had.
The references to the Bible was discovered by accident, but was not
followed up on. They also fully acknowledged that such references were
lacking during the very founding period. (Constitution and BOR's period)

>:|> >Blackstone was a full fledged believer in revealed religion (i.e., the
>:|> >bible),
>:|>
>:|>Irrelevant

>:|
>:|99% of the laws in the U.S. sprung from Blackstone! I suppose the nature of
>:|the laws of a nation don't say much about its government!!??

Whoa, Whoa, and whoa again. 99% of the laws of the U. S sprung from
Blackstone?

You are completely and totally incorrect on the above.

But, you made the claim you prove it.

99%? LOL

>:|
>:|> >His works that were cited were Commentaries on the Laws of England.

>:|> >There was only one chapter or so that had anything to do with Religion, and
>:|> >one must remember, England had an established church. reliigon and
>:|> >government were very much in a union with each other.

>:|
>:|Please go back and read Blackstone. YOU are leaving a whole lot out.
>:|

Book I
THe Rights of Persons
BOOK II
The Rights of Things
BOOK III
Private Wrongs
BOOK IV
Public Wrongs

Chapter IV of BOOk IV
Offences against God and Religion.

You can find various things scattered throughout the four books that
pertain to such things as canon law, worship, etc etc etc

Blackstone did not write the English Law he report or commented on it.
He had tremendous influence in some areas of law in this country. his
popularity was not total. Madison challenged his views on freedom of the
press. Many claim the First Amendment was written as a rejection of the
English Common law. John Quincy Adams had no use for him or so called
Blackstone Lawyers, nor did Jefferson.

>:|> >and most of his content was rooted in medieval (Catholic) political

>:|> >philosophy (e.g., the Magna Carta).
>:|>
>:|>I don't even know what that is suppose to mean.
>:|

>:|What that is supposed to mean is that Blackstone, who is credited with "losing
>:|the colonies" by the British crown (they felt that his political philosophy
>:|spawned the revolution), grounded most of his writing in the work of Sir
>:|Edward Coke, a Puritan lawyer under Charles I Stuart whose textbook, Coke's
>:|Institutes, was the source from which Jefferson, Adams, Madison, etc., etc.,
>:|learned about law and rights (I can give you the citations upon request).
>:|Coke explicitly tied religion and law together,
>:|as did Blackstone. Coke, on the other hand, drew his philosophy on law and
>:|government from Henri Bracton, Thomas Aquinas, and Cardinal Langton (author of
>:|the Magna Carta). These men were all Catholic theologians as well as political
>:|scientists. That is the fertile soil from which Blackstone, the most formative
>:|political theorist in the late 18th century, blossomed. This is even the view
>:|of one of the most respected legal scholars today, Harold Berman.
>:|

Interesting, since Blackstone's Commentaries of English Law were so
anti-Catholic

>:|Of course all of this is documented and better argued in the book, Never
>:|Before in History (http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html)
>:|

I am not interested in your book, I seriously doubt I will ever buy your
book. I have hundreds of books here, more then enough to keep me busy.

I am responding to you, and what you say here, not your book.

>:|Source please...I'd like to read that. I suppose the "creator" was no part of
>:|Jefferson's Declaration either.

JANUARY 16, 1814

MONTICELLO, January 16, 1814.
DEAR SIR,--Your favor of November 8th, if it was rightly dated, did not
come to hand till December 13th, and being absent on a long journey, it has
remained unanswered till now. The copy of your introductory lecture was
received and acknowledged in my letter of July 12, 1812, With which I Sent
you Tracy's first volume on Logic. Your Justinian came .safely also, and I
have been constantly meaning to acknowledge it, but I wished, at the same
time, to say something more. I possessed Theopilus', Vinnius' and Harris'
editions, but read over your notes and the addenda et corrigenda, and
especially the parallels with the English law, with great satisfaction and
edification. Your edition will be very useful to our lawyers, some of whom
will need the translation as well as the notes. But what I had wanted to
say to you on the subject, was that I much regret that instead of this
work, useful as it may be, you had not bestowed the same time and research
rather on a translation and notes on Bracton, a work which has never been
performed for us, and which I have always considered as one of the greatest
desiderata in the law. The laws of England, in their progress from the
earliest to the present times, may be likened to the road of a traveller,
divided into distinct stages or resting places, at each of which a review.
is taken of the road passed over so far. The first of these was Bracton's
De legibus Angliae; the second, Coke's Institutes; the third, the
Abridgment of the law by Matthew Bacon; and the fourth, Blackstone's
Commentaries. Doubtless there were others before Bracton which have not
reached us. ALfred, in the preface to his laws, says they were compiled
from those of Ina, Offa, and Aethelbert, into which, or rather
preceding them, the clergy have interpolated the 20th , 21st , 22nd , 23rd
and 24th chapters of Exodus, so as to place Alfred's preface to what was
really his, awkwardly enough in the body of the work. An interpolation the
more glaring, as containing laws expressly contradicted by those of
Alfred.This pious fraud seems to have been first noted by Howard, in his
Contumes Anglo Normandes (188), and the pious judges of England have had no
inclination to question it; [or this disposition in these judges, I could
give you a curious sample from a note in my common-place book, made while I
was a student, but it is too long to be now copied. Perhaps I may give
it to you with some future letter. This digest of Alfred of the laws of the
Heptarchy into a single code, common to the whole kingdom, by him first
reduced into one, was probably the birth of what is called the common law.
We has been styled, "Magnus Juris Anglicani Conditor;" and his code, the
Dom-Dec, or doom-book. That which was made afterwards under Edward the
Confessor, was but a restoration of Alfred's, with some intervening
alterations. And this was the code which the English so often, under the
Norman princes, petitioned to have restored-to
them. But, all records previous to the Magna Charta having been early lost,
Bracton's is the first digest of the whole body of law which has come down
to us entire. What materials for it existed in his time we know not, except
the unauthoritative collections of Lambard and Wilkins, and the treatise of
Glanville, tempore H. 2. Bracton's is the more valuable, because being
written a very few years after the Magna Charta, which commences what is
called the statute law, it gives us the state of the common law In its
ultimate form, and exactly at the point of division between the common and
statute law. It is a most able work, complete in its matter and luminous
in its method.
2. The statutes which introduced changes began now to be
preserved; applications of the law to new cases by the courts, began soon
after to be reported in the year-books, these to be _methodized and
abridged by Fitzherbert, Broke, Rolle, and others; individuals continued
the business of reporting; particular treatises were written by able men,
and all these, by the time of Lord Coke, had formed so large a mass of
matter as to call for a new digest, to bring it within reasonable compass.
This he undertook in his Institutes, harmonizing all the decisions and
opinions which were reconcilable, and rejecting those not so. This work is
executed with so much
learning and judgment, that I do not recollect that a single position in it
has ever been judicially denied And although the work loses much of its
value by its chaotic form, it may still be considered as the fundamental
code of the English law.
3- The same processes re-commencing of statutory changes, new
divisions, multiplied reports, and special treatises, a new accumulation
had formed, calling for new reduction, by the time of Matthew Bacon His
work, therefore, although not pretending to the textual merit of Bracton's,
or Coke's, was ver acceptable. His alphabetical arrangement, indeed
although better than Coke's jumble, was far inferior to Bracton's. But it
was a sound digest of the materials existing on the several alphabetical
heads under which he arranged them. His work was not admitted as authority
in Westminster Hall; yet it was the manual of every judge and lawyer, and,
what better proves its worth, has been its daily growth in the general
estimation.
4. A succeeding interval of changes and additions of matter
produced Blackstone's Commentaries, the most lucid in arrangement which had
yet been written, correct in its matter, classical in style, and rightfully
taking its place by the side of the Justinian Institutes. But, like them it
was only an elementary book. It did not present all the subjects of the law
in all their details. It still left it necessary to recur to the original
works of which it was the summary. The great mass of law books from which
it was extracted, was still to be consulted on minute investigations. It
wanted, therefore, a species of merit which entered deeply into the value
of those of Bracton, Coke and Bacon. They had in effect swept the shelves
of all the materials preceding them. To give
Blackstone, therefore, a full measure of value, another work is still
wanting, to wit: to incorporate
with his principles a compend of the particular cases subsequent to Bacon,
of which they are the
essence. This might be done by printing under his text a digest like
Bacon's continued to Black-
stone's time. It would enlarge his work, and increase its value peculiarly
to us, because just there
we break off from the parent stem of the English law, unconcerned in any of
its subsequent changes or decisions.
Of the four digests noted, the three last are possessed and
understood by every one. But the first, the fountain of them all, remains
in its technical Latin, abounding in terms antiquated, obsolete, and
unintelligible but to the most learned of the body of lawyers. To give it
to us then in English, with a glossary of its old terms, is a work for
which I know nobody but yourself possessing the necessary learning and
industry. The latter part of it would be furnished to your hand from the
glossaries of Wilkins, Lambard, Spelman, Somner in the X. Scriptores, the
index of Coke and the law dictionaries. Could not such an undertaking be
conveniently associated with
your new vocation of giving law lectures! I pray you to think of it. A
further operation indeed, would still be desirable. To take up the
doctrines of Bracton, separatim et seriatim, to give their history through
the periods of Lord Coke and Bacon, down to Blackstone, to show when and
how some of them have become extinct, the successive alterations made in
others, and their progress to the state in which Blackstone found them. But
this might be a separate work, left for your greater leisure or for some
future pen.
I have long had under contemplation, and been collecting materials
for the plan of an university in Virginia which should comprehend all the
sciences useful to us, and none others. The general idea is suggested in
the Notes on Virginia, Qu. 14. This would probably absorb the functions of
William and Mary College, and transfer them to a healthier and more central
position: perhaps to the neighborhood of this place. The long and lingering
decline of William and Mary, the death of its last president, its location
and climate, force on us the wish for a new institution more convenient to
our country generally, and better adapted to the present state of science.
I have been told there will be an effort in the present session of out
legislature, to effect such an establishment. I confess, however, that I
have not great confidence that this will be done. Should it happen, it
would offer places worthy of you, and of which you are worthy. It might
produce, too, a bidder for the apparatus and library of Dr. Priestley, to
which they might add mine on their own terms. This consists of about seven
or eight thousand volumes, the best chosen collection of its size probably
in America, and containing a great mass of what is most rare and valuable,
and especially of what relates to America.
You have given us, in your Emporium, Bellman's medley on Political
Economy. It is the work of one who sees a little of everything, and the
whole of nothing; and were it not for your own notes on it, a sentence of
which throws more just light on the subject than all his pages, we should
regret the place it occupies of more useful matter. The bringing our
countrymen to a sound comparative estimate of the vast value of Internal
commerce, and the disproportionate importance of what is foreign, is the
mast salutary effort which can be made for the prosperity of these
States, which are entirely misled from their true interests by the
infection of English prejudices, and
illicit attachments to English interests and connections. I look to you for
this effort. It would furnish a valuable chapter for every Emporium; but I
would rather see it also in the newspapers, which alone find access to
every one.
Everything predicted by the enemies of banks, in the beginning, is
now coming to pass. We are to be ruined now by the deluge of bank paper, as
we were formerly by the old Continental paper. It is cruel that such
revolutions in private fortunes should be at the mercy of avaricious
adventurers, who, instead of employing their capital, if any they have, in
manufactures, commerce, and other useful pursuits, make it an instrument to
burden all the interchanges of property with their swindling profits,
profits which are the price of no useful industry of theirs. Prudent men
must be on their guard in this game of Robin's alive, and take care that
the spark does not extinguish in their hands. I am an enemy to all banks
discounting bills or notes for anything but coin. But our whole country is
so fascinated by this Jack-lantern wealth, that they will not stop short of
its total and fatal explosion.
Have-you seen the memorial to Congress on the subject of Oliver
Evans' patent rights! The memorialists have published in it a letter of
mine containing some views on this difficult subject. But I have opened it
no further than to raise the questions belonging to it. I wish we could
have the benefit of your lights on these questions. The abuse of the
frivolous patents is likely to cause more inconvenience than is
countervailed by those really useful.We know not to what uses we may apply
implements which have been in our hands before the birth of our government,
and even the discovery of America. The memorial is a thin pamphlet, printed
by Robinson of Baltimore, a copy of which has been laid on the desk of
every member of Congress.
You ask if it is a secret who wrote the commentary on Montesquieu?
It must be a secret during the author's life. I may only say at present
that it was written by a Frenchman, that the original MS. in French is now
in my possession, that it was translated and edited by General Duane, and
that I should rejoice to see it printed in its original tongue, if any one
would undertake it. No book can suffer more by translation, because of the
severe correctness of the original in the choice of its terms. I have taken
measures for securing to the author his justly-earned fame, whenever his
death or other circumstances may render it safe for him. Like you, I do not
agree
with him in everything, and have had some correspondence with him on
particular points. But on
the whole, it is a most valuable work, one which I think will form an epoch
in the science of government, and which I wish to see in the hands of every
American student, as the elementary and fundamental institute of that
important branch of human
science.
I have never seen the answer of Governor Strong to the judges of
Massachusetts, to which you allude, nor the Massachusetts reports in which
it is contained. But I am sure you join me in lamenting the general
defection of lawyers and judges, from the free principles of government. I
am sure they do not derive this degenerate spirit from the father of our
science, Lord Coke. But it may be the reason why they cease to read him,
and the source of what are now called "Blackstone lawyers:"
Go on in all your good works, without regard to the eye "of
suspicion and distrust with which you may be viewed by some," and without
being weary. in well doing, and be assured that you are justly estimated by
the impartial mass of our fellow citizens, and by none more than myself.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter written by Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Thomas
Cooper, January 16, 1814, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Library
Edition, Ed Albert Ellery Bergh, Vol XIV, Issued under the Auspices of The
Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, Washington D C, 1903, pp 54-63)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JANUARY 24, 1814

Monticello Jan. 24, 1814.

DEAR SIR --1 have great need of the indulgence so kindly extended to me in
your favor of Dec. 25. of permitting me to answer your friendly letters at
my leisure. My frequent and long absences from home are a first cause of
tardiness in my correspondence, and a 2d. the accumulation of business
during my absence, some of which imperiously commands first attentions.
I am now in arrears to you for your letters of Nov. 12. 14. 16. Dec. 3. 19.
25.
I have made some enquiry about Taylor's book,(24) and I learn from
a neighbor of his that it has been understood for some time that he was
writing a political work. We had not heard of it's publication, nor has it
been announced in any of our papers. But this must be the book of 630
pages which you have received; and certainly neither the style nor the
stuff of the author of Arator can ever be mistaken. In the latter work, as
you observe, there are some good things, but so involved in Quaint. in
farfetched, affected, mystical concepts, and flimsy theories, that who
can take the trouble of getting at them?
You ask me if I have ever seen the work of J. W. Goethens
Schristen? Never. Nor did the question ever occur to me before, Where get
we the ten commandments? The book indeed gives them to us verbatim. But
where did it get them! For itself tells us they were written by the finger
of god on tables of stone, which were destroyed by Moses: it specifies
those on the 2d. set of tables in different form and substance, but still
without saying how the others were recovered. But the whole history of
these books is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt
minute enquiry into it; and such tricks have been plaid with their text,
and with the tests of other books relating to them, that we have a right,
from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine.
In the New testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have
proceeded from
an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very
inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out
diamonds from dunghills The matter of the first was such as would be
preserved in the memory of the hearers. and handed on by tradition for a
long time; the latter such stuff as might be gathered up, for embedding
it, any where, and at any time.
I have nothing of Vives, or Budaeus, and little of Erasmus. If the
familiar histories of the saints, the want of which they regret, would
have given us the histories of those tricks which these writers
acknowledge to have been practiced, and of the lies they agree have been
invented for the sake of religion, I join them in their regrets. These
would be the only parts of their histories worth reading. It is not only
the sacred volumes they have thus interpolated, gutted, and falsified, but
the works of others relating to them, and even the laws of the land. We
have a curious instance of one of these pious frauds in the Laws of
Alfred. He composed, you know, from the laws of the Heptarchy, a Digest for
the government of the United kingdom, and in his preface to that work he
tells us expressly the sources from which he drew it, to wit, the laws of
Ina, of Offa and Aethelbert, (not naming the Pentateuch.) But his pious
Interpolator, very awkwardly, premises to his work four chapters of Exodus
(from the 20th to the 23rd.) as a part of the laws of the land; so that
Alfred's preface is made to stand in the body of the work. Our judges too
have lent a ready hand to further these frauds, and have been willing to
lay the yoke of their own opinions on the necks of others; to extend the
coercions of municipal law to the dogmas of their religion, by declaring
that these make a part of the law of the land. In the Year Book 34. H. 6,
fo. 38. in Quare impedit,(25) where the question was how far the Common
law takes notice of the Ecclesiastical law, Prisot, Chief Justice, in the
course of his argument says 'a tiels leis que ils de Seint eglise ont en
ancien scripture, covient a nous a donner credence; car ces Common ley sur
quels touts manners leis sent fondes: et auxy, Sir, nous sumus obliges de
conustre lour ley de saint eglise Etc.' (26) Finch begins the business of
falsification by mistranslating and mistating the words of Prisot thus
'to such laws of the church as have warrant in holy scripture our law
giveth credence,' citing the above case and the words of Prisot in the
margin, Finch's law. B. I. c. 3. Here then we find ancient scripture,
ancient writing, translated 'holy scripture.' This, Wingate in 1658.
erects into a Maxim of law, in the very words of Finch, but citing Prisot,
and not Finch. And Sheppard tit. Religion, in 1675 laying it down in the
same words of Finch, quotes the Year Book, Finch and Wingate Then comes Sr.
Matthew Hale, in the case of the King v. Taylor I Ventr
293. 3 Keb. 607· and declares that 'Christianity is parcel of the laws of
England.' Citing nobody, and resting it, with his judgment against the
witches. (27) on his own authority, which indeed was sound and good in all
cases into which no superstition or bigotry could enter. Thus
strengthened, the court in 1718 in the King v. Woolston, would not suffer
it to be questioned whether to write against Christianity was punishable at
Common law, saying it had been so settled by Hale in Taylor's case. 2 Stra.
834· Wood therefore, 409· Without scruple, lays down as a principle
that all blasphemy and profaneness are offenses at the Common law, and
cites Strange. Blackstone, in 1763. repeats in the words of Sr. Matthew
Hale that 'Christianity is part of the laws of England,' citing Ventris and
Strange ubi supra. And Ld. Mansfield in the case of the Chamberlain of
London v. Evans, in 1767· qualifying somewhat the position, says that 'the
essential principles of revealed religion are part of the Common law.(28)
Thus we find this string of authorities all hanging by one another on a
single hook, a by Finch of the words of Prisot, or on nothing. For all
quote Prisot, or one another, or nobody. Thus Finch misquotes Prisot;
Wingate also, but using Finch's words; Sheppard quotes Prisot, Finch and
Wingate; Hale cites nobody; the court in Woolston s case cite Hale; Wood
cites Woolston's case; Blackstone that and Hale; and Ld. Mansfield
volunteers his own ipse dixit. And who now can question but that the whole
Bible and Testament are a part of the Common law? And that Connecticut,
in her blue laws, laying it down as a principle that the laws of god should
be the laws of their land, except where their own contradicted them, did
anything more than express, with a salve, what the English judges had less
cautiously declared without any restriction? And what I dare say our
cunning Chief Justice [Marshall] would swear to, and find as many sophisms
to twist it out of the general terms of our Declarations of rights, and
even the stricter text of the Virginia act for the freedom of religion' as
he did to twist Burr's neck out of the halter of treason.(29) May we not
say then with him who was all candor and benevolence 'Woe unto you, ye
lawyers, for ye lade men with bur
dens grievous to bear.'
(The remainder of the letter goes into other things not all that related
to the above subject material. Footnotes to the above material is located
below.)
FOOTNOTES:
(24·) Taylor, An Inquiry into the Government of the United States.
( 25.) Reports of cases in the YEAR BOOK cover the period from Edward I
(1292) to Henry VITT (1536) The reference is to a law of the thirty-fourth
year of Henry Vi's reign, folio 38. Cases in Quare impedit are actions in
English law brought only in the Court of Common Pleas to recover the
right of a patron over a church or benefice.
(26.) "To such laws of the church as have warrant in ancient writing our
law giveth credence; for it is the common law on which all laws are
based; and also, Sir. we are obliged to recognize the law of the church,
etc."
(27·) In King v. Taylor, 1551-62, at the Bury St. Edmonds Assizes two
women were tried for witchcraft. In directing the jury Hale stated there
was no doubt of the existence of witches as proved by the Bible, the
general consent, and acts of Parliament.
(28.) In this case Mansfield spoke in favor of a Dissenter's not accepting
official appointment which required that he take communion in the
Anglican Church and excused him from payment of a fine.
(29.) Aaron Burr was indicted for treason in 1807 in connection with his
"conspiracy" in the West and was brought to trial in the United States
Circuit Court at Richmond, Va., before Chief Justice John Marshall
sitting as circuit judge. The interpretation Marshall gave to tile treason
clause in the Constitution so restricted the meaning that Burr was
acquitted. The trial had its political overtones in the friction between
President Jefferson and the Chief Justice. Thomas P. Abernethy. The Burr
Conspiracy (N.Y., 1954), 227-49
(SOURCE, T. Jefferson to John Adams, January 24, 1814. THE ADAMS-JEFFERSON
LETTERS, THE COMPLETE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THOMAS JEFFERSON AND ABIGAIL
AND JOHN ADAMS, edited by Lester J Cappon, pages 421-423)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FEBRUARY 10, 1814

MONTICELLO, February 10, 1814.

DEAR SIR, -- In my letter of January 16, I promised you a sample
from my common-place book, of the pious disposition of the English judges,
to connive at the frauds of the clergy, a disposition which has even
rendered them faithful allies in practice. When I was a student of the law,
now half a century ago, after getting through Coke Littleton, whose matter
cannot be abridged, was in' the habit of abridging and common-placing what
I read meriting it, and of sometimes mixing my own reflections on the
subject. I now enclose you the extract from these entries which I promised.
They were written at a time of life when I was bold in the pursuit of
knowledge, never fearing to follow truth and reason to whatever results
they led, and bearding every authority which stood in their way. This must
be the apology, if you find the conclusions bolder than historical facts
and principles will warrant. Accept with them the assurances of my great
esteem and respect.

Common-place Book.
873· In Quare imp. in C. B. 34, H. 6, fo. 38, the def. Br, of
Lincoln pleads that the church of the pl. became void by the death of the
incumbent, that the pl. and J. S. each pretending a right, presented two
several clerks; that the church being thus rendered litigious, he was not
obliged, by the Ecclesiastical law to admit either, until an inquisition
de jure patronatus, in the ecclesiastical court. that, by the same law,
this inquisition was to be at the suit of either claimant, and was not
ex-officio to be instituted by the bishop, and at his proper costs; that
neither party had desired such an inquisition; that six months passed
whereon it belonged to him of right to present as on a lapse, which he had
done. The pl. demurred. A question was, How far the Ecclesiastical later
was to be respected in this matter by the common law court? and Prisot C.
3, in the course of his argument uses this expression, "A tiels leis que
ils de seint eglise ont en ancien scripture, covient a nous a donner
credence; car ces common ley sur quel touts manners leis sent fondes: et
auxy, Sir, nous sumus obliges de conustre nostre ley; et,
Sir, si polt apperer or a nous que lievesque ad fait comme un
ordinary fera en tiel cas, adong nous devons ces adjuger bon autrement
nemy," etc. It does not appear that judgment was given. Y. B. ubi sypra.
S. C. Fitzh. abr. Qu. imp. 89. Bro, abr. Qu. Imp. 12. Finch mistakes this
in the following manner: "To such laws of the church as have warrant in
Holy Scripture, our law giveth credence," and cites the above case, and the
words of Prisot on the margin. Finch's law, B. I, ch. 3, published 1613.
Here we find "ancien scripture" [ancient writing] converted into "Holy
Scripture," whereas it can only mean the ancient written laws of the
church. It cannot mean the Scriptures, I, because the "ancien scripture"
must be understood to mean the "Old Testament or Bible, in opposition to
the "New Testament," and to the exclusion of that; which would be absurd
and contrary to the wish of those who cite this passage to prove that the
Scriptures, or Christianity, is a part of the common law. 2. Because Prisot
says, "Ceo [est] common ley, sur quel touts manners leis sent fondes." Now,
it is true that the Ecclesiastical law, so far as admitted in England,
derives its authority from the common law. But it would not be true that
the Scriptures so derive their authority. 3. The whole case and arguments
show that the question was how far the Ecclesiastical law in general should
be respected in a common law court. And in Bro. abr. of this case,
Littleton says, "Les juges del common ley prendra conusans quid est lax
ecclesiae, vel admiralitatis, et trujus modi." 4. Because the particular
part of the Ecclesiastical law then in
question, to wit, the right of the patron to present to his advowson, was
not founded on the law of God, but subject to the modification of the
lawgiver, and so could not introduce any such general position as Finch
pretends. Yet Wingate [in 1658] thinks proper to erect this false quotation
into a maxim of the common law, expressing it in the very words of Finch,
but citing Prisot; Wing. max. 3. Next comes Sheppard [in 1675], who states
it in the same words of Finch, and quotes the Year-Book, Finch and Wingate.
3 Shepp. abr., tit. Religion. In the case of the King v. Taylor, Sir
Matthew Hale lays it down in these words, " Christianity is parcel of the
laws of England." I Ventr. 293, 3 Keb. 607. But he quotes no authority,
resting it on his own, which was good in all cases in which his mind
received no bias from his bigotry, his superstitions, his visions about
sorceries, demons, etc. The power of these over him is exemplified in his
hanging of the witches.So strong was this doctrine become in 1.728, by
additions and repetitions from one another, that in the case of the King v.
Wolston, the court would not suffer it to be debated, whether to write
against
Christianity was punishable in the temporal courts at common law, saying
it had been so settled in
Taylor's case, ante, z Stra. 834; therefore, Wood, in his Institute, lays
it down that all blasphemy and profaneness are offences by the common Law,
and cites Strange ubi supra. Wood, 409. And Blackstone [about 1763]
repeats, in the words of Sir Matthew Hale, that "Christianity is part of
the laws' of England," citing Ventris and Strange ubi supra. 4 Blackst. 59.
Lord Mansfield qualifies it a little by saying that "the essential
principles of revealed religion are part of the common law." In the case of
the Chamberlain of London v. Evans, 1767. But he cites no authority, and
leaves us at our peril to find out what, in the opinion of the judge, and
according to the measure of his foot or his faith, are those essential
principles of revealed religion obligatory on us as a part of the common
law.
Thus we find this string of. authorities, when examined to the
beginning, all hanging on the same hook, a perverted expression of
Prisot's, or on one another, or nobody. Thus Finch quotes Prisot; Wingate
also; Sheppard quotes Prisot, Finch and Wingate; Hale cites nobody; the
court in Woolston's case cite Hale; Wood cites Woolston's case; Blackstone
that and Hale; and Lord Mansfield, like Hale, ventures it on his own
authority. In the earlier ages of the law, as in the year-books, for
instance, we do not expect much recurrence to authorities by the judges,
because in those days there were few or none such made public. But in.
latter times we take no judge's word for what the law is, further than he
is warranted by the authorities he appeals to. His decision may bind the
unfortunate individual who happens to be the particular subject of it; but
it cannot alter the law. Though the common law may be termed " Lex non
Scripta," yet the same Hale tells us "when I call those parts of our laws
Leges non Scritae, I do not mean as if those laws were only oral, or
communicated from the former ages to the latter merely by word. For all
those laws have their several monuments in writing, whereby they are
transferred from one age to another, and without which they would soon
lose all kind of certainty. They are for the most part extant in records
of pleas, proceedings, and judgments, in books of reports and judicial
decisions, in
tractates of learned men's arguments and opinions, preserved from ancient
times and still extant in
writing." Hale's H.c.d. 22. Authorities for what is common law may
therefore be as well cited, as
for any part of the Lex Scripta, and there is no better instance of the
necessity of holding the judges and writers to a declaration of their
authorities than the present; where we detect them endeavoring to make law
where they found none, and to submit us at one stroke to a whole system, no
particle of which has its foundation in the common law. For we know that
the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on
their settlement in England, and altered from time, to time by proper
legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which
terminates the period of the common law, or Lex non Scripta, and commences
that of the statute law, or Lex Scripta. This settlement took place about
the middle of the fifth
century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the
conversion of the first
Christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and
that of the last about 686. Here, then, was a space of two hundred
years,during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no
part of it. If it ever was adopted, therefore, into the common law, it must
have been between the introduction of Christianity and the date of the
Magna Charta. But of the laws of this period we have a tolerable collection
by Lambard and Wilkins, probably not perfect, but neither very defective;
and if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of-that period,
supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have
existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the
common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt
Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the
settlement of the Saxons to the Introduction of Christianity among them,
that system of religion could not be a part of: the common law, because
they were not yet Christians, and if, having
their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able
to find among them no
such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the
judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a
part of the common law. Another cogent proof of this truth is drawn from
the silence of certain writers on the common law. Bracton gives us a very
complete and scientific treatise of the whole body of the common law. He
wrote this about the close of the reign of Henry III., a very few years
after the date of the Magna Charta. We consider this book as the more
valuable, as it was written about the time which divides the common and
statute law, and therefore gives us the former in its ultimate state.
Bracton, too, was an ecclesiastic, and would certainly not have failed to
inform us of the adoption of Christianity as a part of the common law, had
any such adoption ever taken place. But no word of his, which intimates
anything like it, has ever been cited. Fleta and Britton, who wrote in the
succeeding reign
(of Edward I.), are equally silent. So also is Glanvil, an earlier writer
than any of them, (viz.: temp. H. 2,). but his subject perhaps might not
have led him to mention it. Justice Fortescue Aland, who possessed more
Saxon learning than all the judges and writers before mentioned put
together, places this subject on more limited ground. Speaking of the laws
of the Saxon kings, he says, "the ten commandments were made part of their
laws, and consequently were once part of the law of England; so that to
break any of the ten commandments was then esteemed a .breach of the common
law, of England; and why it is not so now, perhaps it may be difficult to
give a
good reason." Preface to Fortescue Aland's reports, xvii. Had he proposed
to state with more minuteness how much of the Scriptures had been made a
part of the common law, he might have added that in the laws of Alfred,
where he found the ten commandments, two or three other chapters of Exodus
are copied almost verbatim. But the adoption of a past proves rather a
rejection of the rest, as municipal law. We, might as well say that the
Newtonian system of philosophy is a part of the common law, as that the
Christian religion is. The truth is that
Christianity and Newtonianism being reason and verity itself, in the
opinion of all but infidels and
Cartesians, they are protected under the wings of the common law from the
dominion of other sects, but not erected into dominion over them. An
eminent Spanish physician affirmed that the lancet had slain more men than
the sword. Doctor Sangradb, on the contrary, affirmed that with plentiful
bleedings, and draughts of warm water, every disease was to be cued. The
common law protects both opinions, but enacts neither into law. See post,
879.
879· Howard, in his Contumes Anglo-Normandes, I. 87, notices the
falsification of the laws of Alfred, by prefixing to them four chapters of
the Jewish law, to wit: the 20th, 21st , 22nd and 23rd chapters of
Exodus, to which he might have added the 15th chapter of the Acts of the
Apostles, v. 23, and precepts from other parts of the Scripture. These he
calls a hors d'aeuvre of some pious copyist. This awkward monkish
fabrication makes the preface toAlfred's genuine laws stand in the body of
the work, and the`very words of Alfred himself prove the fraud; for he
declares, in that preface, that he has collected these laws from those of
Ina, of Offa, Aethelbert and his ancestors, saying nothing of any of them
being taken from the Scriptures. It is still more certainly proved by the
inconsistencies it occasions. For example, the Jewish legislator, Exodus
xxi. 12, 13, 14, (copied by the Pseudo Alfred 13,) makes murder, with the
Jews, death. But Alfred himself, Le. xxvi., punishes it by a fine only,
called a Weregild, proportioned to the condition of the person killed. It
is remarkable that Hume (append I to his History) examining this article of
the laws of Alfred, without perceiving the fraud, puzzles himself with
accounting for the inconsistency it had
introduced. To strike a pregnant woman so that She die, is death by Exodus
xxi. 22, 23, and Pseud, Alfr. 18; but by the laws of Alfred ix., pays a
Weregild for both woman and child. To smite out an eye, or a tooth, Exod.
xxi. 24--27, Pseud. Alfr.
19, 20, if of a servant by his master, is freedom to the servant; in every
other case retaliation. But
by Alfr. Le. xl. a fixed indemnification is paid. Theft of an ox, or a
sheep, by the Jewish law, Exod.
xxii. I, was repaid five-fold for the ox and four-fold for the sheep; by
the Pseudograph 24, the ox
double, the sheep four-fold; but by Alfred Le. xvi., he who stole a cow and
a calf was to repay the worth of the cow and forty shillings for the calf.
Goring by an ox was the death of the ox, and the flesh not to be eaten.
Exod. xxi. 28, Pseud. Alfr. O 21; by Alfred Le. xxiv., the wounded person
had the ox. The Pseudograph makes municipal laws of the ten commandments,
1-10, regulates concubinage, 12, makes it death to strike or to curse
father or mother, 14, 15, gives an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, hand
for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning,. wound for wound, strife for
strife, 19; sells the thief to repay his theft, 24; obliges the
fornicator to marry the woman he has lain with, 29; forbids interest on
money, 35; makes the laws of bailment, 28, very different from what Lord
Holt delivers in Coggs v. Bernard, ante, 92, and what Sir William Jones
tells us they were; and punishes witchcraft with death, 30, which Sir
Matthew Hale, 1 H. P. C. B. I, ch. 33, declares was not a felony before the
Stat. I Jac. 12. It was Under that statute, and not
this forgery, that he hung Rose Cullendar and Amy Duny, 16 Car. 2 (1662),
On whose trial he declared "that there were such creatures as witches he
made no doubt at all; for first the Scripture had affirmed so much,
secondly the wisdom of all nations had provided laws against such persons,
and such hath often the judgment of this kingdom, as appears by that act of
Parliament which hath provided punishment proportionable to the quality of
the offence." And we must certainly allow greater weight to this position
that "it was no felony till James' Statute," laid down deliberately in his
H. P. C., a work which he wrote to be printed, finished, and transcribed
for the press in his lifetime, than to the hasty scripture that "at common
later witchcraft was punished With
death as heresy, by writ de Heretico Comburendo" in his Methodical Summary
of the P. C. p. 6, a work "not intended for the press, not fitted for it,
and which he declared himself he had never read over since it was written;"
Pref. Unless we understand his meaning in that to be that witchcraft could
not be punished at common law as witchcraft, but as heresy. In either
sense, however, it is a denial of; this pretended law of Alfred. Now, all
men of reading know that these pretended laws of homicide concubinage,
theft, retaliation, compulsory marriage, usury, bailment, and others which
might have been cited, from the Pseudograph, were never the laws of
England, not even in Alfred's time; and of course that it is a forgery. Yet
palpable as it must be to every lawyer, the English judges have piously
avoided lifting the veil under which it was shrouded. In truth, the
alliance between Church and State in England has ever made their judges
accomplices in the frauds of the clergy; and even bolder than they are. For
instead of being contented with these four
surreptitious chapters of Exodus, they have taken the whole leap, and
declared at once that the whole Bible and Testament in a lump, make a part
of the common law; ante, 873: the first judicial declaration of which was
by this same Sir Matthew Hale. And thus they incorporate into the English
code, laws made for the Jews alone, and the precepts of the Gospel,
intended by their benevolent Author as obligatory only in foro
conscientiae; and they, arm the whole with the coercions of municipal law.
In doing this, too, they have not even used the Connecticut caution of
declaring, as is done in their blue laws, that the laws of God shall be the
laws of their land, except where their own contradict them; but they
swallow the yea and nay together. Finally, in answer to Fortescue Aland's
question why the ten commandments should not now be a part of the common
law of England? we may say they are not because they never were made so by
legislative authority, the document which has imposed that doubt on him
being a manifest forgery.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter written by Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Thomas
Cooper, February 10, 1814, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Library
Edition, Ed Albert Ellery Bergh, Vol XIV, Issued under the Auspices of The
Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, Washington D C, 1903, pp 85-97)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JUNE 5, 1824

Dear and Venerable Sir,

I am much indebted for your kind letter of February the 29th, and
for your valuable volume on the English constitution. I have read this
with pleasure and much approbation, and think it has deduced the
constitution of the English nation from its rightful root, the Anglo-Saxon.

It is really wonderful, that so many able and learned men should have
failed in their attempts to define it with correctness. No wonder then,
that Paine, who thought more than he read, should have credited the great
authorities who have declared, that the will of parliament is the
constitution of England. So Marbois, before the French revolution,
observed to me, that the Almanac Royal was the constitution of France.
Your derivation of it from the Anglo-Saxons, seems to be made on
legitimate principles. Having driven out the former inhabitants of that
part of the island called England, they became aborigines as to you, and
your lineal ancestors. They doubtless had a constitution; and although
they have not left it in a written formula, to the precise text of which
you may always appeal, yet they have left fragments of their history and
laws, from which it may be inferred with considerable certainty. Whatever
their history and laws shew to have been practised with approbation, we
may presume was permitted by their constitution; whatever was not so
practised, was not permitted. And although this constitution was violated
and set at naught by Norman force, yet force cannot change right. A
perpetual claim was kept up by the nation, by their perpetual demand of a
restoration of their Saxon laws; which shews they were never relinquished
by the will of the nation. In the pullings and haulings for these antient
rights, between the nation, and its kings of the races of Plantagenets,
Tudors and Stuarts, there was sometimes gain, and sometimes loss, until the
final re-conquest of their rights from the Stuarts. The destitution and
expulsion of this race broke the thread of pretended inheritance,
extinguished all regal usurpations, and the nation re-entered into all its
rights; and although in their bill of rights they specifically reclaimed
some only, yet the omission of the others was no renunciation of the right
to assume their exercise also, whenever occasion should occur. The
new King received no rights or powers, but those expressly granted to him.
It has ever appeared to me, that the difference between the whig and the
tory of England is, that the whig deduces his rights from the Anglo-Saxon
source, and the tory from the Norman. And Hume, the great apostle of
toryism, says, in so many words, note AA to chapter 42, that, in the reign
of the Stuarts, `it was the people who encroached upon the sovereign, not
the sovereign who attempted, as is pretended, to usurp upon the people.'
This supposes the Norman usurpations to be rights in his successors. And
again, C, 159, `the commons established a principle, which is noble in
itself, and seems specious, but is belied by all history and experience,
that the people are the origin of all just power.' And where else will this
degenerate son of science, this traitor to his fellow men, find the origin
of just powers, if not in the majority of the society? Will it be in the
minority? Or in an individual of that minority?
Our Revolution commenced on more favorable ground. It presented us
an album on which we were free to write what we pleased. We had no occasion
to search into musty records, to hunt up royal parchments, or to
investigate the laws and institutions of a semi-barbarous ancestry. We
appealed to those of nature, and found them engraved on our hearts. Yet we
did not avail ourselves of all the advantages of our position. We had
never been permitted to exercise self-government. When forced to assume
it, we were novices in its science. Its principles and forms had entered
little into our former education. We established however some, although
not all its important principles. The constitutions of most of our States
assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it
by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as
in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by
a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is
involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen;
that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are
entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property,
and freedom of the press. In the structure of our legislatures, we think
experience has proved the benefit of subjecting questions to two
separate bodies of deliberants; but in constituting these, natural right
has been mistaken, some making one of these bodies, and some both, the
representatives of property instead of persons; whereas the double
deliberation might be as well obtained without any violation of
true principle, either by requiring a greater age in one of the bodies, or
by electing a proper number of representatives of persons, dividing them by
lots into two chambers, and renewing the division at frequent intervals, in
order to break up all cabals. Virginia, of which I am myself a native and
resident, was not only the first of the States, but, I believe
I may say, the first of the nations of the earth, which assembled its wise
men peaceably together to form a fundamental constitution, to commit it to
writing, and place it among their archives, where every one should be free
to appeal to its text. But this act was very imperfect. The other States,
as they proceeded successively to the same work, made successive
improvements; and several of them, still further corrected by experience,
have, by conventions, still further amended their first forms. My own
State has gone on so far with its premiere ebauche; but it is now proposing
to call a convention for amendment. Among other improvements, I hope they
will adopt the subdivision of our counties into wards. The former
may be estimated at an average of twenty-four miles square; the latter
should be about six miles square each, and would answer to the hundreds of
your Saxon Alfred. In each of these might be,
1. An elementary school.
2. A company of militia, with its officers.
3. A justice of the peace and constable.
4. Each ward should take care of their own poor.
5. Their own roads.
6. Their own police.
7. Elect within themselves one or more jurors to attend the courts of
justice. And
8. Give in at their Folk-house, their votes for all functionaries
reserved to their election. Each ward would thus be a small republic
within itself, and every man in the State would thus become an acting
member of the common government, transacting in person a great
portion of its rights and duties, subordinate indeed, yet important, and
entirely within his competence. The wit of man cannot devise a more solid
basis for a free, durable and well administered republic.
With respect to our State and federal governments, I do not think
their relations correctly understood by foreigners. They generally suppose
the former subordinate to the latter. But this is not the case. They are
co-ordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. To the State
governments are reserved all legislation and administration, in affairs
which concern their own citizens only, and to the federal government is
given whatever concerns foreigners, or the citizens of other States; these
functions alone being made federal. The one is the domestic, the other the
foreign branch of the same government; neither having control over the
other, but within its own department. There are one or two exceptions only
to this partition of power. But, you may ask, if the two departments
should claim each the same subject of power, where is the common umpire to
decide ultimately between them? In cases of little importance or urgency,
the prudence of both parties will keep them aloof from the questionable
ground: but if it can neither be avoided nor compromised, a convention of
the States must be called, to ascribe the doubtful power to that department

which they may think best. You will perceive by these details, that we
have not yet so far perfected our constitutions as to venture to make them
unchangeable. But still, in their present state, we consider them not
otherwise changeable than by the authority of the people, on a special
election of representatives for that purpose expressly: they are until then
the lex legum.
But can they be made unchangeable? Can one generation bind
another, and all others, in succession forever? I think not. The Creator
has made the earth for the living, not the dead. Rights and powers can
only belong to persons, not to things, not to mere matter, unendowed with
will. The dead are not even things. The particles of matter which
composed their bodies, make part now of the bodies of other animals,
vegetables, or minerals, of a thousand forms. To what then are attached
the rights and powers they held while in the form of men? A generation may
bind itself as long as its majority continues in life; when that has
disappeared, another majority is in place, holds all the rights and powers
their predecessors once held, and may change their laws and institutions to
suit themselves. Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and
unalienable rights of man.
I was glad to find in your book a formal contradition, at length,
of the judiciary usurpation of legislative powers; for such the judges have
usurped in their repeated decisions, that Christianity is a part of the
common law. The proof of the contrary, which you have adduced, is
incontrovertible; to wit, that the common law existed while the
Anglo-Saxons were yet Pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the
name of Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character had ever existed.
But it may amuse you, to shew when, and by what means, they stole this law
in upon us. In a case of quare impedi in the Year-book 34. H. 6. folio 38.
(anno 1458,) a question was made, how far the ecclesiastical law
was to be respected in a common law court? And Prisot, Chief Justice,
gives his opinion in these words, `A tiel leis qu' ils de seint eglise ont
en ancien scripture, covient a nous a donner credence; car ceo common ley
sur quels touts manners leis sont fondes. Et auxy, Sir, nous sumus obleges
de conustre lour ley de saint eglise: et semblablement ils sont obliges de
conustre nostre ley. Et, Sir, si poit apperer or a nous que l'evesque ad
fait come un ordinary fera en tiel cas, adong nous devons ceo adjuger bon,
ou auterment nemy,' &c. See S. C. Fitzh. Abr. Qu. imp. 89. Bro. Abr. Qu.
imp. 12. Finch in his first book, c. 3. is the first afterwards who quotes
this case, and mistakes it thus. `To such laws of the church as have
warrant in holy scripture, our law giveth credence.' And cites Prisot;
mistranslating `ancientancien scripture,'_ into _`holy scripture.'_ Whereas
Prisot palpably says, `to such laws as those of holy church have in antient
writing, it is proper for us to give credence;' to wit, to their antient
written laws. This was in 1613, a century and a half after the dictum of
Prisot. Wingate, in 1658, erects this false translation into a maxim of the
common law, copying the words of Finch, but citing Prisot. Wing. Max. 3.
And Sheppard, title, `Religion,' in 1675, copies the same mistranslation,
quoting the Y. B. Finch and Wingate. Hale expresses it in these words;
`Christianity is parcel of the laws of England.' 1 Ventr. 293. 3 Keb. 607.
But he quotes no authority. By these echoings and re-echoings from one to
another, it had become so established in 1728, that in the case of the King
vs. Woolston, 2 Stra. 834, the court would not suffer it to be debated,
whether to write against Christianity was punishable in the temporal court
at common law? Wood, therefore, 409, ventures still to vary the phrase,
and say, that all blasphemy and profaneness are offences by the common law;

and cites 2 Stra. Then Blackstone, in 1763, IV. 59, repeats the words of
Hale, that `Christianity is part of the laws of England,' citing Ventris
and Strange. And finally, Lord Mansfield, with a little qualification, in
Evans' case, in 1767, says, that `the essential principles of revealed
religion are part of the common law.' Thus ingulphing Bible, Testament
and all into the common law, without citing any authority. And thus we find
this chain of authorities hanging link by link, one upon another, and all
ultimately on one and the same hook, and that a mistranslation of the words
`ancien scripture, used by Prisot. Finch quotes Prisot; Wingate does the
same. Sheppard quotes Prisot, Finch and Wingate. Hale cites nobody.
The court in Woolston's case, cite Hale. Wood cites Woolston's case.
Blackstone quotes Woolston's case and Hale. And Lord Mansfield, like Hale,
ventures it on his own authority. Here I might defy the best read lawyer
to produce another scrip of authority for this judiciary forgery; and I
might go on further to shew, how some of the Anglo-Saxon priests
interpolated into the text of Alfred's laws, the 20th, 21st, 22nd and 23rd
chapters of Exodus, and the 15th of the Acts of the Apostles, from the 23rd
to the 29th verses. But this would lead my pen and your patience too far.
What a conspiracy this, between Church and State! Sing Tantarara, rogues
all, rogues all, Sing Tantarara, rogues all!
I must still add to this long and rambling letter, my
acknowledgments for your good wishes to the University we are now
establishing in this State. There are some novelties in it. Of that of a
professorship of the principles of government, you express your
approbation. They will be founded in the rights of man. That of
agriculture, I am sure, you will approve: and that also of Anglo-Saxon. As
the histories and laws left us in that type and dialect, must be the text
books of the reading of the learners, they will imbibe with the language
their free principles of government. The volumes you have been so kind as
to send, shall be placed in the library of the University. Having at this
time in England a person sent for the purpose of selecting some Professors,
a Mr. Gilmer of my neighborhood, I cannot but recommend him to your
patronage, counsel and guardianship, against imposition, misinformation,
and the deceptions of partial and false recommendations, in the selection
of characters. He is a gentleman of great worth and correctness, my
particular friend, well educated in various branches of science, and worthy
of entire confidence.
Your age of eighty-four and mine of eighty-one years, insure us a speedy
meeting. We may then commune at leisure, and more fully, on the good and
evil, which, in the course of our long lives, we have both witnessed; and
in the mean time, I pray you to accept assurances of my high veneration and
esteem for your person and character.

== Yours, T. J. McJefferson == Mê pâsi pisteuein. ==

(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Thomas Jefferson to Maj. John Cartwright--5 June
1824The Memorial Edition, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A.
Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh, eds, The Thomas Jefferson Memoral
Association, Washington, D. C. (1905)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>:|

>:|> >In 1776 only 17% of the American population was churched.

>:|
>:|Source please. My guess is that you are including Native Americans, African
>:|Americans, and other groups that had an extremely marginal involvement in the founding.

Some background information to begin with.

The First Federal Congress was to be made up of 26 Senators and 75
Representatives. These 101 men represented 13 states. However, the First
Session of Congress functioned with only 22 Senators and 69 Representatives
because Rhode island and North Carolina had not ratified the Constitution,
and therefore was not members of the United States. (After some dire
threats and other forms of politicing, both states were convinced it was in
their best interest to ratify said constitution and become members of the
United states. Therefore Senators and Representatives from both states were
present beginning with the second session of the First federal Congress.)

Why is the above important?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
" In recent discussions of religious freedom and Church-State separation in
the United States attention has been so much centered constitutionally on
the
Bill of Rights that the importance of this Provision in the original
Constitution as a bulwark of Church-State separation has been largely
overlooked. As a matter of fact it was and is important in preventing
religious tests for Federal office--a provision later extended to all the
states. It went far in thwarting any State Church in the United States; for
it would be almost impossible to establish such a Church, since no Church
has more than a fifth of the population. Congress as constituted with men
and women from all the denominations could never unite in selecting any one
body for this privilege. This has been so evident from the time of the
founding of the government that it is one reason why the First Amendment
must be interpreted more broadly than merely as preventing the state
establishment of religion which had already been made almost impossible."

(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: CHURCH AND STATE IN THE UNITED STATES, VOLUME I,
Anton Phelps Stokes, D.D., LL.D, Harper & Brothers Publishers (1950)
page 527)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

" Nicholas Collins, a Lutheran clergyman, did not think the time propitious
for a debate over amendments to the Constitution. Furthermore, he shared
the views of Federalists that the Constitution itself included guarantees
enough for civil and religious rights. In commenting he discussed the First
Amendment particularly. It would be very "unjust and pernicious to
establish any religious system in the united states." This possibility was
slight at the national level because Congress did not have by construction
or inclination any such power. Moreover, denominations would perform
themselves the office of a censor mo rum over each other and on the
encroachments of Congress upon the rights of conscience. (34) It was
advisable that Congress guarantee liberty of conscience in each state,
since it was "much more probable that superstition, mingled with political
faction, might corrupt a single state, than that bigotry should infect a
majority of states in congress." (35) This Congress refused to do.

Collins was strongly of the opinion in his interpretation of the amendment
that certain conduct based on religious belief should be stopped by the
civil magistrate. Religion may be a transaction between a man and his
maker; but when any person claims "from religious principle, the right of
injuring his fellow-citizens, or the community at large, he must be
restrained, and, in atrocious cases, punished. If he is a fool, or a
madman, he must not be a tyrant. It is impossible that God could order him
to be unjust, because he commands us all to be just and good." (36) No bold
and artful prophet pretending a commission from heaven ought, "from his
tender conscience, cut our throats and plunder our property." Although he
lived in a "civilized era," Collins was ready to admit that "the human
heart, is very wandering, and the fancy of mortals very whimsical ." (37)

34. Nicholas Collins in American Museum, September 1789, pp. 235-36.
Cb. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the Stare of Virginia (Paris, 1784-85), pa.
293.
35. Collins, in American Museum, pp. 235-36.
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: THE RELIGION OF THE REPUBLIC, edited by Elfin A.
Smith, Fortress press, Philadelphia (1971) pages 124-125)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

Now some additional facts.

The breakdown of representation as it existed in Congress at this time:
Conn., 2 Senators, 5 Representatives

Rhode Island (no Senators or Representatives during first session of First
Congress, 2 Senators, 1 Representative beginning with the second session of
the First Congress

Massachusetts, 2 Senators, 8 Representatives

New Hampshire, 2 Senators, 3 Representatives

Therefore the New England states (beginning with the second session of
Congress) would have a min of 8 Senators and 17 Representatives.

New York, 2 Senators, 6 Representatives

Penna., 2 Senators, 8 Representatives

New Jersey, 2 Senators, 4 Representatives

Delaware, 2 Senators, 1 Representative

Maryland, 2 Senators, 6 Representatives

The middle states 10 Senators, 25 Representatives

Virginia, 2 Senators, 10 Representatives

North Carolina, No members attended the first session of the First federal
Congress, beginning with the second session they had 2 Senators, 5
Representatives

South Carolina, 2 Senators, 5 Representatives

Georgia, 2 Senators, 3 Representatives

The Southern states 8 Senators, 23 Representatives.

It is clear that the New England region had the least voting power., at
least in regards to the House of Representatives.

New England region, 8 Senators, 17 Representatives
Middle region 10 Senators 25 Representatives
Southern region 8 Senators 23 Representatives.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

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 denominafional 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 CHURCING 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 re-
ligious organizations or congregations, counting each church or chapel
sepa-
rately. 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%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
What does all the above mean? It simply and clearly means that there would
have been no way that any specific Christian denomination could ever have
amassed the support of the general public nor of the members of Congress in
order to be established by law as a national religion.

It means that no one denomination had the numbers (members) spread
universally throughout the 13 states ( and later increasing numbers of new
states) to command a coalition of Congressmen required to establish that
denomination as a national religion.

Congregrationism which Carey claims the Danbury Baptist were so afraid
would be established as a national religion had no power, influence, or
numbers outside of a basically Mass., Conn., New Hamsphire, and what would
become in time, Maine and Vermont. They were a minority religion in Rhode
Island, and all other existing or future states.

It shows clearly that the members of Congress who debated and wrote the
establishment clause was well aware of the above facts of life at that time
in history, well aware of the fact that it would have been impossible for
any particular denomination to rise to the top of the power structure
enough to command the public support and votes of the members of Congress,
most of whom would not be members of that particular denimination.

Therefore any "original intention" regarding the Establishment clause has
to be broader than the meaning Carey has assigned to it.

>:|
>:|> >In 1800 when the government began functioning in Washington D C there was

>:|> >only one church in D C and it had less then 20 members. The following year
>:|> >the church had shut its doors.
>:|

>:|Source? Interesting. The Capitol Building was used as a church at that time as well.
>:|

Yes, and the fact where were no churches might be part of the entire reason

As to source. as I recall I think you will find the information in the
following book
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

MAY 3, 1801

"The clergy, who have missed their union with the state, the anglo men, who
have missed their union with England, the political adventurers who have
lost the chance of swindling & plunder in the waste of public money, will
never cease to bawl, on the breaking up of their sanctuary."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: original source for quote -Thomas Jefferson to
Postmaster- General Gideon Granger, May 3, 1801, WORKS: Ford IX, 249,-
quote appearing in THE LIFE OF JOHN MARSHALL, By Albert J Beveridge Vol
III, page 15, published 1917)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably between page 10 and 20, I don't recall exactly now

>:|> >provide original sources cites are highly suspect.
>:|

>:|I agree. I trust you will be providing me with yours for the claims above.
>:|

LOL

>:|> >John Adams was not an orthodox Chrisitian. He was a combination Unitarian,

>:|> >Deist, with some holdover Calvinist thoughts at times.

>:|
>:|I agree. Sounds like many evangelicals today.
>:|
>:|> >Did John Quincy Adams ever say that the American Revolution "connected in

>:|> >one indissoluable bond the principles of civil government with the
>:|> >principles of Christianity?"
>:|> >
>:|> >Research by Jim Allison.

>:|
>:|Well done, sir. I tentatively concede your careful research. I do not have the
>:|source for the JQA quote other than the fact that I have seen it everywhere on
>:|the internet. I thought it was Public Domain like "give me liberty or give me
>:|death." Perhaps I have been duped.

Public Domain? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Even "give me liberty or death" has a source. In fact, as I recall, there
is no surviving copy of the speech in which Henry uttered it, but the time,
date and place is well known and not disputed by anyone.

The point discovered by my research is, while at least two publication give
it and basically the same second hand information, neither gives a first
had source.

Because you see something on the internet, doesn't prove a single thing.

There are two quotes attributed to James Madison that are bogus quotes.
Even the worse offended of all, David Barton, who carried both quotes in
his books and on his videos for years has finally admitted they are bogus.
But you will find them in any and all books written by the far religious
right and you can find them on all sorts of web sites etc on the internet.

People using the internet for serious research are going to be fooled many
times. Its pretty had to find out who does the typing or scanning in of
lots of material that one can find on the internet.

> I will certainly do some follow up with
>:|this. Thank you. It is nice to learn new facts every day. If I do find the
>:|original source, however, I expect that you will likewise do me the courtesy
>:|of an apology.

LOL, an apology? For what, claiming something to be bogus when it has been
published but published without any valid cites.

You read what I discovered and what Tom wrote. All around that particular
quote ( which was not enclosed in quotation marks) were quotes properly
identified as quotes and given valid cites. Even quotations by John Adams.

But this one set of words had no cites and had no quotation marks.

>:|There ARE a few examples above!

Did he say Jesus was "our savior" and "lord" or do you say he meant that?

You don't really give examples to back up your claims.

> Purchase NEVER BEFORE IN HISTORY to see the
>:|more thorough discussion.

This discussion is between you and me. I'm not interested in your book.

>:|
>:|> >In his book America's God and Country (p. 453), William Federer claims

>:|
>:|Uh...no, Jim...that's Jeremiah 17:9, not 17:19
>:|

Typo, big deal

>:|> >The absence of Christian thought and morality in the Constitution is a

>:|> >powerful evidence that the founders did not intend to create a Christian
>:|> >nation. Indeed, a popular early criticism of the Constitution is that it
>:|> >allowed non-Christians to serve in federal offices. and did nothing to
>:|> >promote Christianity (see Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore. The Godless
>:|> >Constitution. ch. 2). If the founders wanted to favor Christianity or
>:|> >Judeo- Christian morality, they failed utterly in that lask. This should
>:|> >make us suspect that the Constitution was never intended to set up
>:|> >Christianity as a preferred religion in the first place.

>:|
>:|Partially I agree. They did not want to legislate doctrine. But they did hope
>:|that republican morality would prevail, and they did believe that the Bible
>:|was the best instrument toward republican morality (at least Franklin,
>:|Washington, Rush, Adams, etc.)

I bet that could be disputed with quotes from at least some of the people
you named, but that's ok.

>:|
>:|> >Thanks for your response and I'd be glad to continue this dialogue further...
>:|> >
>:|>
>:|> Kewl then I can assume you will respond to this?

No, sorry, got enough books, more then enough, in fact writing a series of
my own.

Have over a 1100 pages finished with them.

>:|I appreciate your dedication to your cause. I think that we are not as far
>:|apart as one might surmise. We'll see.
>:|

I suspect we are very far apart. but whatever

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Dec 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/28/99

NUMBER 5 in this series

3/13/99

Gardiner <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.

First of all, at least parts of your argument was based on incorrect
information.

In my own personal experiences, being involved with the news groups on use
net since feb 1995, I have never run across anyone who goes to all the
time, trouble and effort that you do in posting here, your original post
and then to defend your original post as you do, that doesn't at some
point in time begin to advance one, or more, of the typical religious
right/fundamentalist arguments. [we have left our roots, we are a Christian
nation, the Government is in violation of the Constitution, the Supreme
Court has ignored the original intent of the founders, the 1st amendment
means only this, the true meaning of the 1st amendment is this, the
founders were all Christians and meant this nation to be the same, this
country was founded on the Christian religion, this country was founded on
the Bible, etc, etc, etc,]

You may be an exception to the above, but based on some of your arguments I
have some doubts about that.

>The Library of Congress has been exhibiting a similar claim
>:|(see http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html) Does that mean that
>:|all of the curators at the Library of Congress must be fundamentalist Christians?

I have seen the online presentation of the library of Congress, I also have
a copy of the companion book that goes with that exhibit and I can say that
it is extremely one sided and biased. The book and apparently the research
and planning of the of the exhibit was primarily under the head of James H.
Huston and from what I have seen thus far and read thus far I would say he
did or does have an agenda that is not neutral.

Now if you want to check out some other opinions on this subject I suggest
you check out:

http://www.evolvefish.com/freewrite/edelin-lib-congrs.html

and

http://www.evolvefish.com/freewrite/murphy-jeffersons-oath.html

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

You dost protest too much.

You are beginning to sound like a troll.

This is really odd that you would go to all this trouble. Now, I know on
one hand you are trying to promote your "book" and taking every chance you
can to get your name and book title in front of people's eyes but your tone
is rather self-rightous

Example:

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

In regards to the fascinating new book on the founding of the U.S., 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:

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

You challenge a total stranger's integrity, saying that he will only have
integrity if he sees it as you call it and agrees with your assumption that
the six so called facts you present are indisputable.

Not only are these *ITEMS* indisputable, some are totally false.

But the above is rather pompous and self-righeous

I have no idea what the following is about or suppose to accomplish:

>:|> >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.

What are those examples suppose to be about, and because the above named
people do not agree with you we are:

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

I don't think you know a thing about any of us. You are making some
judgments based on your dislike of the fact that we don't seem to want to
buy into your presentation, that we question some parts of it, even show
some parts to be incorrect.

I know a few things about the facts of history, I would be willing to bet
as much if not more then you do.

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Dec 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/28/99

NUMBER 6 in this series

3/13/99

On Fri, 12 Mar 1999 23:14:43 -0600, you wrote:

Yea, I answered it.

>:|Another thread which has received many more posts is "Re: New Book, was
>:|america founded on Deism or Christianity"
>:|

Yea? And what news group is this jewel to be found in?

>:|I apologize for not responding more thoroughly. My time has been somewhat
>:|limited. I also have to thank you for your very thorough citations.

You really should find out more about people before you begin to make
assumptions about them.

You do know what assume means don't you?

To make an ASS-U-ME, only in this case I'm not included. You will
understand when you read my rely to the above mentioned post of yours.

But let me tell you something. I always provide total proper citations for
my historical data.

I am in the process of putting together a set of books. I suspect when done
they will number between 6 to perhaps 12 or more volumes of probably 250 to
750 pages per volume.

The present working title of this project is

THE DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF
CHURCH AND STATE, ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL, IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

There is currently roughly about 1300 pages finished.

he time element covered under this project is from approx 1780 to 1947.

There is next to no commentary contained among the pages. There will be
little or no commentary. It will consist of historical documents. Excerpts
from private letters, excerpts from private journals and diaries,
newspapers editorials and articles, debates, speeches, Acts of Congress.
court cases and decisions, books published, pamphlets published, sermons,
Commentaries on law, etc.

Something of this nature calls for a tremendous amount of research, and a
tremendous collecting of material. I have done my homework and continue to
do my homework everyday. I have some material here that many libraries
don't have.

You may disagree with my opinions and conclusions, but I suggest you table
your calling into question my knowledge of history or the subject matter
before you put your foot any deeper in your mouth.

>:|I found
>:|the 1814 letter of Jefferson to be wonderful, and quite enlightening; perhaps
>:|I really need to modify my former sense about Jefferson's apprehension of
>:|Common Law. I wonder what it was that induced Jefferson to write the letter
>:|about the pious fraud of the Code of Alfred. Do you know?

Why ask me, you don't think I know anything about history, remember?

Why not try this? He was a lawyer, people tend to forget that fact, and
from all accounts a very good lawyer. He also spent a good deal of time
researching English law because he had the task of revising Virginia law
bringing it into line with a free and independent republic rather then an
English colony

He also did not believe that Christianity was the foundation or basis of
English Law.

I think in the three letters he explains his findings and position quite
well.

He could have equaled Blackstone in knowledge on the subject.

>Thanks again for
>:|educating me.

If you mean that you might make a public apology for your insults and
slights you have posted in your replies to my replies to your posts.

You know, those comments that I didn't know history and didn't in, essence
know, what I was talking about etc.

Even after you were presented those three letters, by me, written by
Jefferson on Christianity being the foundation of English Common Law,
letters you didn't know existed, had never heard of, you had the nerve to
post the following in a public post:

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

I was included as one of those "critics"

Not willing to face the facts of history? Historical data that is
overwhelmingly evident?

I can present you with reams of historical data that you know nothing at
all about.

What a joke.

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Dec 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/28/99

NUMBER 6 in this series

3/14/99

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.

>:|

>:|>
>:|> 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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

>:|> Truth of the matter is, some of the founders were as biased narrow minded

>:|> as some people of today are. Facts are that Catholics Unitarians, Deists,
>:|> Jews, Quakers were viewed by many as non believers, Dissenting groups such
>:|> as the Baptist and others were viewed by some in the same manner.

>:|
>:|Again, "non-believer"="non-believer...in Christianity" not Atheist.

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

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

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

that atheism was pure foolishness.

We are talking about over 100 men.

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

>:|
>:|> Creator does not automatically translate into the Christian God as taught

>:|> about in the various doctrines and dogmas of existing organized Christian
>:|> sects and denominations of the 18th century.

>:|
>:|Absolutely I agree!
>:|
>:|> If you want to bring Jefferson into this discussion, you had better be

>:|> ready to explain why he seldom referred in any positive ways to that
>:|> "Christian God" as contained in said dogmas, doctrines, etc.

>:|
>:|I am not "bringing Jefferson in." He was explicitly averse to a number of
>:|aspects of orthodox Christianity. You have no argument from me.
>:|
>:|> >They believed that atheism was demonstrably,

>:|> >scientifically disproven, and they did not believe that the state should
>:|> >protect stupidity.
>:|>
>:|> You are beginning to enter your own opinions into this now.

>:|
>:|No. That is the language that they used referring to atheism.
>:|

Ok where is your evidence?

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

>:|> >Many of them, e.g., Washington, Franklin, Adams,

>:|> >(regardless of their own views) believed that religion was necessary to
>:|> >undergird public morality.
>:|>
>:|> Washington and Adams were politicians. Good political speeches, etc contain
>:|> a nugget for everyone. How strong this so called belief that religion was
>:|> so necessary for public morality is a bit hard to calculate in this day and
>:|> age.

>:|
>:|Again when you make these "they-were-just-kidding" sort of claims,

No, they were serious, it was good politics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But speaking of Washington:

OCTOBER 1789

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

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

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

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

>:|
>:|> >The anti-federalists

>:|No. But that's not relevant.
>:|

Oh, how interesting.

>:|> >The fact is, WITHOUT THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS, THERE NEVER WOULD HAVE
>:|> >BEEN A BILL OF RIGHTS!! (viz., the First Amendment!)
>:|>
>:|> That may or may not be true. However, that was not the parameter of the
>:|> material from Tom Peters web page. The discussion was not centered on the
>:|> politics between the feds and anti-feds.

>:|
>:|The problem is that you want to exclude anti-federalists as founders. Their
>:|views however were extremely important to the ultimate outcome of the Nation.
>:|One cannot understand the constitutional compromises without understanding the
>:|opinions of men like Henry, S. Adams, and Jefferson, who were each leary of a
>:|Federal Government

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

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

>:|
>:|> >Additionally, many of the

>:|> >compromises in the Constitution which make it such an excellent
>:|> >document were a result of attempting to concede various points to the states'
>:|> >rights proponents.
>:|>
>:|> Irrelevant to the subject of this discussion, and might very well be quite
>:|> debatable how correct your comment is.

>:|
>:|It's what every 11th grade student is taught about the organization and
>:|formation of the U.S. Constitution. Every garden variety textbook will
>:|indicate this. Are you alleging that the received view in the mainstream is
>:|awry? Are you advocating a left-field understanding of the constitution?

Organization and formation of the U S Constitution?

What are you talking about.

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

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

>:|
>:|> In addressing that comment, a very large and powerful segment of the

>:|> anti-feds wanted to defeat ratification of the Constitution so that they
>:|> could get a second Constitutional convention called. Reason, to produce a
>:|> constitution more in line with the Articles of Confederation i.e. with a
>:|> much weaker central government.

>:|
>:|Yes. But what they got instead was the Bill of Rights....a relatively
>:|significant part of the constitution.

not at that time it wasn't

>:|
>:|> That was the point of the Patrick Henry reference. Patrick Henry would not

>:|> be a person to ask about the Constitution if you wanted an unbiased opinion
>:|> since he was anti that Constitution.
>:|

>:|But by his dissent, Patrick Henry's views were forced into the constitution in
>:|a number of ways. One cannot adequately understand the upshot of the
>:|constitution without first understanding the fed/antifed conflict. To only
>:|read federalist authors is to be entirely misleading regarding a full
>:|understanding of how the U.S. was founded.

What views did he "force" in?

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

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

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

>:|
>:|Jefferson. By the time he became president the antifederalist party had
>:|evolved into the democratic republican party.

Anti-federalists were never a party per se.

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe you should get a new garden book

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

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

But moving on,

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

Hmmmmm

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

>:|>your list of men, many of whom were not founders.
>:|
>:|Which ones weren't founders?
>:|
>:|> Patrick Henry played a very small role in the founding of this nation. He

>:|> played a rather large role in the founding of the nation of Virginia. But
>:|> he played next to no role in the founding of the United States of America.

>:|
>:|I wish they would tell that to all the public school history teachers. I see
>:|that you indeed are interested in promoting a relatively radical revisionism.

You are a trip.

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

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

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

Did he ever hold any national office?

No, he was asked to but refused.

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

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

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

>:|New England was half of the nation!!
>:|

Where did you get that crazy idea?

Have you looked at a U S map lately?

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

Total for New England 16 Rep. 17 counting RI

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

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

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

>:|> That Diabolical Hell conceived principle of persecution rages among and to

>:|> their eternal Infamy the Clergy can furnish their quota of Imps for such
>:|> business. This vexes me the most of any thing whatever. There are at this
>:|> [time?] in the adjacent County not less than 5 or 6 well meaning men in
>:|> close Goal [in jail] for publishing their religious Sentiments which in the
>:|> main are very orthodox. I have neither patience to hear talk or think any
>:|> thing relative to this matter, for I have squabbled and scolded abused and
>:|> ridiculed so long about it, [to so lit]tle purpose that I am without common
>:|> patience. So I [leave you] to pity me and pray for Liberty of Conscience
>:|> [to revive among us.].

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

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

>:|
>:|Even Jefferson would not have made that claim. He made a distinction between
>:|"church" and "religion." The Declaration includes the claim that Government
>:|has grounds in human rights guaranteed through religion.

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

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

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

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

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

>:|
>:|> Opposed to having government open on Sundays? Hmmmm, interesting. post

>:|> offices were open on Sundays, mail was delivered on Sundays. Even Congress,
>:|> on occasion met in session on Sundays.
>:|

>:|That sounds interesting. Tell me more. That really does strike at the heart of
>:|my thesis. I trust that these actions on Sunday were not considered "works of
>:|necessity" cf. Blackstone.
>:|

Works of necessity? LOL

Hardly.

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

You know nothing about Sunday mail?

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

You might begin with some of the following:

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

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

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

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

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

>:|You describe the founders having the characteristics of St. Peter, St. Paul,
>:|or St. Augustine, foul corrupt lusty, etc.
>:|

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

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

>:|
>:|Good, then you will know that it is the view of the MEMORIAL AND REMONSTRANCE.

Huh?

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

What was it's purpose?

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

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

I don't know who or what you are.

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Dec 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/28/99

NUMBER 7 in this series

3/15/99

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

>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >The Library of Congress has been exhibiting a similar claim

>:|> >(see http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html) Does that mean that
>:|> >all of the curators at the Library of Congress must be fundamentalist Christians?
>:|>
>:|> I have seen the online presentation of the library of Congress, I also have
>:|> a copy of the companion book that goes with that exhibit and I can say that
>:|> it is extremely one sided and biased. The book and apparently the research
>:|> and planning of the of the exhibit was primarily under the head of James H.
>:|> Huston and from what I have seen thus far and read thus far I would say he
>:|> did or does have an agenda that is not neutral.

>:|
>:|Well, I guess that about sums it up. I'm not going to take on the unnecessary
>:|task of trying to prove to you that the Federal Government of the U.S. is not
>:|run by right wing fundamentalist Christians.

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

I have done all the above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>:|
>:|> They are short articles but gives you an alternative viewpoint, not that I

>:|> think you really want one.
>:|

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

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

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

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

LOL, you are funny.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't, see above.

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

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

Very strange.

>:|
>:|> You are beginning to sound like a troll.
>:|>
>:|> You do know what assume means don't you?

>:|>
>:|> To make an ASS-U-ME, only in this case I'm not included. You will
>:|> understand when you read my rely to the above mentioned post of yours.

>:|>
>:|> I know a few things about the facts of history, I would be willing to bet

>:|> as much if not more then you do.

>:|>
>:|> I can present you with reams of historical data that you know nothing at

>:|> all about.
>:|> What a joke.

>:|
>:|In all your reading, I wonder if you have ever come across Franklin's rules
>:|for being a lousy disputer. It is a wonderfully witty and sarcastic piece. I
>:|think some of it may prove relevant here. I offer you this abstract from Franklin:
>:|
>:|"[as a lousy disputer] your business is to SHINE; therefore you must by all
>:|means prevent the shining of others, for their brightness may make yours the
>:|less distinguished.
>:|
>:|To this end...talk much of yourself, your education, your knowledge, your
>:|victories in disputes, your own wise sayings and observations...
>:|
>:|When modest men have been thus treated by you a few times, they will chuse
>:|ever after to be silent in your company; then you may shine without fear of rival..."
>:|
>:|(PA Gazette, 11/1750)
>:|

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

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

>:|> I don't think you know a thing about any of us. You are making some
>:|> judgments based on your dislike of the fact that we don't seem to want to

>:|> buy into your presentation, that we question some parts of it, even show
>:|> some parts to be incorrect.

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

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

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

I don't understand why the fact that I have made the argument that
Christianity permeated the founding of the U.S. (see
http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html) means I must be a Christian

fundamentalist. The Library of Congress has been exhibiting a similar claim

(see http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html) Does that mean
that all of the curators at the Library of Congress must be fundamentalist
Christians?

I think the following critics are simply not willing to face the facts of

history. Their aversion to Christianity has caused them to deny historical
data which is overwhelmingly evident.

b...@deism.com wrote:

>
> Dear Rick,
>
> By your lack of reason on very key issues of your bloated message you
> appear to be a christian fundamentalist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That can be just as misleading as claiming too little.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>:|
>:|Now you have given me a fabulous cite from a handful of Jefferson's letters in
>:|which he questioned whether Exodus was interpolated into the Code of Alfred,
>:|and subsequently whether the whole history of Christianity's place in the
>:|common law is simply a snowballing of earlier frauds. That was a very
>:|informative cite.
>:|

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

>:|
>:|I do not question Jefferson's legal erudition whatsoever.
>:|

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

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

Hmmmmmm, a series of legal mistakes?

Two ways to look at that.

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

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

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

His studies complete he formed some conclusions.

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

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

>:|
>:|What I am saying is

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

That is kewl

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>:|> >Thanks again for

>:|> >educating me.
>:|>
>:|> If you mean that you might make a public apology for your insults and
>:|> slights you have posted in your replies to my replies to your posts.

>:|
>:|I do mean that. And I sincerely hope that I have not called into question your
>:|earnest and sincere commitment to what you believe; it seems to me that you
>:|have a passion for your studies, and that you make an effort to be careful in
>:|your research. I truly appreciate your dedication and good-will in that
>:|regard.
>:|

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

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

You haven't proven that.

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

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

I don't "call" myself anything.

My agenda? Hmmm, what is that?

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

Which is pretty rude and crude at times.

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

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

Yea, right.

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

Believe what you want, belief does not equal truth.

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

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

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

How important is it to your "thesis"

John Adams and John Q Adams were miles apart in their religious views.
[ed. at times]

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

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

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

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

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Dec 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/28/99

NUMBER 12

3/19/99

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

>:|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

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Dec 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/28/99

NUMBER 13

3/29/99

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

>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:

>:|> >:|Coke was a Puritan in 1628 when Charles I shut down Parliament. He was the
>:|> >:|author of the Petition of Right which exerted almost as much influence upon
>:|> >:|the founders as did Magna Carta. Jefferson said of Coke "a sounder Whig never wrote."
>:|> >:|
>:|>
>:|> You know, it is amazing how Jefferson is such a good source, except when he
>:|> says things you don't like or agree with, then he doesn't know his butt
>:|> from the outhouse.
>:|>
>:|> Now, I fully understand that people can be very smart about some things and
>:|> totally out to lunch about other things, but it is so amazing how
>:|> Jefferson's intelligence flows exactly in line with your belief system.
>:|
>:|Sounds like the way you handle John Quincy Adams :)
>:|

Care to explain the above?

>:|> You had better go back and read those people's findings again. You are
>:|> leaving out a very large part of what they discovered.
>:|
>:|You've already cut and pasted all of this information once before. You have
>:|already received my response on this. First, I agree that Blackstone was not
>:|universally heralded in the colonies. But then again, neither was George
>:|Washington. That does not diminish his popularity much though.

Depends, now doesn't it?

Depends on the context and circumstances.

>:|
>:|Your dismissal of Anti-Federalists continues to be brought up. You feel that
>:|their opinions didn't matter. They did. You have been given numerous responses
>:|from others than me who have made this point clear.

Ahhhh, Hummmmmmm.

What to go back over all that again and what I actually said?

Be more then happy to. if you don't, don't bother trying to place what I
have said in your terms, your terms frequently do not accurately represent
my points at all

I will sum the above up real plain and simple for you.

Many of the influential leaders or members of those called anti-federalits
were trying very hard to prevent the ratification of the Constitution. They
wanted a second Constitutional Convention, so they could produce a revised
form of the Articles of Confederation or a much weakened version of the
Constitution.

That is my point, has been my point. They used a lack of a BORe's as they
primary weapon to try and accomplish what they wanted.

Madison realizing this stole their thunder.

Simple huh? Some of their arguments and points were valid, many others were
sheer politics.

>:|
>:|Your challenge that the Bible was not a principal influence in the colonies is
>:|akin to your claim that only 1 in 5 colonists were affiliated with Churches.

My challenge?

Hey, you can go and check out what I mentioned to Tom Peters.

The books mentioned are not mass market comic books.

They aren't written by the same people who write Mad magazine.

Here is what I said to Tom.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
If you want to go to which ever one of your libraries (regular or law) that

has them and look at the 12 published volumes of THE DOCUMENTARY HISTORY
OF THE RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION. (Don't be fooled by the numbering,
the books aren't published in a proper order. The published volumes thus
far are 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18

If you look at volume 13 you will find on page 601 of the index the heading

Biblical References and it contains 24 page numbers listed for it. Volume
13 contains at least 579 pages of material from the people of those times.

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

Now, why does the above bother you? is it incorrect? You can find that out
yourself. is it unimportant?
I don't think so. It is another piece of the overall puzzle. if you don't
include it, you are going to have missing pieces to your puzzle, now aren't
you.

>:|I
>:|have never heard the Bible challenged as the number one best seller, leaving
>:|the second best seller (the New England Primer/Westminster Catechism) far behind.
>:|

I don't know what you are talking about above.

>:|Furthermore, Hyneman and Lutz didn't include allusions to the bible in their
>:|counts. I allege that that would have tripled the number.

Allusions? I think that what they said was cited. The books I mentioned
above lists in the indexes *Biblical references*

I think you would find that these include mentioning of the Bible,
referring to the Bible, and/or actually quoting some Biblical passage.

>:|Your challenge that the Bible was not a principal influence in the colonies is
>:|akin to your claim that only 1 in 5 colonists were affiliated with Churches.

My claim? My claim that only 1 in 5 colonists were churched?

One more time you are reframing what I said into your terms and your
thinking. One more time you are incorrect.

First of all, it is not my claim, and you know that. I presented
documentation from studies done by two people. How did you forget that?

Then, it had next to nothing to do with the colonies. Remember the title of
the study (book) THE CHURCHING OF AMERICA, 1776 - 1990, Winners and losers
in our religious economy. Roger Finke and Rodney Stark

Remember that?
1776, states were declaring their independence and writing their own
constitutions etc. Not colonies anymore.
(this is unlike the study the other guy cited which covers basically the
time frame of 1724 - 1780, and would be basically dealing with the
colonies)

Finke and Stark claim that
17% of the population was churched in 1776,
34% in 1850
37% in 1860
35% in 1870
45% in 1890
51% in 1906
53% in 1916
56% in 1926
59% in 1952
62% in 1980

You have not presented anything that would make their claims false,
incorrect, etc.

LOL, you write a book, they write a book. Many people write books, some
books agree basically with each other, other books totally disagree.

Before long, you can find those books that are pretty much in agreement
with each other on most of the data, etc. and you can find, probably as
many books, that agree with each other, but present totally different data
and conclusions than the first set of books.

You know what, the actual truth probably lies somewhere in the middle of
those two positions.

Your book is no more THE TRUTH then are books saying the exact opposite of
what you are saying. The truth lies somewhere in between those two
positions.
==================================================================

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Dec 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/28/99

NUMBER 10
3/19/99

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

>:|Mr. Leahy,
>:|
>:|Thank you for your level-headed response regarding definitions. Be careful,
>:|however, Mr. Alison is sure to call you a Christian fundamentalist for saying
>:|that the men involved in the American Revolution were not founders.
>:|
>:|You may be interested to know, from Mr. Alison, that the public schools have
>:|it all wrong: when they teach that this nation was birthed in 1776, they are
>:|deceiving the children. According to Mr. Alison, the nation conceived in 1776
>:|was not a "real nation:"
>:|
>:|> Let me put it in real simple terms. Those that "founded" that very loose

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

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

Why?

Is the above false?

I'm going to share two things with you.

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

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

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

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

As students of the separation debate quickly discover, the

"quotation war" between accommodational and separatistic tends to

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

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

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

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

follows, we present some guidelines accommodational should follow if they

want to successfully use quotations to prove their points.

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

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

Recognize that being sympathetic to religion is not the

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

were devoutly religious men, not all devoutly religious men were

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

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

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

SECOND ITEM

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

Who were the most important founders?

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

Commentary written by Dr. Tom Peters.

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

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

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

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

The founding period: 1774-1789.

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

The shaping period: 1790-1820.

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

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

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

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

If interested
See:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ahhh, well.

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Dec 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/28/99

NUMBER 14

4/11/99

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

>:| and the one replying to your
>:|> Wisconsin law..
>:|

******************************************************************************
**
THE FOLLOWING HAS ADDITION MATERIAL ADDED TO IT
******************************************************************************
**

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

>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>

>:|> >:|You are accurate in the sense that the Common law drew largely from Germanic
>:|> >:|origins; however, in the medieval period much of the Canon Law was grafted
>:|> >:|into the English Common Law to the extent that by the time of the American
>:|> >:|Colonial era, British Common Law was permeated with Christian concepts.
>:|> >:|
>:|>
>:|> Which means, in your mind, exactly what?
>:|
>:|Which means, in my mind, in the medieval period much of the Canon Law was
>:|grafted into the English Common Law to the extent that by the time of the
>:|American Colonial era, British Common Law was permeated with Christian concepts.
>:|

This American colonial era covers what years, in your mind?

I do recall you saying at one point in time that 99% of American law came
from Blackstone.

I asked you about that, and you never did say any more about it.

Do you still insist that is an accurate statement?

The real point is in only one area. That area is the so called religious
aspect.The Christian aspect that is.

The rest is irrelevant to any of these discussions.

So, it is your claim that the states borrowed heavily on Blackstone in the
area of religion?

In the area of religious laws?

>:|> Which means, in your mind, exactly what as each other several states began
>:|> disestablishment of religion, and as each, even the ones who did not have
>:|> any official establishments, began breaking all unions between state and
>:|> church?
>:|
>:|I tell you what, I don't think it's fair for me to simply provide you with my
>:|opinion on this matter. I think that there is a document which can put this
>:|question to rest.
>:|
>:|I went to my local historical society library here in Wisconsin and found the
>:|earliest Statute Book I could find for this state. I trust that you are
>:|sensible

Sensible? Why do you frequently couch your claims in this manner?
Integrity, honest, smart enough, sensible, etc.

Why is that? What, I your mind, is your reasons for doing this.

You see, I ask this question, because after being on here for over four
years, and being on another national, thought smaller net for two years
before that, and being on several local bbses, you are one of the very few
people I have ever run across who do this.

Regardless what you want to say, you are setting a person up with these
little thingies of yours.

Why, do you feel such is needed?

>:| enough to know that Wisconsin, founded 1848, was not an unusually
>:|"Christian" state, and that the laws of other states in the Midwest were
>:|similar to the laws of Wisconsin. This is Wisconsin Law 1848-1880:
>:|
>:|Formerly called "Crimes against God and Religion," by Wisconsin Statutes
>:|(1850) Wisconsin Revised Statutes (1871) label this section "offences against
>:|chastity, morality, and decency:" The section includes the following
>:|

Yes, I note that the name was changed. Sometime between 1850 and 1871 they
decided to change the name, huh? How interesting. Why do you think they
did that? I wonder? Any ideas?

Pretty much in line with the article that I offer as evidence later on in
this, huh?

>:|SABBATH-BREAKING:
>:|
>:|--------

>:|
>:|Keep in mind, Wisconsin was not one of those states, like Massachusetts, which
>:|originally established Christianity. This was not an "old law" that had been
>:|on the Wisconsin books in the colonial days. It was written into their
>:|statutes in the 1800's, well after Madison (whose namesake was given to the
>:|Wisconsin capital) grafted first amendment principles into the fed. Const.
>:|
>:|What might explain this? Could it be the fact that the entirety of the
>:|Wisconsin Statutes reflects the form, organization, and content of
>:|Blackstone's Commentaries?

No.

>:|Or is that just a coincidence? Is it a coincidence
>:|that Blackstone labeled a section "Offences against God and Religion" and
>:|Wisconsin Statutes labled a section "Crimes against God and Religion"? Is it a
>:|coincidence that in this section Blackstone addresses the matter of
>:|Sabbath-breaking? What a coincidence!

Sabbath breaking! One out of eleven crimes as listed by Blackstone is not
very impressive.

It does not show that Blackstone's VOLUME IV, CHAPTER IV, PERMEATED THE
LAWS OF THIS NATION on the national or state level. Sorry, try again.

>:|
>:|Could it be that Blackstone and the common law continued to lie at the base of
>:|legal theory throughout the states in the 19th century?

NO, not as it pertained to VOLUME IV, CHAPTER IV

>:|
>:|Or will you allege that Wisconsin was very odd and out of step in its
>:|statutes? All I really need to do is take a trip to Marquette Law and pull
>:|down Indiana Statutes of the 19th century to show that to be wrong.
>:|

This has already been answered, but I will answer it again.

A tiny bit of history:

June 15, 1835 - Act Establishing Territory of Wisconsin
August 8, 1845 - Enabling Act for Wisconsin Territory
May 28, 1847 - Constitution of Wisconsin
May, 29, 1848 - Constitution of Wisconsin

Prior to 1835 what did the area that would eventually become known as
Wisconsin operate under or function under?

Basically, the Northwest Ordinance. What did the N.O. proclaim regarding
religion?

Article the First. No person demeaning himself in a peaceable and
orderly manner shell ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or
religious sentiments in the said territory.

SOME PEOPLE THINK THE FOLLOWING HAS SOME SORT OF IMPORTANCE, BUT IN FACT IT
DOESN'T

Article the Third. Religion, Morality and knowledge being
necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, Schools and the
means of education shall forever be encouraged.

I do have here copies of the sections of the original Constitutions [and
the first few revisions of same constitutions] of the original 13 States,
along with the same for TEXAS, ALABAMA, STATE OF WEST TEXAS, UTAH,
KENTUCKY,TENNESSEE, OHIO.

I don't have on hand any of the following:

June 15, 1835 - Act Establishing Territory of Wisconsin
August 8, 1845 - Enabling Act for Wisconsin Territory
May 28, 1847 - Constitution of Wisconsin
May, 29, 1848 - Constitution of Wisconsin

I do have on hand copies of every single variation that the N. O. passed
through from 1785 to it passage July 13, 1787.

I can tell you this much, religious freedom was created by the
Constitutions of those states and that would have included Wisconsin.

Does religious liberty co-exist with blasphemy laws or sunday closing laws.
No it didn't. However, because of the climate of the times, a real tug of
war between religious conservatives/traditionists and religious liberals
that existed throughout the 1800's you frequently had contradictions
between what was and what was suppose to be. You had Constitutions that
said one thing and statutes among the state laws that said something else.

Courts do not seek out business, it is brought to them. You point is
noted, and if you look around throughout these periods of time you will
find quite a bit of that same thing existing in various state laws, etc.

However, when such things did eventually end up in courts, the courts
frequently found such laws to be in violation, or they denied the religious
aspect and called is something else.

Case in point, Minor v Ohio.

That such laws were included among the laws of Wisconsin and other states
during this time period is not surprising. That it proves what you are
trying to say it proves is just not the case.

1 or 2 out of eleven crimes does not support your case.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++
BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES ON THE LAW
BOOK IV, CHAPTER IV
OFFENSES AS AGAINST GOD AND RELIGION

[The crimes as listed in his Commentaries]

(1) APOSTACY or total rejection of Christianity
(2) HERESY
(3) OFFENCES AGAINST THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH
(1) Reviling the ordinances of the [national] church
(2) Non-conformity
(4) BLASPHEMY
(5) SWEARING OR CURSING
(6) CRIME OF WITCHCRAFT, CONJURATION, INCHANTMENT, SORCERY
(7) RELIGIOUS IMPOSTERS
(8) SIMONY
(9) PROFANATION OF THE LORD''S DAY [Sabbath Breaking]
(10) DRUNKENNESS
(11) LEWDNESS
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++

Yes, one can really see this tremendous influence of Blackstone on the laws
of Wisconsin in the mid 1800's LOL Yea Right!!!!!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
HERE IS ONE OPINION:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BLACKSTONE'S

COMMENTARIES

THE LAW

From the Abridged Edition of Wm. Hardcastle Browne
Including a Biographical Sketch, Modern American
Notes, Common Law Maxims and a Glossary of Legal Terms

Edited by
BERNARD C. GAVIT

Dean, Indiana University School of Law

WASHINGTON LAW BOOK CO.
WASHINGTON, D. C.
1892

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

DEAN GAVIT'S NOTES

CHAPTER IV

OFFENSES AS AGAINST GOD AND RELIGION

The Federal Constitution and state constitutions prohibit an official
state religion, with the result that most of the crimes which Blackstone
describes in this chapter cannot exist in this country. Clearly a statute
which would undertake to resurrect the crime of heresy would be
unconstitutional. It is, of course, still true that religious organizations
and activities may be protected against unlawful interference, so that one
who disturbs a religious meeting or offends the religious sensibilities of
other members of society may be guilty of a crime. Statutes providing for
the observance of Sunday as a day of rest are still common, and a person
may be guilty of a crime if he engages in. common work or other activity of
a proscribed nature on this day.

What Blackstone describes in paragraphs 10 and 11, of course, are quite
outside of the field of religion as such, and statutes today generally make
this type of conduct wrongful, because such conduct offends common
standards of morality, quite apart from any religious sanctions on the
same-subject.
[paragraph 10 is Drunkenness and paragraph 11 is Open Lewdness]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++

Moving on here:

I would suggest you might want to examine the following article:
The Death of the Christian: The Judiciary and Chruch-State Relations, by
Frank Way. Journal of Church and State, Volume 29, Autumn 1987, Number 3 pp
509

The following are excerpts from that article [I think I already posted some
of this to you before]

Between 1800 and 1920 there were 254 state court cases involving
religion/church/state issues on the state.

That is the total package 254 cases which average 2.116 (actually you can
keep adding 6's forever, such as 2.116666666, etc) cases per year LOL

Point is there was very little religious cases and the ones that did exist
break down as follows:
112 recorded church property disputes
87 recorded Sabbath closing law cases
18 public school prayer and Bible reading cases
15 cases involving public aid to sectarian schools
22 reported blasphemy cases

Between 1800 - 1920 and especially between 1870 and 1920 the state courts
moved away form a perception of America as a Christian nation, from a
religious communitarian conceptual framework and moved increasingly in the
direction of a secular based perspective in church-state relations.

Between 1817 and 1887, 25 percent of the recorded state Sunday closing
cases offered a Christian nation or Christian piety rationale. Between 1888
and 1920 this percentage dropped to less than 10 percent, and has dropped
from 1920 to the present where such case are even brought about anymore to
zero percent.
[ my comment: considering the climate, it is remarkable that only 25 % of
the Sunday closing cases offered a Christian reasoning between 1817 and
1887. That means that 3 out of 4 offered some other rationale for the
closings]

In the case of public schools the turning point seemed to be the 1850's for
it was after that, and especially after the Civil War that increased
pressures caused by increasing immigration bringing in Jews and especially
Catholics that the Protestant majority and Protestant having its own way
began to be attacked in courts and sometimes in the streets with increasing
frequency and success.

From the time of the War of Independence to the period of time of 1850
valid arguments could be made that this was indeed a "Christian nation," so
long as Christian was understood to mean White Protestant male dominated
nation.
(The sexiest and raciest nature of the code words Christian nation are
seldom ever openly mentioned, acknowledged or discussed.)

But beginning with increasing frequency at about mid point of the 1800's
that began to change. In the case of Sunday laws change came about mostly
because of such things as Railroads, Telegraphs, commercial enterprises,
even baseball. Massive influx of people from other countries helped change
many of the other areas. For example in 1785 the Catholic population in all
13 states was about 35,000. By 1850 that pop had increased to 1.7 million,
by 1870 6 million, 1900 12 million and by 1906 Roman Catholics constituted
the majority religious population of 16 states, including all of New
England, New York, New Jersey, Michigan. it was the largest single church
in 29 of the 45 states. I don't have information on the Jewish population
but it also had drastic increases as well.

>:|> Finally, which means, in your mind, exactly what as the Federal
>:|> Constitution was framed, ratified, went into effect? The amendments were
>:|> framed, ratified and became part of that Constitution?
>:|
>:|Apparently, from what I cited above, it did not mean that the common law and
>:|Blackstone were no longer to be at the foundation of state laws.

Try again.

You offer Sunday closings as your evidence. One out of eleven "offenses"
listed as crimes against religions and God by Blackstone.

That does not show overwhelming influence. Sorry, you did not meet your
burden of proof.

To finish up:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++

From: "Probe" <kem...@globalnet.co.uk>
Newsgroups:
alt.history.colonial,alt.history,alt.society.liberalism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.religion.christian
,alt.religion.deism,alt.deism,soc.history,alt.atheism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Was Christianity part of the Common Law?
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 19:10:06 +0100
So to cut to the chase, one has to look back from the present, in whatever
jurisdiction one finds oneself, and in the United States whatever Common
Law provisions existed at one time will have been re-interpreted, dis
applied, re-affirmed or constrained by the absolute necessity of complying
with the Federal Constitution and its Amendments.

, I guess I should declare that I am both a professional historian and a
trained lawyer.

Probe
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++

> Dear Rick,
> [i.e., Was Christianity part of the Common Law] is "Yes, it
> was, at least prior to ratification of the Federal Constitution of the
> United States."

>In the case of blasphemy, that is quite clear cut, and I
> chose that example because in substance it lies at the heart of much of the
> debate. It would be less clear in relation to other matters, but I would
> need to know (and do not know) the context in which Jefferson made a remark
> that on its face appears to have been dead wrong. Within context, it may
> well be that his remark made sense. On the other hand, no man alive was ever
> infallible (apart from, we are told, a chap whose resurrection many of us
> may celebrate tomorrow).
>
> John ["Probe"]
>
> Dr. R. John Pritchard
> The Director
> The Robert M.W. Kempner Collegium
> Programmes & Publications on the History & Jurisprudence of
> International Criminal Law, International Humanitarian Law
> and Related Subjects
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++

From: Stephen Voss <vo...@gate.net>
Newsgroups:
alt.history.colonial,alt.history,alt.history.american.ap-exam,alt.society.liberalism,alt.politics.usa.co
nstitution,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.deism,alt.deism,soc.history.war.us-revolution,alt.atheis
m,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Was Christianity part of the Common Law?
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 22:51:26 -0400

> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> Most of this probably came from the Jews first. They probably got
> their views from somewhere else. Some probably came from Pagan Rome
> and Greece and some probably came from common sense. Most of it
> Western European in culture. Christianity came later. Christians then
> persecuted themselves and forced the Gnostics into hiding. I'm sure
> those persecuted had wonderful ideas.

Actually most of Common law had nothing to do with the christian church.
Common law decended from Celtic law and its hybridization with Dane Law
and Anglo-saxon law in England from the 5th to the 11th century. The
Celts ,anglo saxons and vikings were very much individualists. The church
on the other hand had most of its origins in Roman society and its laws
are similar to roman laws even the papacy in ways was a mirror image of the
roman empire. While the Church was an important part of pre-norman English
society, the roman and christian influence was very limited in legal
formations which had been ongoing since before england became christian.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++

(excerpts regarding religion)

NEW YORK
NEW YORK CONSTITUTIONS
1777; 1822; 1846; 1869; 1897; 1967

NEW YORK CONSTITUTION OF 1777

ARTICLE VIII. That every elector, before he is admitted to vote,
shall, if required by the returning-officer or either of the inspectors,
take an oath, or, if of the people called Quakers, an affirmation, of
allegiance to the state.

ARTICLE XXXV. And this convention doth further, in the name and by
the authority of the good people of this state, ordain, determine,

and
declare that such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute
law of England and Great Britian, and of the acts of the legislature of the
colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on the
19th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand severn hundred and
seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this state, subject to such
alterations and provisions as the legislature of this state, shall, from
time to time make concerning the same.

That such of the said acts, as are temporary, shall expire at the times
limited for their duration respectively.

That all such parts of the said common law, and all such of the
said statutes and acts aforesaid, or parts thereof, as may be construed to
establish or maintain any particular denomination of Christians or their
ministers, or concern the allegiance heretofore yielded to, and the
supremacy, sovereignty, government, or perogatives claimed or exerised by,
the King of Great Britan and his predecessors, over the colony of New York
and its inhabitants, or are repugant to this constitution, be, and they
hereby are, abrogated and rejected.

And this convention doth further
ordain, that the resolves or resolutions of the congresses of the colony of
New York, and of the convention of the state of New York, now in force, and
not repugnant to the government established by this constitution, shall be
considered as making part of the laws of this state; subject, nevertheless,
to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this state, may
from time to time, make concerning the same.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++

The following is from a e-mail I sent to someone back in Feb 1997.

December term 1853 Ohio Supreme court
Bloom v Cornelius

The case involved a contract that was signed on a Sunday.

The court ruled the it being signed on a Sunday did not make it invalid.

(Some states had laws on their books that did make such contracts
invalid.)

However what is important for us is not just the decision but the
following quotes which can be found in the opinion and which are in direct
conflict with some of the quotes that both Brewer and Barton use to prove
their arguments.

"Christianity is a part of the common law of England, but, under the
provisions of our constitution, neither Christianity nor any other system
of religion is a part of the law of this state."

(BTW, this is a part of the holding of this case and not part of dicta.
If an Ohio Supreme Court could have made that ruling in the 1850's a Mass
and or Pa court could have made a similar ruling had it wanted to at
earlier times in the 1800's)

From the same holding:

"We have no union of Church and State, nor has our government ever been
vested with authority to enforce any religious observance simply because
it is religious."

From the same holding
"The statute, prohibiting common labor on the Sabbath, could not stand
for a moment as the law of this state, if its sole foundation was the
Christian duty of keeping the day holy, and its sole motive to enforce the
observance of that duty. It is to be regarded as a mere municipal or
police regulation, whose validity is neither strengthened nor weakened by
the fact that the day od rest it enjoins is the Sabbath day."
(Signing a contract on Sunday would have been viewed as common labor)

*Some* states thought that Christianity was part of the common law;
others didn't. It wasn't universal.
******************************************************************************
****
Back in early 1997 we received a letter from a group of attorneys in
Alabama.

They were in the process of gathering historical evidence to be used in
their Friends of the Court brief filing with the Alabama Supreme Court in
the Judge Moore, Ten Commandments, Prayer in the courtroom case.

We were asked if we could send them some historical data that they could
use.

The following was part of what we sent.

I place it here because of it's references to common law and to religion
and the uproar it created at the time.

_________________________________________________________________________
1. Clergy in the courtroom; prayer in the courtroom.

Eidsmoe's first affidavit characterizes the practice of prayer in the
courtroom as commonplace at or around the time of the drafting and
ratification of the Constitution. He cites as examples a number of
New England federal circuit court cases which entreated clergy to "address
the throne of Grace" as evidence that such practices were accepted. John
Jay's stellar reputation excepted, the following quote from a 1919 work on
John Marshall notes a slightly different interpretation of clergy-courtroom
politics. From Vol. III. The Life of John Marshall (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1916-19, Beveridge, Albert J.):

"But if the National judges had caused alarm by treating the common law as
though it were a statute of the United States without waiting for an act of
Congress to make it so, their manners and methods in the enforcement of the
Sedition Act aroused against them an ever increasing hostility.

"Stories of their performances on the bench in such cases -- their
tones when speaking to counsel, to accused persons, and even to witnesses,
their immoderate language, their sympathy with one of the European nations
then at war and their animosity toward the other, their partisanship in
cases on trial before them -- tales made up from such material flew from
mouth to mouth until finally the very name and sight of National judges
became obnoxious to most Americans. In short, the assaults upon the
National Judiciary were made possible chiefly by the conduct of the
National judges themselves." (l)

Footnote (1) says:

(1) The National judges, in their charges to grand juries, lectured and
preached on religion, on morality, on partisan politics. "On Monday last
the Circuit Court of the United States was opened in this town. The Hen.
Judge Patterson .. delivered a most elegant and appropriate charge. "The
Law was laid down in a masterly manner: Politics were set in their true
light by holding up the Jacobins [Republicans] as the disorganizers of our
happy country, and the only instruments of introducing discontent and
dissatisfaction among the well meaning part of the community. Religion. &
Morality were pleasingly inculcated and enforced as being necessary to good
government, good order, and good laws; for 'when the righteous
[Federalists] are in authority, the people rejoice.' . .
"After the charge was delivered the Rev. Mr. Alden addressed the
Throne of Grace in an excellent and well adapted prayer." (United
States Oracle of the Day, May 24, 1800, as quoted by Hackett, in
Green Bao. 11. 264)

(SOURCE OF ABOVE MATERIAL: THE LIFE OF JOHN MARSHALL, By Albert J.
Beveridge
Volume III Conflict and construction, 1800-1815, Houghton Mifflin Company
(1918) page 29-30. Additional background material included covering pages
26 -33, all under the title of EXHIBIT A)

[The footnote contains the same passage used by Eidsmoe on page X of his
first Affidavit. The Rev. Mr. Alden addressing the Throne of Grace in
prayer. The meaning given the whole process differs from the conclusion
Eidsmoe comes away from it with.]

_____________________________________________________________________________

I rest my case.

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Dec 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/28/99

NUMBER 2 in this series Basically a restating of Gardiner's position, with
my two sentence comment telling him some of his facts were incorrect.

3/5/99
alt.politics.usa.constitution
Re: Christianity and the Founders

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:

>:|

Your facts are not indisputable, in fact some are downright incorrect.

I will be more then happy to take each one and discuss them with you.

>:| 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.
>:|

>:| 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.
>:|

>:|
>:| 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."
>:|

>:|Thanks for your response and I'd be glad to continue this dialogue further...
>:|

>:|Gracefully,
>:|Rick

==================================================================

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Dec 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/28/99

NUMBER 1I

3/19/99

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

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

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Dec 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/28/99

NUMBER 9
3/15/99

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Jargon Dictionary : Terms : The T Terms : troll

troll

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

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

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

You asked why people thought you were a fundamentalist.

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

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

Then there is the matter of your co-author.

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

I suspect others are as well.

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

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

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

My, My another dig,

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

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

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

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

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Dec 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/28/99

NUMBER 8

Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net>
Date:
3/15/99

Forum:
alt.politics.usa.constitution

jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>
> Why do you ask me to direct you to something, why don't you send an e-mail
> message to the author of the article and ask him?

You cited the article as one with which you concurred. This conversation
has
not been between me and whoever that author is, but between me and you.

> troll

I don't speak "internet" very fluently.

> Then there is the matter of your co-author.
>
> Regent University? I live 6 miles from Regent University. I am very aware
> of Pat Robertson, The ACLJ, Christian Coalition, 700 Club, CBN, Regent
> University, etc.
>
> I suspect others are as well.

What you are doing here is called the genetic fallacy. I refer you to
Irving
Copi, an INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC.

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

I know its certain to be another argument like "Christianity was imposed
upon
the common law." But as I have said, the esoteric history of the document
doesn't change the document itself. Jefferson may be right that Prisot was
misinterpretted, Coke erred, Blackstone erred, etc.; but that does not
change
the fact that Coke and Blackstone embodied the common law in their eras.
Likewise, even if the sentence in the NWO was interpolated by some
fraudulent
scribe, it is still there, and it remains part of the founding.

> >:|Jim, why do you assume the worst of intentions among your adversaries?
>
> Did you bother to read the articles? If you did, how do you address what
> they said? If you didn't, why didn't you?

I did read them, and I responded in this thread.

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

Your analysis of human nature is accurate. People tend to only want to
present
the facts which support their opinions. This should come as no surprise.
I'm
sure that as a human being I have been guilty of this a number of times. As
a
scholar, I fight this impulse as much as possible.

What I find troubling is that you seem to see yourself as immune to these
human frailties. You seem to claim to present things in perfect balance (0,
1,
2). I think a jury of 12 men with common sense would agree that your
presentation is as biased, if not far more, than any other person who has
been
part of this conversation.

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

Just because someone criticizes a person's historical knowledge doesn't
meant
they are calling the person's integrity into question. Knowledge is an
academic matter, integrity is a moral matter. I never impuned anyone's
integrity. That has been exclusively your domain.

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

I probably have told many people to read the history books, that's how a
historian is corrected. I don't recall ever using the derogatory phrase
"don't
know from Adam."

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

> book? Hint, you.

When people are making strange claims like, "the U.S. was not founded in
1776," and "the anti-feds had no influence upon the Constitution," and "the
Library of Congress is controlled by Pat Robertson," I think a garden
variety
textbook is the best antidote.

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

Never. I questioned whether their anti-Christian agendas have distorted
their
understanding of colonial america.

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

I have a hunch that you define "questioning integrity" as synonymous with
"criticizing." Your sense of definition is what has caused most of this
conflict (See Harold Leahy's post later in this thread). Criticizing
opinions
is part an parcel of debate. Calling people trolls, etc., is uncivil (see
G.
Washington's Rules For Civility).

> >:|I appeal to you to consider me a person of good-will;
>
> I don't, see above.

Well, I suppose this will be the last you'll hear from me in this
conversation. I don't mind you criticizing my opinions and tearing my
assertions all to shreds, but if you insist that I am a vicious and
ill-meaning person, I'll leave you to abuse someone else. I appreciate your
academic challenges, but they are overshadowed by your abusive and flippant
presentation. You have a lot of good information to share. I hope someday
you
will learn diplomacy.

> 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:

"Wrongheaded" and "unsupportable" are adjectives used by scholars in
academic
publications everywhere. The second sentence does not impune Mr. Johnson's
integrity, it APPEALS TO his integrity.
====================================================================

> >:|Jim, why do you assume the worst of intentions among your adversaries?
>
> Did you bother to read the articles? If you did, how do you address what
> they said? If you didn't, why didn't you?

I did read them, and I responded in this thread.

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

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

I probably have told many people to read the history books, that's how a
historian is corrected. I don't recall ever using the derogatory phrase
"don't
know from Adam."

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

> book? Hint, you.

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

Never. I questioned whether their anti-Christian agendas have distorted
their
understanding of colonial america.

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

> >:|I appeal to you to consider me a person of good-will;
>
> I don't, see above.

"Wrongheaded" and "unsupportable" are adjectives used by scholars in
academic
publications everywhere. The second sentence does not impune Mr. Johnson's
integrity, it APPEALS TO his integrity.

> 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.

This was posted in response to persons who stated that they hated
Christians
and Christianity and were alleging that Christianity had nothing to do with
the founding. I was not questioning integrity; I was pointing out the
obvious,
repeating exactly what was said by them.

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

Is this a term people have attached to you? I'm wondering what experience
you
are speaking from? I've never had that label attached to me before you used
it.

> >:|Additionally, I have not seen you or anyone disprove the fundamental thesis
> >:|that I, or the Library of Congress, have set forth, viz., that the founding
> >:|era was replete with Christianity.
>
> If your fundamental thesis was and is that most of those who became
> founders of this country and/or were the framers of the documents that
> created this nation had a background in some form of the Christian beliefs,
> you are correct.

That is the gist of my thesis.

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

That is a part of my thesis.

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

That is definitely NOT my thesis.

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

That is partially my thesis. I argue that the Christian milieu of the
founding
era resulted in a multitude of Christian principles finding their way, by
osmosis, into the foundation of our nation.

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

That is part of my thesis.

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

Don't get impressions. Believe what I say explicitly.

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

> Also such great lengths to try and establish a Christian pedigree for this
> whole idea. Yes
>
> Jefferson and Madison were both very well read.
> Both read much more then those whom you want to point out

There is no question that those men read volumes and volumes concerning
religious liberty. However, it is my understanding that Locke was the
principal philosophical force which influenced their understanding of
toleration. For Madison, Chapters 19-21 of the Westminster Confession "On
Liberty of Conscience" was certainly a factor. Milton was certainly a
factor
upon Jefferson, and their Baptist neighbors' arguments unquestionably
influenced their desire for religious liberty.

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

Agreed.

> >:|My argument has been only that the socio-cultural milieu in which the founders
> >:|were socialized was permeated with Christianity. If we are in dispute, it is
> >:|about that thesis. I have not attempted to argue otherwise.
>
> Kewl, you can say that in two sentences as you have above. What is your
> book about and what is all these posts about if that is all you wanted to
> say?

That is the upshot of my book. I got into this conversation as a result of
someone alleging that the country was founded upon Deism and that orthodox
Christianity didn't have anything to do with it. Somehow you appeared to
interpret that as me arguing against a separation of church and state,
which I
would not do. You then began to read an agenda into my assertions and
labeled
me all sorts of derogatory names.

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

Uh...where have I attacked Jefferson's erudition?? All I have done is
restate
exactly what Jefferson's letter does and doesn't say. I have made no value
judgment as to whether Jefferson's findings are right or wrong. Likewise I
am
not saying that the fundamentalist argument is right or wrong. I am saying
that Jefferson would have been wrong if he were to have said that "the
common
perception of the common law is that it is not intertwined with
Christianity,"
the same way that fundamentalists would be wrong if they were to say that
"the
common perception of the first amendment is that it does not separate
church
and state."

But the point is that Jefferson did not say that, so he is not necessarily
wrong.

> Hmmmmmm, a series of legal mistakes?
>
> Two ways to look at that.
>
> (1) something actually did come about because of misunderstanding or error
>
> (2) something actually did come about because it was the correct meaning,
> progression etc of something.
>
> What you have is a man, a trained lawyer, who spent a great deal of time in
> intensive study of English Law, Common law etc. His reasons were to be able
> to revise the laws of Virginia.
>
> His studies complete he formed some conclusions.
>
> He explained this conclusions, in detail. Including the chain of events,
> documented them.
>
> Is he right? You seem to think he isn't. kewl, that's your opinion. You
> have a stake in him being wrong. Him being correct would be a blow to your
> theories, etc.

You failed to understand what I said. I showed that even if Jefferson was
right, it has no impact upon "my theories." This is because Jefferson's
point
of view on this matter was that the common law DID explicitly involve
Biblical
Revelation, but that it got that way because of pious frauds (e.g.,
Blackstone) interpolating Christian assertions into it. Jefferson himself
admits that Christian precepts are part and parcel of the common law ON THE
SURFACE.

By the way, did you read the Jefferson letters? Can you show me in the
letters
where Jefferson says that the common understanding of the common law is
that
it has nothing to do with Christianity.

As long as the common understanding of the common law was that it was
intertwined with Christianity, there is no impact upon my thesis. Let me
remind you of my thesis: I allege that the socio-cultural and
socio-political
milieu of the American Colonies was such that Christianity permeated all
aspects of society (including the laws). The majority of colonists believed
that Christianity was part and parcel of the common law. I don't think that
by
showing that Jefferson disagreed, you have "blown out my theory." As a
matter
of fact, if it werent the case that the received view was that Christianity
was part of the common law, why would Jefferson have had to take pains to
refute it. Somebody important somewhere must have been alleging it or
Jefferson would not have wasted his time.

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

> >Of course, being a
> >:|reasonable man, he did not say that. And since my thesis primarily deals with
> >:|the "common understanding" i.e., "cultural context," what Jefferson argued was
> >:|really an esoteric matter of little consequence to whether the colonists by
> >:|and large viewed the common law as a Christian institution, which I continue
> >:|to maintain that they did!
>
> Oh yes, how nice. You have solved the problem to your own satisfaction, so
> you can breath easy.

You have not shown where I have failed. Your perpetual use of ad hominem
fallacies seems to indicate that you want to argue for argument's sake.

> >:|Therefore, I do not believe that Jefferson's personal views on the matter
> >:|discredit the thesis.
>
> I don't care about your thesis, nor your book. My responses are to things
> you have posted in these threads, not your book not your thesis, only what
> you have actually posted here.

I only care about my thesis. If I have posted anything contrary to it, I
wish
to recant. I am not interested in arguing a church/state conflict, unless
it
strikes at the heart of my thesis, which I don't think it does.

> >:|Nonetheless, where you are wrong, you are wrong.
>
> You haven't proven that.

You have been wrong on a number of matters. For example, you are wrong by
alleging that if Jefferson is right about a fraudulent scribe interpolating
Exodus into the common law, etc., that my thesis is blown out of the water.
My
thesis deals with cultural milieu and not just Thomas Jefferson (although
he
was a certainly part of that milieu).

> >Where you are refusing to
> >:|acknowledge the obvious as a result of your "separationist" (I think that's
> >:|what you call yourself) agenda,
>
> I don't "call" myself anything.
>
> My agenda? Hmmm, what is that?

At the botton of this post you list a number of affiliations which indicate
that you are passionately committed to separation of church and state. You
used the term "separationist."

> >:| then I will not shrink back from calling it as
> >:|I see it.
>
> Which is pretty rude and crude at times.

I often intentionally mean to criticize, but I do not mean to be crude.

> >:|However, I will never resort to vulgarities or implying that you are an ass.
> >:|According to the founders, that is what men do when they know their argument
> >:|is weak.
>
> Oh but you can question anothers' integrity and that is fine huh. or you
> can imply others are dumb and stupid, and that is ok huh? LOL
>
> Yea, right.

I try not to question anyone's integrity, but I do often question
intelligence
and knowledge. Again, unless you are using distorted definitions, these are
not the same thing.

> >:|By the way, I am still working on the JQ Adams quote, and I think it may be
> >:|forthcoming. In that regard, though, I have found nearly a parallel quote in
> >:|John Adams:
> >:|
> >:|"the general principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the
> >:|only principles in which that beautiful assembly of young gentlemen could
> >:|unite... And what were these general principles? I answer, the general
> >:|principles of Christianity...."
> >:|
> >:|(Adams to Jefferson, 6/28/1813)
> >:|
> >:|Knowing that John Adams said this, I find is very easy to believe that his son
> >:|may have repeated this sentiment 9 years later in very similar words.
>
> Believe what you want, belief does not equal truth.
>
> To prove that quote you have to locate its original source. Someone might
> have said that doesn't get the job done. Someone else saying someone said
> something doesn't get it done.
>
> >:| "connected in one indissoluable bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity?"
>
> Just out of curiosity, why is it so important to you?

It is not very important. I was very impressed by your thorough research
showing that it may have been a bogus quote that has been perpetrated (sort
of
like Jefferson's claim about the common law). Out of curiosity, I want to
join
the hunt. I find research to be fun. It is a challenge. I figure that if I
can
find the JQA quote I can prevent those who cite it from the embarrassment
of
not knowing where it was from. If I can't find it, I will join you in your
criticism of those who use it. What's so wrong about enjoying the task of
searching?

> How important is it to your "thesis"

If JQA said it, and if JQA is considered a qualified historian of the
founding, it would certainly not hurt my thesis. But my thesis is far
broader
than JQA's assertion.

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

None. I really would not be surprised.

Mr. Allison, as I mentioned earlier, I must sign off. I'd be glad to
converse
more on this matter if and when you might be willing to be civil. Your
information has truly changed some of my thoughts, but your abusiveness and
utter refusal to believe that I am a person of goodwill outweighs the value
that has come of this conversation.

Blessings to you in your endeavors and your publication of your documentary
history. Keep up the good research.

Grace,
Rick
http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/resume.html

buc...@exis.net

unread,

Dec 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/28/99

In Late Feb or very early March Robert Johnson got Gardiner to admit the
following:

[Johnson]
> The prayer you attribute to Washington is at best suspect.

[Gardiner]
Granted.

[Johnson]
> John Adams believed along Unitarian Universalist lines.

[Gardiner]
Perhaps.

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