Crosspost; In God We Trust
C M
Printed boldly on the back of the United States currency is the motto "In
God We Trust." We have seen it so often that it may have lost its meaning to
us. But found in these words is the secret to national and personal
greatness.
Webster's Dictionary defines the word trust as "a firm belief or confidence
in the honesty, integrity, reliability and justice of another person or
thing."
When our founding fathers put their names to the Declaration of
Independence, they believed that God was the only sure foundation upon which
to build a nation that would endure. These men knew that this unique
experiment in freedom would only stand the test of time by God's grace.
George Washington stated it simply, "It is impossible to rightly govern the
world without God and the Bible."
Reliance upon God was deeply rooted in our country's important documents and
institutions from the beginning. But today confidence in God and His Word is
no longer the foundation of society.
In our schools the God of Creation has been replaced by the "god" of
evolutionary chance. Truth has been replaced by relativism. Morality has
been replaced by expediency.
In our homes we nightly view things that were unimaginable on television and
in movies only a decade ago. Violence, sexual perversion and obscene
language spill off the screen.
In the political arena God's principles of truth and justice have often
given way to expedience, personal profit, and compromise.
As we have departed from God, life has been devalued. The lives of unborn
children are snuffed out in abortion clinics and the number of robberies,
rapes and murders increase daily.
It is time that we return to the values of God's Word in our public and
private lives so that He will heal our land. We must begin person by person
on our knees, confessing our failure to trust God fully in our lives.
Today you can affirm your trust in God if you will:
Acknowledge that you need salvation: The Bible says, "All have sinned, and
come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).
Recognize God's love for you: "God so loved the world, that He gave His only
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have
everlasting life" (John 3:16).
Receive Jesus and His forgiveness, the only basis for encountering God. "As
many as received Him (Jesus), to them gave He power to become the sons of
God, even to them that believe on His name" (John 1:12).
God is calling you to put your trust in Him today! Don't ignore His call!
IF you have any questions or have decided to Accept Jesus Christ as your
Saviour please write me and I will do all that I can to help you in your new
walk with the LORD
Rawley
news:ud1rvae...@corp.supernews.com:
> When our founding fathers put their names to the Declaration of
> Independence, they believed that God was the only sure foundation upon
> which to build a nation that would endure.
Good thing it wasn't mentioned in the constitution.
> In the political arena God's principles of truth and justice have often
> given way to expedience, personal profit, and compromise.
>
God's justice is sending anyone to hell that doesn't believe.
And god never gave a commandment against lying.
> As we have departed from God, life has been devalued. The lives of unborn
> children are snuffed out in abortion clinics and the number of robberies,
> rapes and murders increase daily.
>
God supported raping, murdering, killing children and countless people.
Now I know where you come from.
Have a shpadoinkle day!
-Rawley a.a #2029
--
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived."
- Asimov
"Cows are cognitive."
- CobaltFjord 09 Apr 2002 04:59:16 GMT
2 Kings 2:23-24 -- God sends two bears to rip up 42 little children for
making fun of Elisha's bald head.
Crazyalec
"C M" <cros...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ud1rvae...@corp.supernews.com...
> In God We Trust
>
>
God/religion is a belief...a thought...thinking...imagination....idea
How can you trust in a dream?
In 1978 Mrs. O'Hair filed suit challenging the 'In God We Trust' motto as
violative of the First Amendment.A court ruled,however,'Its use is of a
patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a
governmental sponsorship of religious exercise'....
How convinient...ha?
I think we should forward 'CM's post to Supreme Court and let them know WHAT
majority think....
The sole purpose of 'God/Trust motto is to advertise big business called
religion.And it should be removed
Termite of Temptation
>
> Printed boldly on the back of the United States currency is the motto "In
> God We Trust." We have seen it so often that it may have lost its meaning
to
> us. But found in these words is the secret to national and personal
> greatness.
QUOTED FROM http://www.flash.net/~lbartley/au/issues/godtrust.htm
The use of "In God We Trust" as the motto on our paper currency and coins
has been subject to legal challenges in the courts. In the first such case,
Aronow v. United States (1970), the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit ruled that, "It is quite obvious that the national motto and
the slogan on coinage and currency, 'In God We Trust'--, has nothing
whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of a
patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a
governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise."
END QUOTE
> Webster's Dictionary defines the word trust as "a firm belief or
confidence
> in the honesty, integrity, reliability and justice of another person or
> thing."
>
> When our founding fathers put their names to the Declaration of
> Independence, they believed that God was the only sure foundation upon
which
> to build a nation that would endure. These men knew that this unique
> experiment in freedom would only stand the test of time by God's grace.
> George Washington stated it simply, "It is impossible to rightly govern
the
> world without God and the Bible."
Here are some quotes from the founding fathers on the subject.
"The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the
many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed
monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this
raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber
of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and
hypocrites."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"The government of the United States of America is not, in any sense,
founded on the Christian religion."
-- Treaty Of Tripoli, 1797, signed by John Adams.
I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself
from Christian assemblies.
-- Benjamin Franklin, quoted from Victor J. Stenger, Has Science Found God?
(2001)
"I have diligently perused every line that Washington ever gave to the
public, and I do not find one expression in which he pledges, himself as a
believer in Christianity. I think anyone who will candidly do as I have
done, will come to the conclusion that he was a Deist and nothing more."
-- The Reverend Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in
an interview with Mr. Robert Dale Owen written on November 13, 1831, which
was publlshed in New York two weeks later, quoted from Franklin Steiner, The
Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, pp. 27
"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession."
-- Abraham Lincoln, quoted by Joseph Lewis in "Lincoln the Freethinker"
"The Christian system of religion is an outrage on common sense."
-- Thomas Paine, as quoted by Joseph Lewis in Inspiration and Wisdom from
the Writings of Thomas Paine
> Reliance upon God was deeply rooted in our country's important documents
and
> institutions from the beginning. But today confidence in God and His Word
is
> no longer the foundation of society.
Which "important documents"? God is mentioned ZERO times in the
Constitution, and all you get in the Declaration of Independence is a vague
reference to a "Creator" which may or may not mean God. In any case, the
Declaration currently has no legal status.
> In our schools the God of Creation has been replaced by the "god" of
> evolutionary chance.
Personally, I think calling "evolutionary chance" a "god" is completely
silly. A scientific theory bears no resemblance to deity worship.
> Truth has been replaced by relativism. Morality has
> been replaced by expediency.
Turning up the rhetoric, turning down the facts?
> In our homes we nightly view things that were unimaginable on television
and
> in movies only a decade ago. Violence, sexual perversion and obscene
> language spill off the screen.
Then don't watch it. No-one's forcing you to sit in front of the box all
day. Go do something useful.
> In the political arena God's principles of truth and justice have often
> given way to expedience, personal profit, and compromise.
God's principles of truth and justice appear to include the mass murder of
innocent children (e.g. the 10th plague), the arbitrary torment of perfectly
inoffensive men (e.g. Job), and entrapment of his people (Adam and Eve). Not
exactly the best values to instill in a country.
> As we have departed from God, life has been devalued. The lives of unborn
> children are snuffed out in abortion clinics and the number of robberies,
> rapes and murders increase daily.
Figures? Violent crime has actually fallen in many parts of America.
> It is time that we return to the values of God's Word in our public and
> private lives so that He will heal our land. We must begin person by
person
> on our knees, confessing our failure to trust God fully in our lives.
Ah, that's the problem. Nothing to do with right-wing fanatics giving away
badly needed government money in tax cuts for the rich, for example.
> Today you can affirm your trust in God if you will:
>
> Acknowledge that you need salvation: The Bible says, "All have sinned, and
> come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).
Everyone. In fact, because of the way people are, they HAVE to sin. No-one
can possibly be perfect. And we are supposed to crawl to God and apologise
for the way he made us? If he wanted perfect people, he should have created
us perfect.
> Recognize God's love for you: "God so loved the world, that He gave His
only
> begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have
> everlasting life" (John 3:16).
Don't want everlasting life.
> Receive Jesus and His forgiveness, the only basis for encountering God.
"As
> many as received Him (Jesus), to them gave He power to become the sons of
> God, even to them that believe on His name" (John 1:12).
>
> God is calling you to put your trust in Him today! Don't ignore His call!
God is a fairy story that scares kids and comforts adults.
> IF you have any questions or have decided to Accept Jesus Christ as your
> Saviour please write me and I will do all that I can to help you in your
new
> walk with the LORD
Gee, thanks. No really, I appreciate that you're trying to save my soul. But
take a look at your own for a minute. Perhaps go back and re-read the
Bible - all of it, not just the nice happy parts about Jesus. Pretend for a
second that God is a very, very powerful man - does he not come out of it
looking like a tyrant?
Duncan
Liz
<ud1rvae...@corp.supernews.com>, wrote:
[follow up set to alt.atheist only as the post seems off topic for the
other groups]
The problem with your "solution" is that God® can not or (if you actually
believe in this fiction) will not do anything that is actually
distinguishable from natural occurrences. If it® could, then the land
would be "healed" despite the fact that not everyone believes in this
particular supernatural entity. Just as God® could not overcome the
enemy's iron chariots in the Bible story, God® is incapable of overcoming
even a scintilla of disbelief. This trait makes God® rather ineffective as
supreme beings go.
>Today you can affirm your trust in God if you will:
No, I won't. I have no belief in your favorite God® or any other mythical
deity. Trusting God® to do nothing, which is all that it seems capable of
doing, seems both futile and wasteful.
BTW, solicitation for belief is considered extremely rude in alt.atheism,
but I don't suppose that bothers you at all.
[snip rude altar call]
Liz #658 BAAWA
Liz, you like most people do not want to have faith in
things which have no basis in reality. -- josalt
Denis Loubet
>
>
>
> Printed boldly on the back of the United States currency is the motto "In
> God We Trust."
Money and religion, what else is new.
> We have seen it so often that it may have lost its meaning to
> us.
Money has never lost its meaning to the church.
> But found in these words is the secret to national and personal
> greatness.
Especially now with the Catholic Church scandal! "Hold still Jimmy. Remember
now, in god we trust."
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
William Boutwell
> In God We Trust
>
>
>
> Printed boldly on the back of the United States currency is the
> motto "In God We Trust." We have seen it so often that it may
> have lost its meaning to us. But found in these words is the
> secret to national and personal greatness.
>
> Webster's Dictionary defines the word trust as "a firm belief or
> confidence in the honesty, integrity, reliability and justice of
> another person or thing."
>
<snip proselytizing BS>
In God We Trust...
But put weather satellites into orbit.
But keep a standing army.
But provide fire and police protection.
But dig storm cellars in tornado country.
But build levees and dikes along rivers.
But put lightning arresters on buildings.
But make sure the insurance doesn't lapse.
But put lots of money in the collection plate.
In God We Trust...
To do what, exactly?
--
Dale.
aa #1969
"Man is the only animal that blushes, or needs to.", Mark Twain.
There's an extra "r" in my email address.
Dwayne Conyers
`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`
Immer wenn er Pillen nahm
Vom feuer schmeckt es besser
http://www.dwacon.com
satyr
>
>In our schools the God of Creation has been replaced by the "god" of
>evolutionary chance.
In my 13 years of public schooling, I doubt that the total time spent on
evolution totaled more than one or two days.
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Frank Wustner
> In God We Trust
You can do that if you want. I demand he pays in advance.
And what do you know, he never has.
--
The Deadly Nightshade
http://deadly_nightshade.tripod.com/
http://members.tripod.com/~deadly_nightshade/
|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|"Advice is a form of nostalgia. | Atheist #119 |
|Dispensing it means fishing the | Knight of BAAWA! |
|past from the disposal, wiping it |-----------------------------------|
|off, painting over the ugly parts, | Want to email me? Go to the URL |
|and recycling it for more than | above and email me from there. |
|it's worth." Mary Schmich |-----------------------------------|
|-----------------------------------|
satyr
>In our homes we nightly view things that were unimaginable on television and
>in movies only a decade ago. Violence, sexual perversion and obscene
>language spill off the screen.
And yet the incidence of forcible rape in the US dropped 17% between 1994 and
1999.
>As we have departed from God, life has been devalued. The lives of unborn
>children are snuffed out in abortion clinics and the number of robberies,
>rapes and murders increase daily.
Not only are levels of all of these crimes approaching historical lows, but at
least one researcher correlates the drop with the availability of legal
abortion.
Rawley
7F8867.184...@news.mindspring.com:
>> In God We Trust
>
> You can do that if you want. I demand he pays in advance.
>
> And what do you know, he never has.
>
You're right, I wouldn't trust the god of the bible. He might up and kill
me for no reason, like Job. Or flood the world and not tell me ahead of
time. Or send plagues. Etc..
stoney
ID: <ud1rvae...@corp.supernews.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>In God We Trust
CM;
You are cordially invited to go fuck yourself, you sorry sack of
christian dog shit. By the way...you're late. Get your ass over to
the church to be bent over the pew and filled with the holy spirit
(snip priests wet dream)
--
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
stoney
ID: <ud1rvae...@corp.supernews.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>In God We Trust
Oh look everyone! It's a bouncing baby troll!
Now now "Christ's Moron", you know its not nice to bother the adults
with your baby talk prattle. Now take your security blanket, those ass
cheeks of yours, and your pacifier and go see that nice Priest. He's
going to fill you with the holy spirit so you can walk with
Santa Claus Jesus.
Adam Marczyk
news:ud3pi41...@news.supernews.com...
> Amen
Hark - I hear the bleating of sheep.
--
a.a. #2001
"Blasphemy is a victimless crime."
Director, EAC Black Monolith Division - "My God, it's full of stars"
Operative: EAC Electronic Warfare Division
EAC Subversive Fiction Division
http://www.ebonmusings.org ICQ: 8777843
Mark K. Bilbo
> It is time that we return to the values of God's Word in our public and
> private lives so that He will heal our land.
You mean so we can go back to the days of slave ownership, slaughtering
natives for their land, denying women any rights...
--
Mark K. Bilbo #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
________________________________________________________________
"The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the
simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry."
[Richard Dawkins, "Viruses of the Mind"]
Keenan Clay Wilkie
This crap is not needed in alt.atheism. Please refrain from posting in
that newsgroup in the future until you can read and understand the
newsgroup FAQ. In short, unsolicited preaching is considered extremely
rude and arrogant.
dummie
> In God We Trust
>
>
> In our homes we nightly view things that were unimaginable on television and
> in movies only a decade ago. Violence, sexual perversion and obscene
> language spill off the screen.
Yet the motto, mandatory on money due to McCarthy, made no mark on this.
<We'd better dump it due to its obvious failure in the moral revision of America.>
-mike#1375
BAAWA Knight
Mussi...@cxl.aa
>Dear Moron,
>This crap is not needed in alt.atheism. Please refrain from posting in
>that newsgroup in the future until you can read and understand the
>newsgroup FAQ. In short, unsolicited preaching is considered extremely
>rude and arrogant.
>
>"C M" <cros...@yahoo.com> writes:
Top posting is even more annoying, especially with the entire previous post
included without comment.
Keenan Wilkie
Once again, I hit "forward" instead of "reply".
It wasn't intended to be a follow-up message, it was intended to be a
test to see if his e-mail address was valid. Sorry.
Mark Hoffman
"Keenan Wilkie" <dark...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:e044628f.02050...@posting.google.com...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 4/19/02
James Schulte
however this nation is truly under God why did we separate Him from Govt ,
but keep him on our currency. Our country here is hypocritical , we say God
is separate and we abolish prayers in school but every time our Supreme
Court begins a session with a prayer Benjamin Franklin wrote ...how ironic
"Crazyalec" <crazy...@yahoo.nospam.cominvalid> wrote in message
news:_r8A8.213867$CH1.143327@sccrnsc02...
satyr
>God isnt a dream, He is a belief, there is quite a big difference. If
>however this nation is truly under God why did we separate Him from Govt ,
>but keep him on our currency.
You have it backwards. The government has always been separate from god
(religion) It is only recently (relatively) that the phrase was added to our
money.
> Our country here is hypocritical ,
Agreed. We should remove that offensive phrase from our currency. The only
reason it was ruled constitutional was because the Supreme Court had to contort
logic to the point where IGWT was not a religious phrase.
> we say God
>is separate and we abolish prayers in school but every time our Supreme
>Court begins a session with a prayer Benjamin Franklin wrote ...how ironic
If BF wrote it then I am sure it is not a Christian prayer. But if it is a
prayer to (any) god, it should not be read as a portion of any government
proceeding.
Herb Martin
news:%EiD8.147471$v7.13...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> God isnt a dream, He is a belief, there is quite a big difference. If
> however this nation is truly under God why did we separate Him from Govt ,
> but keep him on our currency. Our country here is hypocritical , we say
God
> is separate and we abolish prayers in school but every time our Supreme
> Court begins a session with a prayer Benjamin Franklin wrote ...how ironic
Personally, and this is only for me, the currency and
minor references are completely innocuous UNTIL
someone tries to claim it means something or serves
as some kind of precedence.
Then it becomes objectionable.
Herb Martin
Try ADDS for great Weather too:
http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/projects/adds
James Schulte
your history, God was the premise behind what all the early colonists
belived in and our forefathers constantly at both the first and second
continental congress prayed to god to allow them to make the proper
decisions"satyr" <RsEaM...@infidels.org> wrote in message
news:aklrdug8ipmd67fcc...@4ax.com...
satyr
Funny that they didn't write him into the Constitution. To the extent that the
founding fathers made reference to god, it was usually a deist god. With some
exceptions, these people were not Christians. Whatever their personal beliefs,
they chose to create a secular government for the United States.
ambrose searle
> Funny that they didn't write him into the Constitution. To the extent that the
> founding fathers made reference to god, it was usually a deist god. With some
> exceptions, these people were not Christians.
That seems like an odd claim to me. Are you able to support such an
assertion? Which of the founding fathers indicated that he was not a
Christian?
Ambrose
Michelle Malkin
"ambrose searle" <ambros...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fe9a0c54.02051...@posting.google.com...
> Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams
were all deists, not Christians. There are many quotes to
support this. Do you want to see some of them?
--
Michelle Malkin (Mickey)
http://questioner.www2.50megs.com
jal...@cox.net
>:|satyr <RsEaM...@infidels.org> wrote in message news:<a3duduc8k08kr50mp...@4ax.com>...
Most scholars agree that none of the first 6 Presidents could be considered
as being "orthodox Christians," as that term was used and understood at
that time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Kent, (1763-1847) a close friend of U S Supreme Court Chief Justice
John Marshall and U S Supreme Court Associate Justice Joseph Story,
Attorney, Jurist, public official, first Professor of Law at Columbia
University, Judge on the New York State Supreme Court, and its chief
Justice, Author of the Commentaries on American Law, (1826-1830) author of
the infamous People v Ruggles decision in 1811, and along with Joseph
Story, called by some "Father of American Jurisprudence."
While James Kent disliked Thomas Jefferson, in part for Jefferson's
attacks on the Federalist judiciary but also because of the perceived
threat of Jeffersonian irreligion to public order and morality, his own
personal views regarding religion may not have been so different from
Thomas Jefferson.
"He despised Popery; scorned the fanaticism of certain of the Protestant
sects; and once, in the privacy of his club, had spoken of Christianity
itself as a vulgar superstition from which cultivated men were free. (209)
If he still held that opinion, then his comments on religion from the bench
were sincere only as they expressed an aristocratic conviction that
religious faith is useful as a buttress to social order. To the theory of
the case his hatred of Jefferson and his constant fear of Jacobinical
commotion lend support. Be his private beliefs what they may, whether he
was at heart a child of the Enlightenment or not, as a judge he reverenced
the Virgin and valued so highly the religion of her Son as to write it into
the law of the land."
(209) When visiting French Canada, Kent made caustic comments on the
Catholic religion. He called the "naked" image of Christ on the cross
"disgusting." Once, in describing an enthusiastic Protestant parson, he
called him "a pale distressed looking zealot." For his remark about
Christianity as a vulgar superstition, see William Dunlap's Diary,
September 30, 1797 supra cit.
James Kent, A Study in Conservatism, 1763-1847, by John Theodore Horton. Da
Capo Press, N Y (1969, Copyright 1939, The American Historical Association)
p. 192-93.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the very least, the above shows the common trend that people in the
public light have of saying and doing one thing in public while frequently
believing and saying totally different things in private.
Some additional information :
How often did the founders quote the Bible?
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg9.htm
Madison's letter to Jasper Adams
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/jasper.htm
Jefferson on religion flourishing on its own merits
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/merits.htm
Thomas Jefferson on church and state
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qjeffson.htm
Rufus King's views on Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qking.htm
John Leland on Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qleland.htm
Madison on church and state
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qmadison.htm
George Mason's views on Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qmason.htm
Charles Pinckney and Separation of Church and State.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qpinck.htm
Edmund Randolph's views on Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qrandolf.htm
What about quotations that appear to oppose separation?
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/quote4.htm
What the founders believed about separation of church and state
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/quoteidx.htm
Noah Webster's views on the Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qwebstrn.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It can be safely said that of the "founders"
Some were orthodox Christians that were very into religion..
Some were orthodox Christians who were rather indifferent to religion
Some were Deist (Non-orthodox)
Some were Quakers (Non-orthodox)
Some were Catholic (Considered non-orthodox by most Protestant types who
were orthodox)
Some were Unitarian (Non-orthodox)
Some probably were closet atheists or "infidels"
None of the first six Presidents would qualify as "orthodox" Christians, as
that term was understood then.
**********************************************
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
American History WebRing--&--Legal Research Ring
**********************************************
jal...@cox.net
>:|God has never been separte from our government as you state go back and read
>:|your history, God was the premise behind what all the early colonists
>:|belived in and our forefathers constantly at both the first and second
>:|continental congress prayed to god to allow them to make the proper
>:|decisions
Some additional information :
Study Guide for Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd1.htm
A Study Guide for the Words/Concept: "Separation of Church and State"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd3.htm
A Study Guide to the History of United States Symbols and Mottos
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd5.htm
Representative Tucker on the Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/basic2a.htm
A Critical Response to Bernard Katz On Our Founding Fathers by Robert
Nordland
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nordland.htm
Madison's Arguments Against Special Religious Sanction of American
Government (1792)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madlib.htm
Madison's vetoes: Some of The First Official Meanings Assigned to The
Establishment Clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madvetos.htm
Treaty of Tripoli, 1796: Little-Known U.S. Document Signed by President
Adams Proclaims America's Government Is Secular
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tripoli1.htm
"Does the 1796-97 Treaty with Tripoli Matter to Church/State
Separation?"; Speech given to the Humanists of Georgia on
June 22, 1997 and at the 1997 Lake Hypatia Independance Day
Celebration, by Ed Buckner, Ph.D.
http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/buckner_tripoli.html
"Is The United States a Christian Country?" by Rev. James W.
Watkins
http://www.mainstreamop.org/church2.htm
"The Government of the United States of America is not, in any
sense founded on the Christian Religion "; by Jim Walker.
or
"Little-Known U. S. Document Signed by President Adams Proclaims
America's Government is Secular "; by Jim Walker.
[sometimes the top link doesn't work, so if you have trouble with
it try the bottom.]
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
"Joel Barlow And The Treaty With Tripoli: A Tangled Tale Of Pirates, A Poet
And The True Meaning Of The First Amendment" by Rob Boston, Church &
State Magazine, June, 1997
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/boston4.htm
In God We Trust
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/motto.htm
Some Thoughts on Religion and Law
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bthot-lr.htm
Religious Freedom vs Religion
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/batte-rf.htm
All Those Christian Presidents
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/hayes.htm
Is it true that Madison said "Our future is staked on the 10
commandments?"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/misq1.htm
Is it true that Madison said "Religion is the foundation of
government?"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/misq2.htm
Did John Quincy Adams ever say that the American Revolution
"connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with
the principles of Christianity?"
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/misq5.htm
The Supreme Court has Declared that the United States is a
Christian Nation.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg7.htm
Did Montesquieu base his theory of separation of powers on the
Bible?
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/montesquieu.htm
The word Religion does not mean Christian
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/minor.htm
Holy Trinity and the Christian Nation Dicta
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/trinity.htm
Getting to Know Supreme Court Justice David J. Brewer
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/brewer.htm
"The Year of Our Lord" and separation.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg10c.htm
Federal officials take their oaths upon a Bible, and use the words
"so help me God."
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg11.htm
Benjamin F. Underwood: The Practical Separation of Church and State
(1876)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/uwood.htm
jal...@cox.net
>:|God isnt a dream, He is a belief, there is quite a big difference. If
>:|however this nation is truly under God why did we separate Him from Govt ,
>:|but keep him on our currency. Our country here is hypocritical , we say God
>:|is separate and we abolish prayers in school but every time our Supreme
>:|Court begins a session with a prayer Benjamin Franklin wrote ...
Would you mind quoting this "prayer" you claim Ben Franklin wrote?
ambrose searle
The problem with your statement is that it is highly simplistic. You
seem to imply that deism and Christianity are incompatible. The 18th
century religious world was highly nuanced. Jefferson said on numerous
occasions that he was a Christian! Do you want the citations? So
apparently, if you are correct in saying that he was a deist, his
deism must be something other than what you are envisioning. I think
you, and the poster who said that most of the founders were not
Christians, are being terribly irresponsible with your terminology.
Franklin's religious creed is well known:
"I believe in one God, creator of the universe. That he governs it by
his Providence. That he ought to be worshiped. That the most
acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other
children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with
justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take
to be the fundamental principles of all sound religion, and I regard
them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I
think the system of morals, and his religion, as he left them to us,
the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it
has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the
present dissenters in England some doubts as to his divinity; tho' it
is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and
think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an
opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble."
This creed is very characteristic of Unitarianism, but not DEISM.
Deism is a highly naturalistic religion that generally doesn't focus
upon the afterlife, God continuing to govern in the affairs of men,
Jesus, and the need to worship; but Franklin clearly believed all
these things.
With regard to John Adams, your assessment is way off the mark. In
short, I will refer you to David McCullough's very recent excellent
biography of Adams. Insofar as a deist is defined by Webster as one
who rejects revelation
(http://work.ucsd.edu:5141/cgi-bin/http_webster?isindex=deism&method=exact)
John Adams is definitely not in that camp. He indicated that his
religion is founded on the ten commandments and the sermon on the
mount. He said that the fundamental tenet of his faith was the
forgiveness of his sins. Are you suggesting that a deist is one who
believes in sin and atonement? If so, you have a very weird,
unorthodox, view of deism. If so, deism and Christianity CANNOT be the
polar opposites you portray them to be.
In short, I urge you to pay closer attention to the assertions you
make. You show yourself to be rather uninformed.
Ambrose
jal...@cox.net
>:|"Michelle Malkin" <hypa...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<f00E8.4597$fU2.9...@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
>:|> "ambrose searle" <ambros...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>:|> >
>:|> > That seems like an odd claim to me. Are you able to support such an
>:|> > assertion? Which of the founding fathers indicated that he was not a
>:|> > Christian?
>:|> >
>:|> > Ambrose
>:|>
>:|> Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams
>:|> were all deists, not Christians. There are many quotes to
>:|> support this. Do you want to see some of them?
>:|
>:|The problem with your statement is that it is highly simplistic.
Actually they weren't all deists.
Jefferson would have qualified as a deist in his earlier years but by the
1800s he was a Unitarian. Franklin was a deist at least for a good portion
of his life, but probably was more in line with Unitarian thinking in the
later stages of his life. John Adams was a cross between Congregationalist
and Unitarian.
None of the three mentioned above would qualify as a "orthodox Christian,"
as that term was used and understood at that time.
>:You
>:|seem to imply that deism and Christianity are incompatible.
They pretty much were.
>:|The 18th
>:|century religious world was highly nuanced. Jefferson said on numerous
>:|occasions that he was a Christian!
On one occasion in one letter.
>:|Do you want the citations?
I have it, here:
Jefferson claimed to be a Christian, but he did qualify that comment:
In a letter to Dr. Rush, April 23, 1803, Jefferson outlines his views
on the comparative merits of Christianity in syllabus form, stimulated
by Dr. Priestley’s treatise of “Socrates and Jesus Compared.”:
APRIL 21, 1803
TO DOCTOR BENJAMIN RUSH
Washington, April 21, 1803
DEAR SIR,In some of the delightful conversations with you, in the evenings
of 1798-99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis
through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was
sometimes our topic; and I then promised you, that one day or other, I
would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry and
reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to
me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of
Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of
Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any
one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all
others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never
claimed any other. At the short interval since these conversations, when I
could justifiably abstract my mind from public affairs, the subject has
been under my contemplation. But the more I considered it, the more it
expanded beyond the measure of either my time or information. In the moment
of my late departure from Monticello, I received from Dr. Priestley, his
little treatise of "Socrates and Jesus Compared." This being a section
of the general view I had taken of the field, it became a subject of
reflection while on the road, and unoccupied otherwise. The result was, to
arrange in my mind a syllabus, or outline of such an estimate of the
comparative merits of Christianity, as I wished to see executed by some one
of more leisure and information for the task, than myself. This I now send
you, as the only discharge of my promise I can probably ever execute. And
in confiding it to you, I know it will not be exposed to the malignant
perversions of those who make every word from me a text for new
misrepresentations and calumnies. I am moreover averse to the communication
of my religious tenets to the public; because it would countenance the
presumption of those who have endeavored to draw them before that tribunal,
and to seduce public opinion to erect itself into that inquisition over the
rights of conscience, which the laws have so justly proscribed. It behooves
every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions
of it in the case of others; or their case may, by change of circumstances,
become his own. It behooves him, too, in his own case, to give no example
of concession, betraying the common right of independent opinion, by
answering questions of faith, which the laws have left between God and
himself.
Accept my affectionate salutations.
[WHAT FOLLOWS IS THE ENTIRE SYLLABUS]
Syllabus of an Estimate of the Merit of the Doctrines of Jesus, compared
with those of others
In a comparative view of the Ethics of the enlightened nations of
antiquity, of the Jews and of Jesus, no notice should be taken of the
corruptions of reason among the ancients, to wit, the idolatry and
superstition of the vulgar, nor of the corruptions of Christianity by
the learned among its professors.
Let a just view be taken of the moral principles inculcated by the most
esteemed of the sects of ancient philosophy, or of their individuals;
particularly Pythagoras, Socrates, Epicurus, Cicero, Epictetus, Seneca,
Antoninus.
I. Philosophers. 1. Their precepts related chiefly to ourselves, and the
government of those passions which, unrestrained, would disturb our
tranquillity of mind.(1) In this branch of philosophy they were really
great.
2. In developing our duties to others, they were short and defective. They
embraced, indeed, the circle of kindred and friends, and inculcated
patriotism, or the love of our country in the aggregate, as a primary
obligation: towards our neighbors and countrymen they taught justice, but
scarcely viewed them as within the circle of benevolence Still less have
they inculcated peace, charity and love to our fellow men, or embraced with
benevolence the whole family of mankind.
II. Jews. 1. Their system was Deism; that is, the belief in one only God.
But their ideas of him and of his attributes were degrading and injurious.
2. Their Ethics were not only imperfect, but often irreconcilable with the
sound dictates of reason and morality, as they respect intercourse with
those around us; and repulsive and anti-social, as respecting other
nations. They needed reformation, therefore, in an eminent degree.
III. Jesus. In this state of things among the Jews, Jesus appeared. His
parentage was obscure; his condition poor; his education null; his natural
endowments great; his life correct and innocent: he was meek, benevolent,
patient, firm, disinterested, and of the sublimest eloquence. The
disadvantages under which his doctrines appear are remarkable.
1. Like Socrates and Epictetus, he wrote nothing himself.
2. But he had not, like them, a Xenophon or an Arrian to write for him. I
name not Plate, who only used the name of Socrates to cover the whimsies of
his own brain. On the contrary, all the learned of his country, entrenched
in its power and riches, were opposed to him, lest his labors should
undermine their advantages; and the committing to writing his life and
doctrines fell on unlettered and ignorant men; who wrote, too, from memory,
and not till long after the transactions had passed.
3. According to the ordinary fate of those who attempt to enlighten and
reform mankind, he fell an early victim to the jealousy and combination of
the altar and the throne, at about thirty-three years of age, his reason
having not yet attained the maximum of its energy, nor the course of his
preaching, which was but of three years at most, presented occasions for
developing a complete system of morals.
4. Hence the doctrines which he really delivered were defective as a
whole, and fragments only of what he did deliver have come to us mutilated,
misstated, and often unintelligible.
5. They have been still more disfigured by the corruptions of
schismatizing followers, who have found an interest in sophisticating and
perverting the simple doctrines he taught, by engrafting on them the
mysticisms of a Grecian sophist, frittering them into subtleties, and
obscuring them with jargon, until they have caused good men to reject the
whole in disgust, and to view Jesus himself as an impostor.
Notwithstanding these disadvantages, a system of morals is presented to
us, which, if filled up in the style and spirit of the rich fragments he
left us, would be the most perfect and sublime that has ever been taught by
man.
The question of his being a member of the Godhead, or in direct
communication with it, claimed for him by some of his followers, and denied
by others, is foreign to the present view, which is merely an estimate of
the intrinsic merits of his doctrines.
1. He corrected the Deism of the Jews, confirming them in their belief of
one only God, and giving them juster notions of his attributes and
government.
2. His moral doctrines, relating to kindred and friends, were more pure
and perfect than those of the most correct of the philosophers, and greatly
more so than those of the Jews; and they went far beyond both in
inculcating universal philanthropy, not only to kindred and friends, to
neighbors and countrymen, but to all mankind, gathering all into one
family, under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants and common
aids. A development of this head will evince the
peculiar superiority of the system of Jesus over all others.
3. The precepts of philosophy, and of the Hebrew code, laid hold of
actions only. He pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man; erected his
tribunal in the region of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the
fountain head.
4. He taught, emphatically, the doctrines of a future state, which was
either doubted, or disbelieved by the Jews; and wielded it with efficacy,
as an important incentive, supplementary to the other motives to moral
conduct.
FOOTNOTE:
(1).To explain, I will exhibit the heads of Seneca's and Cicero's
philosophical works, the most extensive of any we have received from the
ancients. Of ten heads in Seneca, seven relate to ourselves, viz. de ira,
consolatio, de tranquilitate, de constantia sapien tis, de otio sapientis,
de vita beata, de brevitate vitae; two relate to others, de clementia, de
beneficiis; and one relates to the government of the world, de providentia.
Of eleven tracts of Cicero, five respect ourselves, viz. de finibus,
TuscllIana, academica, paradoxa, de Senectute; one, de officiis, relates
partly to ourselves, partly to others; one, de amicitia, relates to others;
and four are on different subjects, to wit, de natura deorum, de
divinatione, de fato, and somnium Scipionis. [Jefferson's footnote.]
Selected writings Koch pp 519-21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as
far as I know. I am not a Jew, and therefore do not adopt their theology,
which supposes the God of infinite justice to punish the sins of the
fathers upon their children, unto the third and fourth generations; and the
benevolent and sublime reformer of that religion (Jesus of Nazareth) has
told us only that God is good and perfect, but has not defined him. To Ezra
Stiles (President of Yale), TJ to Stiles --- 25 June 1819 --- Bergh 15:203
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurian. I consider the
genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything
rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us. -Thomas
Jefferson, letter to William Short, Oct. 31, 1819 Bergh 15:219-22
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the greatest of all reformers of the depraved religion of his
own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really his from the
rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from the
dress of his biographers, and as separable from that as the diamond from
the dunghill, we have the outlines of a system of the most sublime morality
which has ever fallen from the lips of man .., The establishment of the
innocent and genuine character of this benevolent morality, and the
rescuing it from the imputation of impostore, which has resulted from
artificial systems, invented by ultra Christian sects* ...is a most
desirable object.* Jefferson's footnote: "The immaculate conception of
Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous
powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in
the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration,
election. orders of the Hierarchy, etc. -T. J."
To Short, October 31, 1819.
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl259.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>:|So
>:|apparently, if you are correct in saying that he was a deist, his
>:|deism must be something other than what you are envisioning. I think
>:|you, and the poster who said that most of the founders were not
>:|Christians, are being terribly irresponsible with your terminology.
It can be safely said that of the "founders"
Some were orthodox Christians that were very into religion..
Some were orthodox Christians who were rather indifferent to religion
Some were Deist (Non-orthodox)
Some were Quakers (Non-orthodox)
Some were Catholic (Considered non-orthodox by most Protestant types who
were orthodox)
Some were Unitarian (Non-orthodox)
Some probably were closet atheists or "infidels"
None of the first six Presidents would qualify as "orthodox" Christians, as
that term was understood then.
>:|
>:|Franklin's religious creed is well known:
This particular item was me (Buckeye) and Gardiner (a religious right type)
having a "friendly" discussion about Jefferson's religion. Some of your
questions will be answered in it. After it, I will list some other sources.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups:
soc.history.war.us-revolution,alt.history.colonial,alt.deism,alt.religion.deism
Subject: Re: Deism
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 17:50:24 GMT
In article <8oe1ai$d1c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
> buc...@exis.net wrote:
> >
> > rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > >JEFFERSON was a "conservative Unitarian," not a Deist
> > >
> > >(see Sandford, THE RELIGIOUS LIFE OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, UVA press,
> > >1987)
> >
> > I see Gardiner is back at practicing deception in his efforts to
sell
> > his theories.
> >
> > Let's look at some of what is said in the book cited by Gardiner
> > The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson, by Charles B. Sanford.
> > University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, [...]
> >
> > "His great-grandson described Jefferson's religion as that of a
> > "conservative Unitarian . . . "
>
> Your little sound bites aren't really in context, are they, buckeye?
>
> Let's give the readers Sanford's assessment of the great-grandson's
> view:
>
> "Jefferson's religion does not seem more radical than the ideas held
by
> many other Americans. The abuse he received does not seem deserved. He
> was intellectual in his approach to religion and distrusted emotion,
> mysticism, and a religion based on faith, but so have many other
> intellectual persons. AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION, THE JUDGMENT OF
> JEFFERSON'S GREAT-GRANDSON THAT HE WAS A 'CONSERVATIVE UNITARIAN'
SEEMS
> ACCURATE."
>
> Rick G.
Least anyone forget, what follows was offered as some sort of proof that
Jefferson wasn't a deist:
> > rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > >JEFFERSON was a "conservative Unitarian," not a Deist
> > >
> > >(see Sandford, THE RELIGIOUS LIFE OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, UVA press,
> > >1987)
What follows was offered as a response to the very weak deism rebuttal:
rgar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>:|"Robert L. Johnson" <b...@deism.com> wrote:
>:|> Deism, belief in God based on reason and nature, not on "holy"
books,
>:|> is explored indepth at http://www.deism.com American founders
such
>:|> as Tom Jefferson and Paine, Ben Franklin, Washington, etc were
Deists.
>:|> Hope you like it!
>:|
>:|JEFFERSON was a "conservative Unitarian," not a Deist
>:|
>:|(see Sandford, THE RELIGIOUS LIFE OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, UVA press,
1987)
I see Gardiner is back at practicing deception in his efforts to sell
his theories.
Let's look at some of what is said in the book cited by Gardiner
The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson, by Charles B. Sanford.
University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, (1984 --third paperback
printing, 1992)
------- ------- ------- --------
PREFACE
"Even scholars who are familiar with Jefferson's deism, Unitarianism,
and enthusiasm for Bible study do not seem to appreciate the importance
of his religious beliefs to his political philosophy and career."
PAGE 5 [What follows is the "conservative Unitarian," comment
including the part about who actually made the comment which Gardiner
"forgot" to include.]
" His great-grandson described Jefferson's religion as that of a
"conservative Unitarian . . . "
PAGE 14
"In summary, we may conclude that Jefferson, in his college years, began
an involvement with Enlightenment and deistic writers which deeply
influenced him toward a liberal, intellectual, moralistic, personal, and
humanitarian view of government, society, and religion. This study
continued all of his life and is reflected in his choice of favorite
quotations and the books in his extensive library."
PAGE 20
"In private, deists like Jefferson and Paine had some reservations about
the Old Testament and did not hesitate to correct the biblical account
of creation in the light of Newtonian science and emerging
anthropology."
PAGE 48
"Daniel Boorstin is closer to the truth than Trainer when he emphasizes
that Jefferson and the American deists took man's relation to nature
rather than to god as their starting point."
PAGES 85 -92 beginning with the sub heading "JEFFERSON WAS DEIST"
and including sub headings, "GOD, SEEN IN THE CREATION." "GOD, THE
CREATOR OF MAN," "ONE GOD, NOT THREE," "JEFFERSON WAS A THEIST."
PAGE 92
"He followed and promulgated the ideas of the English deists,
particularly their belief in a creator of the universe, known by reason,
in opposition to orthodox Christian theism based on revelation,
theology, and mysticism."
PAGE 92
"Jefferson may thus well be called a deist."
PAGE 105
"Privately discussing religion with interested friends, though, he was
just as vehement as Paine or Rousseau in separating what he called 'the
grain from the chaff," "the gold from the dross," and 'the diamond from
the dunghill' in biblical passages."
PAGE 130
"Another of the important teachings of christ about God, according to
Jefferson, was the belief in one God. The phrase frequently used by
Jefferson was the 'Deism taught us by Jesus of Nazareth,' which he used
in contrast to 'atheism,' meaning belief in no god, and 'theism,' by
which he meant orthodox Trinitarianism. Jefferson argued that the belief
of deism in the 'unity of the creator was the pure doctrine of Jesus
also.'"
PAGE 155
""I have often wondered for what good end the sensations of grief could
be intended. All of our other passions, within proper bounds, have a
useful object, but what is the use of grief in the economy [of life]?'"
"That question came from the deistic faith, which Jefferson and
Adams shared, that everything in nature and human experience had a good
purpose, since everything came from the good design of the perfect
Creator, God."
PAGE 173-177 (Just a small sampling here, be sure to read the all five
pages to put it in proper context.)
FROM PAGES 173-174
Conclusions about Jefferson's Religion
Was Jefferson really as radical in his religion as his opponents
declared or as some modern scholars indicate? In answer to the charge
that he was an "atheist, deist, or devil," he was not an atheist, he was
a deist, and personal morality and honor were important elements in his
character. He was strongly influenced by the liberal religious ideas of
the t·ighteenth-century Enlightenment, particularly the deism of
Scottish philosophers, beginning with the stimulation he received from
his favorite college professor, William Small, and continuing through a
lifetime of study of the books he acquired for his library."
An evaluation of Jefferson's deism indicates that his beliefs about
God were not as radical as those of many of his contemporaries.
Jefferson defended his French philosopher friends who were atheists
as being honorable men, hut he did not share their views that the
universe could have always existed without a Creator. Jefferson
believed in God as the planner, architect, first cause, and master
builder of the universe. He went further and believed that God continued
to guide, modify, and sustain his creation.
=====================================================
OTHER SOURCES:
Sworn on the Alter of God, A Religious Biography of Thomas Jefferson, Edwin
S. Gaustad Wm B, Eerdmans Publishing Co. (1996)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the time of the Revolution most of the founding fathers had not put
much emotional stock in religion, even when they were regular churchgoers.
As enlightened gentlemen, they abhorred "that gloomy superstition
disseminated by ignorant illiberal preachers" and looked forward to the day
when "the phantom of darkness will be dispelled by the rays of science, and
the bright charms of rising civilization." At best, most of the
revolutionary gentry only passively believed in organized Christianity and,
at worst, privately scorned and ridiculed it. Jefferson hated orthodox
clergymen, and he repeatedly denounced the "priestcraft" for having
converted Christianity into "an engine for enslaving mankind, . . . into a
mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves." Although few of
them were outright deists, most like David Ramsay described the Christian
church as "the best temple of reason." Even puritanical John Adams thought
that the argument for Christ's divinity was an "awful blasphemy" in this
new enlightened age. When Hamilton was asked why the members of the
Philadelphia Convention had not recognized God in the Constitution, he
allegedly replied, speaking for many of his liberal colleagues, "We
forgot."(11)
FOOTNOTE
(11) Nicholas Collins, "An Essay on those inquiries in Natural Philosophy
which at present are most beneficial to the United States of America,"
American Philosophical Society, Trans., II (1793), vii; George H. Knoles,
"The Religious Ideas of Thomas Jefferson," Mississippi Valley Historical
Review, XXX (1943-44), '94·: He"'y May, The Enlightenment in America (New
York, 1976), 72-73; Butler, Awash in a Sea of Faith, 195-96, 214-15; Trevor
Colbourn, ed., Fame and the Founding Fathers: Essays by Douglass Adair (New
York, 1974), 147n.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Radicalism of the American Revolution, by
Gordon S. Wood, Alfred A. Knopf, N Y (1992) pp 330)
=================================================================
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.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the last years of Washington's Presidency, Thomas Paine published The
Age of Reason, his extended attack on orthodox religious beliefs and on the
Bible. In doing so, he spoke for the most advanced liberal thinkers of his
day. Eight American editions of his book appeared the first year. Though
stating their opinions less bluntly, Franklin and Jefferson and perhaps a
majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence basically
agreed with Paine. Paine was not the atheist he has been called, but a
deist, believing in God the First Cause, who worked solely through the laws
of nature.
For ordinary folk the idea of God the Great Watchmaker frozen in the
immutable laws of His clockwork universe was not enough. They felt the need
of a comforting and personal God attainable beyond the reasoning mind.
Where intellectuals turned to Unitarianism--a polite amalgam of deism and
Congregationalism--the masses sought the heady evangelism of the Baptists
and the Methodists, which itself seemed a democratic form of religion.
Itinerant preachers carried the gospel message beyond the Appalachians to
the remote and lonely regions of the frontier. At camp meetings, in the
light of flaring bonfires, they prayed and sang the gospel hymns and
shouted their simple message of sin and repentance until the more fervent
among them fell to the ground in spasms of emotion.
While New England was shifting from the rigidities of Calvinism to
Unitarianism, the South, under the influence of its "peculiar institution,"
was moving toward a revival of Calvinist theology, buttressed by
evangelism, in which there was no room for deviation or ranging thought.
I,iberalism in theology could lead to embarrassing questions about slavery,
and the South, in sensing this danger, closed theological ranks. As for the
Negroes, by the time of the Revolution they had begun to drift into
separate churches conducted with primitive evangelistic zeal by their own
clergy.
The religiousness of the century's end, known as the Second Awakening--the
first, or Great Awakening, had been initiated by Jonathan Edwards fifty
years earlier-- though in a sense the ordinary man's reaction to the
detached intellectuals of the Enlightenment, was above all an indication
that the United States was in the main still religious-minded.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The American Heritage, History of Making the Nation
1783-1860, American Heritage/Bonanza Books N.Y. (1987) pp 77-78)
-----------------------------------------
Deist, or Unitarian, or Quaker, or indifferent, it is a general accepted
fact that four, maybe as many five or six of the first presidents were not
all that orthodox in their religious convictions.
The same can be said for a fair numbor of other leaders or influential men
of the founding period and periods that immediately followed.
By the late 1820s and there was real concern by many of the religious
conservatives/tradionalists about the rapid secularization of the nation
and its institutions. Men such as the Rev Jasper Adams, Supreme Court
Justice Joseph Story and others published material in the early 1830s
designed, in part, to try and reverse the trends they saw taking place.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonetheless, disestablishment was an accomplished fact, a social
symptom of declining interest in organized Christianity. Church-going in
Virginia had long been on the decline as communicants found more reasons
for attending Sunday horse races or code fights than for being in pews. In
1784 a foreign traveler in Richmond noted that the village had only "one
small church, but [it was] spacious enough for all the pious souls of the
place and the region. If the Virginians themselves did not freely and
openly admit that zeal for religion, and religion generally, is now very
faint among them, the fact might easily be divined from other
circumstances" (Schoepf, Travels in the Confederation, 11, 62).
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The papers of James Madison, Volume 8, March 10,
1784- March 28, 1786. Edited by Robert A. Rutland, William M.E. Rachal.
The University of Chicago Press, (1973) pp 295-298
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=============================================
Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government
52. Freedom of Religion
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1650.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Real Jefferson on Religion by Robert S. Alley
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/alley_18_4.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Jefferson's Abridgement of the Words of Jesus of Nazareth Compiled
While President of the United States, Introduction and copyrighted by Mark
A. Beliles, (1993)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson's Extracts from the Gospels "The Philosophy of Jefferson" and
"The Life and Morals of Jesus." Dickenson W. Adams, Editor, The Papers of
Thomas Jefferson, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N J (1983)
(Bs2549. J5 J43 1983
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Jefferson and His Library: A Study of His Literary Interests and of
the Religious Attitudes Revealed by Relevant Titles in his Library, Charles
B. Sanford, (Hamden, Conn, 1977)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Jefferson Versus Religious Oppression, by Frank Swancara, University
Books N.Y. (1967)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Jefferson Bible, with the Annotated Commentaries on Religion of Thomas
Jefferson, O.I.A. Roche, ed. With intro by Henry W. Foote (New York, 1964)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Religion of Thomas Jefferson. Henry W. Foote (Boston, Ma. Beacon Press
1960)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In God We trust; The religious Beliefs and Ideas of the American Founding
Fathers, Norman Cousins, (New York: Harper, 1958).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Jefferson: Champion of Religious Freedom, Advocate of Christian
Morals, Henry W. Foote, (Boston, 1947)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Wisdom of Thomas Jefferson, including the Jefferson Bible, :The Life
and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth." Ed. Edward Boykin, New York, 1941
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOME ADDITIONAL REFERENCES and a good source for comparisons between
European and American forms of enlighttenment (Deism, etc)
The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787, Gordon S Wood, University
of North Carolina Press (1998)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Radicalism of the American Revolution Gordon S Wood, Vintage Books,
(1991)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventing America, Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, Garry Wills ,
Vintage Books (1979)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, Bernard Bailyn, The
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press (1992)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republics Ancient and Modern, Inventions of Prudence: Constituting the
American Regime, By Paul A. Rahe, 3 Vols. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill & London (1994)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ambrose searle
> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>
> >:|satyr <RsEaM...@infidels.org> wrote in message news:<a3duduc8k08kr50mp...@4ax.com>...
> >:|> Funny that they didn't write him into the Constitution. To the extent that the
> >:|> founding fathers made reference to god, it was usually a deist god. With some
> >:|> exceptions, these people were not Christians.
> >:|
> >:|That seems like an odd claim to me. Are you able to support such an
> >:|assertion? Which of the founding fathers indicated that he was not a
> >:|Christian?
> >:|
> >:|Ambrose
>
> Most scholars agree that none of the first 6 Presidents could be considered
> as being "orthodox Christians," as that term was used and understood at
> that time.
1) The poster, Mr. satyr, made the claim that "these people [the
founders] were not Christians." He did not limit his assertion to the
first six presidents, and he did not qualify his statement with the
adjective "orthodox" (which is a very slippery term to say the least).
One man's heterodoxy is another man's fundamentalism.
2) My question was not "what do most scholars agree upon about the
first 6 presidents" but "which of the founders indicated that he was
not a Christian?" Your response did not answer that question. So
again, I ask, which of the founders indicated he was not a Christian?
3) You seem to want to amend satyr's claim by adding the term
"orthodox" to Christian. What evidence, contemporaneous to the
founding, can you give to show how the term "orthodox Christian" was
used "at that time"?
4) The fact is that Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison were not
heterodox to the point that their vestries or bishops rejected their
membership in the "orthodox" Church of England (or in the case of
Adams, a Congregationalist church).
> James Kent, (1763-1847) a close friend of U S Supreme Court Chief Justice
> John Marshall and U S Supreme Court Associate Justice Joseph Story,
> Attorney, Jurist, public official, first Professor of Law at Columbia
> University, Judge on the New York State Supreme Court, and its chief
> Justice, Author of the Commentaries on American Law, (1826-1830) author of
> the infamous People v Ruggles decision in 1811, and along with Joseph
> Story, called by some "Father of American Jurisprudence."
Huh? Is this just a free public service announcement from A & E's
biography? What does the religious views of James Kent have to do with
the views of the founders? Kent was 13 years old when the DOI was
signed and just 24 during the constitutional convention.
You seem to be unable to stick to the focus of a thread.
> While James Kent disliked Thomas Jefferson, in part for Jefferson's
> attacks on the Federalist judiciary but also because of the perceived
> threat of Jeffersonian irreligion to public order and morality, his own
> personal views regarding religion may not have been so different from
> Thomas Jefferson.
Are you suggesting that Kent's perception of Jefferson's "irreligion"
indeed equals the fact that Jefferson was "irreligious." I don't think
you will find any legitimate "scholar" of Jefferson who would say
Jefferson was "irreligious." Do you?
> "He despised Popery;
As did most Church of England members, Lutherans, Presbyterians,
Puritans, etc.
> scorned the fanaticism of certain of the Protestant sects;
As did many of the Protestant leaders since the Reformation.
> and once, in the privacy of his club, had spoken of Christianity
> itself as a vulgar superstition from which cultivated men were free. (209)
The footnote here appears to base this assertion on a pointed comment
Kent made about Catholicism, and a diary entry that is unquoted. To
assume that Kent was somehow antagonistic to Christianity simply
because he didn't like "the naked corpse on a Catholic crucifix" is to
say that all of the Puritans were antagonistic to Christianity as
well. Absurd.
> If he still held that opinion,
Big if. Not established.
> then his comments on religion from the bench
> were sincere only as they expressed an aristocratic conviction that
> religious faith is useful as a buttress to social order. To the theory of
> the case his hatred of Jefferson and his constant fear of Jacobinical
> commotion lend support. Be his private beliefs what they may, whether he
> was at heart a child of the Enlightenment or not, as a judge he reverenced
> the Virgin and valued so highly the religion of her Son as to write it into
> the law of the land."
> (209) When visiting French Canada, Kent made caustic comments on the
> Catholic religion. He called the "naked" image of Christ on the cross
> "disgusting." Once, in describing an enthusiastic Protestant parson, he
> called him "a pale distressed looking zealot." For his remark about
> Christianity as a vulgar superstition, see William Dunlap's Diary,
> September 30, 1797 supra cit.
> James Kent, A Study in Conservatism, 1763-1847, by John Theodore Horton. Da
> Capo Press, N Y (1969, Copyright 1939, The American Historical Association)
> p. 192-93.
It doesn't take much to see that all of what you have posted here
about Kent shed no new light on the point being made by satyr, viz.
"the founders were not Christians."
> At the very least, the above shows the common trend that people in the
> public light have of saying and doing one thing in public while frequently
> believing and saying totally different things in private.
1) Nothing you have posted proves either a) that James Kent was
hypocritical, nor b) --and this is the important piece--that the men
who founded the nation were generally religious hypocrites.
2) I do agree, however, with the general thrust of the links posted
below indicating that the founders were clear promoters of a
free-market of religion, thus wanting no government support for any
religious sects.
> Madison's letter to Jasper Adams
> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/jasper.htm
>
> Jefferson on religion flourishing on its own merits
> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/merits.htm
>
> Thomas Jefferson on church and state
> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qjeffson.htm
>
> Rufus King's views on Separation of Church and State
> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qking.htm
>
> John Leland on Separation of Church and State
> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qleland.htm
>
> Madison on church and state
> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qmadison.htm
>
> George Mason's views on Separation of Church and State
> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qmason.htm
>
> Charles Pinckney and Separation of Church and State.
> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qpinck.htm
>
> Edmund Randolph's views on Separation of Church and State
> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qrandolf.htm
>
> What about quotations that appear to oppose separation?
> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/quote4.htm
>
> What the founders believed about separation of church and state
> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/quoteidx.htm
>
> Noah Webster's views on the Separation of Church and State
> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qwebstrn.htm
>
> It can be safely said that of the "founders"
>
> Some were orthodox Christians that were very into religion..
> Some were orthodox Christians who were rather indifferent to religion
> Some were Deist (Non-orthodox)
Which definition of "deist" are you suggesting?
> Some were Quakers (Non-orthodox)
> Some were Catholic (Considered non-orthodox by most Protestant types who
> were orthodox)
> Some were Unitarian (Non-orthodox)
> Some probably were closet atheists or "infidels"
I am, again, confused by your use of "orthodox." Where, in the record,
do you find this term being used, for example, against the Catholics?
I have never seen an 18th century writer refer to the Catholics as
"non-orthodox." I have seen them called "papists," "prelates,"
"superstitious," "inquisitors," and even "anti-Christs," but the term
"non-orthodox" does not, in my reading of the history, appear much, if
any, in the record. It seems to be a category you have imposed upon a
different time.
> None of the first six Presidents would qualify as "orthodox" Christians, as
> that term was understood then.
The leadership of the churches to whom those 6 Presidents belonged
clearly disagreed with your assessment.
Ambrose
Michelle Malkin
<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:53i2eu0fuv023s9r7...@4ax.com...
> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>
> >:|"Michelle Malkin" <hypa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<f00E8.4597$fU2.9...@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
> >:|> "ambrose searle" <ambros...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>
> >:|> >
> >:|> > That seems like an odd claim to me. Are you able to support such an
> >:|> > assertion? Which of the founding fathers indicated that he was not
a
> >:|> > Christian?
> >:|> >
> >:|> > Ambrose
> >:|>
> >:|> Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams
> >:|> were all deists, not Christians. There are many quotes to
> >:|> support this. Do you want to see some of them?
> >:|
>
> >:|The problem with your statement is that it is highly simplistic.
It answered your original question. You didn't go into detail
about how deep an answer you wanted.
>
> Actually they weren't all deists.
>
> Jefferson would have qualified as a deist in his earlier years but by the
> 1800s he was a Unitarian. Franklin was a deist at least for a good portion
> of his life, but probably was more in line with Unitarian thinking in the
> later stages of his life. John Adams was a cross between Congregationalist
> and Unitarian.
Jefferson never officially declared himself a Unitarian,
though he said that he sympathized with them. Aside
from which Unitarians who believe in a god are deists.
Unitarians are not Christians. The same for Franklin.
Adams was never a Chrsitian as an adult. He
despised Christianity. Again, if he was a Unitarian, that
still meant that he was a deist.This was espcially true in
the 1800's. Whether or not any of the three was a
Unitarian, they were all deists. Deism and Unitarianism
are not necessarily exclusive of each other. (I was a
Unitarian-Universalist for a few years during the 70's. I
remained an atheist the entire time.)
>
> None of the three mentioned above would qualify as a "orthodox Christian,"
> as that term was used and understood at that time.
None of the three would have qualified as any kind of Christian
as the term was used at that time. They may have sympathized
with some of the ideas that Christianity was supposed to
support philosophically, but they did not believe in the divinity
of Jesus. The Jefferson Bible, especially, is quite clear on
that point.
>
> >:You
> >:|seem to imply that deism and Christianity are incompatible.
Deism is a form of theism. It's another form of god belief without
all the frills that theism generally tends to tack on itself.
>
> They pretty much were.
>
> >:|The 18th
> >:|century religious world was highly nuanced. Jefferson said on numerous
> >:|occasions that he was a Christian!
He meant philosophically, not religiously.
Exactly what I said - philosophically, not religiously.
Very good. I'll be saving this message
ambrose searle
>
> >:|"Michelle Malkin" <hypa...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<f00E8.4597$fU2.9...@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
> >:|> "ambrose searle" <ambros...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>
> >:|> >
> >:|> > That seems like an odd claim to me. Are you able to support such an
> >:|> > assertion? Which of the founding fathers indicated that he was not a
> >:|> > Christian?
> >:|> >
> >:|> > Ambrose
> >:|>
> >:|> Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams
> >:|> were all deists, not Christians. There are many quotes to
> >:|> support this. Do you want to see some of them?
> >:|
>
> >:|The problem with your statement is that it is highly simplistic.
>
> Actually they weren't all deists.
>
> Jefferson would have qualified as a deist in his earlier years but by the
> 1800s he was a Unitarian.
What qualifies one as a Deist in your mind?
> Franklin was a deist at least for a good portion
> of his life,
Franklin's testimony in his Autobiography is that he was a
Presbyterian in his "earlier years."
> but probably was more in line with Unitarian thinking in the
> later stages of his life.
Yes. That seems to be the opinion he expressed to Ezra Stiles in 1790.
> John Adams was a cross between Congregationalist
> and Unitarian.
I can accept that. He does state "I have been a church going animal
all my life."
> None of the three mentioned above would qualify as a "orthodox Christian,"
> as that term was used and understood at that time.
I'm not sure I have ever seen how that phrase was used at that time. I
do know that Church of England people were considered heretics by some
Calvinist sects, and Calvinists considered C of E people and RC's
heretics. Even within the same denomination, individuals were branded
as heretical. For example, John Wesley, the founder of Methodism,
would not even shake the hand of his co-founder, George Whitefield,
because of their sharp disagreement about the doctrine of
predestination.
In other words, "orthodoxy" is a slippery word and is not wise to be
used in reference to religious history. EVERYONE was "unorthodox" to
somebody else. Thus, "orthodox" is a relative term.
Perhaps a better way of stating what you intend here is that none of
them (BF, TJ, and JA) believed all of the same doctrines that
evangelical or fundamentalist Christians do at present.
> >:You
> >:|seem to imply that deism and Christianity are incompatible.
>
> They pretty much were.
You seem to be at odds with Jefferson in that regard, especially if
you think he thought of himself as a deist. For he also thought of
himself as a Christian.
> >:|The 18th
> >:|century religious world was highly nuanced. Jefferson said on numerous
> >:|occasions that he was a Christian!
>
> On one occasion in one letter.
No, sir. You err.
"I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be;
sincerely attached to his doctrines"
Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803
"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of
Jesus."
Jefferson to Charles Thomson, January 9, 1816
"I am, therefore, of his theology" ["his" referring to "that sublime
reformer of the Jewish religion"]
Jefferson to Ezra Stiles, June 25, 1819
Insofar as a Christian is defined as a disciple of Jesus Christ,
Jefferson owned that designation frequently:
"Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come
under my observation, none appear so pure as that of Jesus."
Jefferson to William Canby, Sept. 18, 1813
"the greatest of all the reformers of the depraved religion of his own
country, was Jesus of Nazareth... a system of the most sublime
morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man."
Jefferson to William Short, Oct. 31, 1819
"his [Jesus'] doctrines... composed the most beautiful morsel of
morality which has been given to us by man."
Jefferson to William Short, April 13, 1820
"I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus
as more pure, correct, and sublime than those of the ancient
philosophers... the morality of Jesus, as taught by himself, and freed
from the corruptions of later times, is far superior."
Jefferson to E. Dowse, April 19, 1803
"I place him among the greatest reformers of morals that have ever
existed"
Jefferson to Charles Clay, Jan. 29, 1815
"[in the New Testament] the world will at length see the immortal
merit of this first of human sages."
Jefferson to F.A. Van Der Kemp, April 25, 1816
etc., etc., etc.
> >:|Do you want the citations?
>
> I have it, here:
No, I said citationS
> >:|apparently, if you are correct in saying that he was a deist, his
> >:|deism must be something other than what you are envisioning. I think
> >:|you, and the poster who said that most of the founders were not
> >:|Christians, are being terribly irresponsible with your terminology.
>
> It can be safely said that of the "founders"
>
> Some were orthodox Christians that were very into religion..
> Some were orthodox Christians who were rather indifferent to religion
> Some were Deist (Non-orthodox)
> Some were Quakers (Non-orthodox)
> Some were Catholic (Considered non-orthodox by most Protestant types who
> were orthodox)
> Some were Unitarian (Non-orthodox)
> Some probably were closet atheists or "infidels"
This is largely acceptable, with my previous caveat about your use of
"orthodox." The issue here is not, however, the question of "some this
and some that" but in what percentage?
The atheist posters routinely make assertions about MOST, THE
MAJORITY, or ALL of the Founders being deists, non-christians,
atheists, etc. It is to those assertions that I demur.
> None of the first six Presidents would qualify as "orthodox" Christians, as
> that term was understood then.
How was that term understood then?
> This particular item was me (Buckeye) and Gardiner (a religious right type)
> having a "friendly" discussion about Jefferson's religion. Some of your
> questions will be answered in it. After it, I will list some other sources.
I didn't find any of my questions answered in what you have posted
below. I don't see any contradiction between what your former
correspondent posted regarding the assessment of Jefferson as a
"conservative Unitarian" and what you have posted below. I have a copy
of Sandford's book in my library. It seems that Sandford's ultimate
conclusion is that Jefferson is best identified as a "conservative
Unitarian," but also as a "deist" in some sense of the word, but not
pure Voltairian deism.
Pure 18th century Deism generally involved a rejection of revealed
religion, viz., no time for the Bible, Jesus, or theological inquiry.
In that regard, Jefferson was definitely not a pure Deist. However, he
did regularly refer to Jesus as a Deist; and insofar as he considered
himself a follower of Jesus, he would have also considered himself a
deist; but this is not the standard 18th century use of Deism as used
by the likes of Voltaire.
> PREFACE
> "Even scholars who are familiar with Jefferson's deism, Unitarianism,
> and enthusiasm for Bible study do not seem to appreciate the importance
> of his religious beliefs to his political philosophy and career."
What is the point of this quotation?
> PAGE 5 [What follows is the "conservative Unitarian," comment
> including the part about who actually made the comment which Gardiner
> "forgot" to include.]
> " His great-grandson described Jefferson's religion as that of a
> "conservative Unitarian . . . "
I am confused.
> PAGE 14
> "In summary, we may conclude that Jefferson, in his college years, began
> an involvement with Enlightenment and deistic writers which deeply
> influenced him toward a liberal, intellectual, moralistic, personal, and
> humanitarian view of government, society, and religion. This study
> continued all of his life and is reflected in his choice of favorite
> quotations and the books in his extensive library."
No doubt Jefferson read the deists in college. Most 18th century men
did. Does that mean that if Jefferson read them, he must have became
one?
> PAGE 20
> "In private, deists like Jefferson and Paine had some reservations about
> the Old Testament and did not hesitate to correct the biblical account
> of creation in the light of Newtonian science and emerging
> anthropology."
Ok.
> PAGE 48
> "Daniel Boorstin is closer to the truth than Trainer when he emphasizes
> that Jefferson and the American deists took man's relation to nature
> rather than to god as their starting point."
The "deists" did not distinguish between nature and god.
> PAGES 85 -92 beginning with the sub heading "JEFFERSON WAS DEIST"
> and including sub headings, "GOD, SEEN IN THE CREATION." "GOD, THE
> CREATOR OF MAN," "ONE GOD, NOT THREE," "JEFFERSON WAS A THEIST."
Hmmm. Is a Deist and a Theist the same thing?
> PAGE 92
> "He followed and promulgated the ideas of the English deists,
> particularly their belief in a creator of the universe, known by reason,
> in opposition to orthodox Christian theism based on revelation,
> theology, and mysticism."
Jefferson also promulgated the idea that the highest possible moral
system was found in the New Testament.
> PAGE 92
> "Jefferson may thus well be called a deist."
Given all sorts of definitional qualifications.
> PAGE 105
> "Privately discussing religion with interested friends, though, he was
> just as vehement as Paine or Rousseau in separating what he called 'the
> grain from the chaff," "the gold from the dross," and 'the diamond from
> the dunghill' in biblical passages."
ok.
> PAGE 130
> "Another of the important teachings of christ about God, according to
> Jefferson, was the belief in one God. The phrase frequently used by
> Jefferson was the 'Deism taught us by Jesus of Nazareth,' which he used
> in contrast to 'atheism,' meaning belief in no god, and 'theism,' by
> which he meant orthodox Trinitarianism. Jefferson argued that the belief
> of deism in the 'unity of the creator was the pure doctrine of Jesus
> also.'"
Right. Jefferson was a deist in the same sense that Jesus was.
> PAGE 155
> ""I have often wondered for what good end the sensations of grief could
> be intended. All of our other passions, within proper bounds, have a
> useful object, but what is the use of grief in the economy [of life]?'"
> "That question came from the deistic faith, which Jefferson and
> Adams shared, that everything in nature and human experience had a good
> purpose, since everything came from the good design of the perfect
> Creator, God."
If one reads the Adams-Jefferson correspondence carefully, we find
that what they are debating is more the tenets of Calvin, the Reformed
faith, which emphasizes that God does indeed have a "useful object" in
"griefs." See, for example, the exchange between TJ and JA regarding
Calvin and Jefferson's bodily illnesses.
> PAGE 173-177 (Just a small sampling here, be sure to read the all five
> pages to put it in proper context.)
>
> FROM PAGES 173-174
> Conclusions about Jefferson's Religion
>
> Was Jefferson really as radical in his religion as his opponents
> declared or as some modern scholars indicate? In answer to the charge
> that he was an "atheist, deist, or devil," he was not an atheist, he was
> a deist, and personal morality and honor were important elements in his
> character. He was strongly influenced by the liberal religious ideas of
> the t·ighteenth-century Enlightenment, particularly the deism of
> Scottish philosophers, beginning with the stimulation he received from
> his favorite college professor, William Small, and continuing through a
> lifetime of study of the books he acquired for his library."
> An evaluation of Jefferson's deism indicates that his beliefs about
> God were not as radical as those of many of his contemporaries.
> Jefferson defended his French philosopher friends who were atheists
> as being honorable men, hut he did not share their views that the
> universe could have always existed without a Creator. Jefferson
> believed in God as the planner, architect, first cause, and master
> builder of the universe. He went further and believed that God continued
> to guide, modify, and sustain his creation.
What is left out of this summary is the fact that Jefferson was also
very dedicated, by his own confession, to the teachings of Jesus
Christ.
<<remainder too wordy, and not carefully directed to this discussion>>
Ambrose
ambrose searle
> <jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:53i2eu0fuv023s9r7...@4ax.com...
> > ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
> >
> > >:|"Michelle Malkin" <hypa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:<f00E8.4597$fU2.9...@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
> > >:|> "ambrose searle" <ambros...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> >
> > >:|> >
> > >:|> > That seems like an odd claim to me. Are you able to support such an
> > >:|> > assertion? Which of the founding fathers indicated that he was not
> a
> > >:|> > Christian?
> > >:|> >
> > >:|> > Ambrose
> > >:|>
> > >:|> Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams
> > >:|> were all deists, not Christians. There are many quotes to
> > >:|> support this. Do you want to see some of them?
> > >:|
>
> > >:|The problem with your statement is that it is highly simplistic.
>
> It answered your original question. You didn't go into detail
> about how deep an answer you wanted.
My original question (see above) was, "which of the founding fathers
indicated that he was not a Christian?"
Are you claiming that the answer to that is Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin
Franklin, and John Adams?
> Jefferson never officially declared himself a Unitarian,
> though he said that he sympathized with them. Aside
> from which Unitarians who believe in a god are deists.
According to a standard definition, Deism includes a rejection of
revelation.
http://work.ucsd.edu:5141/cgi-bin/http_webster?isindex=deism&method=exact
Unitarianism does not necessarily reject revelation, it just includes
a broader canon of revelation.
So, in short, to say that "Unitarians who believe in god are deists"
is simply factually wrong.
> Unitarians are not Christians.
I know some who say they are. Jefferson certainly said he was a
Christian.
> The same for Franklin.
> Adams was never a Chrsitian as an adult. He
> despised Christianity.
Adams did WHAT?
Was Adams not an adult the year he was elected to the presidency?
That year, he wrote in his diary:
"The Christian religion is above all the religions that ever prevailed
or existed in ancient or modem times, the religion of wisdom, virtue,
equity, and humanity, let the blackguard Paine say what he will; it is
resignation to God, it is goodness itself to man."
Adams, DIARY, July 26, 1796
If that is an utterance of despisal for the Christian Religion, you'd
have to say that the Pope, Jerry Falwell, Mother Theresa, Billy
Graham, and St. Paul all despised Christianity too.
> Again, if he was a Unitarian, that
> still meant that he was a deist.
Utter nonsense. Read a simple dictionary. Understand definitions.
> This was espcially true in
> the 1800's. Whether or not any of the three was a
> Unitarian, they were all deists. Deism and Unitarianism
> are not necessarily exclusive of each other. (I was a
> Unitarian-Universalist for a few years during the 70's. I
> remained an atheist the entire time.)
That's because Unitarianism is not necessarily exclusive of anything.
Thus one can be a Buddhist, Bahai, Atheist, Deist, and yes, Christian,
and still find a place in a Unitarian community.
> > None of the three mentioned above would qualify as a "orthodox Christian,"
> > as that term was used and understood at that time.
>
> None of the three would have qualified as any kind of Christian
> as the term was used at that time. They may have sympathized
> with some of the ideas that Christianity was supposed to
> support philosophically, but they did not believe in the divinity
> of Jesus.
Incorrect.
The year he died, Franklin said he was not ready to say one way or the
other about the divinity of Christ.
Jefferson believed that Christ was the greatest human, but not a god.
You'd have to show me some evidence that Adams rejected Christ's
divinity. I'm not sure about that one.
> > >:You
> > >:|seem to imply that deism and Christianity are incompatible.
>
> Deism is a form of theism. It's another form of god belief without
> all the frills that theism generally tends to tack on itself.
Jalison has pointed out that Jefferson's religious biographer has
labelled Jefferson both a Deist and a Theist. What do you make of
that?
> > >:|The 18th
> > >:|century religious world was highly nuanced. Jefferson said on numerous
> > >:|occasions that he was a Christian!
>
> He meant philosophically, not religiously.
He said what he meant: he was a follower of Christ and fully attached
to Christ's teachings. Are you alleging that Christ's teachings were
not religious?
You seem to make up definitions for yourself which are not standard in
order to make assertions that are historically unsupportable.
Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin, were all, for example, very religious
men. This is not a matter of dispute among their scholarly
biographers.
Adams identified himself as a "church going animal all my life."
Jefferson was perhaps, of the presidents, the one who studied the New
Testament most carefully, going so far as creating his own
Inter-Linear, with Greek and Latin parallels.
Franklin, like Adams, was in preparation for gospel ministry early in
life, when he developed a strong belief in the doctrines of men such
as Cotton Mather and John Bunyan. At that time he also wrote his own
theological treatise in defense of the central doctrine of Calvinism
(viz. determinism). Franklin's religious commitment, like others'
evolved through his life so that it is impossible to say that he was a
so-and-so and nothing else. But he never ceased being rather staunchly
religious.
Thus, for you or any other atheist to try to coop these men as
atheists via Deism is disingenuous. French deism is somewhat akin to
Atheism, but these men were not of that stripe of deism.
Each of these three men were virulent opponents of atheism and they
made no bones about it. Jefferson, for example, said that he could
never be an atheist. Franklin wrote that a person could live in the
American colonies all his life, and never find an atheist among the
thousands of people he should encounter. Adams felt that atheism was a
direct threat to civil order and government.
So you are really stretching when you try to coop these men as
sympathetic to your cause, just like many fundamentalists are
stretching when they try to coop these men as "born-agains."
Honesty is still the best policy.
Ambrose
jal...@cox.net
>:|
>:|<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
>:|news:53i2eu0fuv023s9r7...@4ax.com...
>:|> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|"Michelle Malkin" <hypa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>:|news:<f00E8.4597$fU2.9...@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
>:|> >:|> "ambrose searle" <ambros...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>:|>
>:|>
>:|> >:|> >
>:|> >:|> > That seems like an odd claim to me. Are you able to support such an
>:|> >:|> > assertion? Which of the founding fathers indicated that he was not
>:|a
>:|> >:|> > Christian?
>:|> >:|> >
>:|> >:|> > Ambrose
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams
>:|> >:|> were all deists, not Christians. There are many quotes to
>:|> >:|> support this. Do you want to see some of them?
>:|> >:|
>:|> Actually they weren't all deists.
>:|>
>:|> Jefferson would have qualified as a deist in his earlier years but by the
>:|> 1800s he was a Unitarian. Franklin was a deist at least for a good portion
>:|> of his life, but probably was more in line with Unitarian thinking in the
>:|> later stages of his life. John Adams was a cross between Congregationalist
>:|> and Unitarian.
>:|
>:|Jefferson never officially declared himself a Unitarian,
>:|though he said that he sympathized with them. Aside
>:|from which Unitarians who believe in a god are deists.
>:|Unitarians are not Christians. The same for Franklin.
>:|Adams was never a Chrsitian as an adult. He
>:|despised Christianity. Again, if he was a Unitarian, that
>:|still meant that he was a deist.This was espcially true in
>:|the 1800's. Whether or not any of the three was a
>:|Unitarian, they were all deists. Deism and Unitarianism
>:|are not necessarily exclusive of each other. (I was a
>:|Unitarian-Universalist for a few years during the 70's. I
>:|remained an atheist the entire time.)
You can't paint deists with the same brush anymore than you could paint
Christians with the same brush or Unitarians with the same brush.
While there are probably a great many similarities in thought, beliefs,
etc, between Deists, Unitarians, Quakers, etc there were also unique
differences.
Just as their was differences between toe American brand of Enlightenment
and deism and various European versions of the same.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where intellectuals turned to Unitarianism--a polite amalgam of deism and
Congregationalism--(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The American Heritage, History
of Making the Nation 1783-1860, American Heritage/Bonanza Books N.Y. (1987)
pp 77-78)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... Bird Wilson, Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, was one of the
first openly to challenge in public the pietistic picture of Washington
that was being built up by [Mason Locke] Weems and his followers. In a
sermon delivered in October, 1831, which attracted wide attention when it
was reported in the Albany Daily Advertiser, Wilson stated flatly that
"among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor
of religion, at least not of more than unitarianism." Washington, he went
on to say, was a great and good man, but he was not a professor of
religion; he was really a typical eighteenth-century Deist, not a
Christian, in his religious outlook. (Paul F. Boller, George Washington &
Religion, Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, pp. 14-15.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson would have very much as home as a Deist from the time he reached
adulthood, till around 1800-1803. However, a combination of factors
happening at approx the same time period began a altering of his thinking.
The ongoing letter exchanges with Dr Benjamin Rush, Joseph Priestely,
Thomas Cooper, and the negative attacks aimed at him during the election
of 1801 caused Jefferson to take a new and in depth look at religion and
begin a new study of same.
The end result over the next years was a shifting of his beliefs and
thoughts regarding God, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In April 1803 Jefferson wrote an outline which he titled:
*** Syllabus of an Estimate of the Merit of the Doctrines of Jesus,
compared with those of others***
and he sent a copy of this syllabus to Dr. Ben Rush on April 21, 1803, his
two daughters, Levi Lincoln, possibly a couple other close friends and
Priestly.
The Syllabus was approx 4 pages long.
-------- --------- -------- --------
In 1804 Jefferson compiled his "wee little book" which he titled
***The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth, Extracted from the account of his
life and doctrines as given by Matthew, Mark, luke, and John. Being an
abridgement of the New testament for the use of the Indians unembarrassed
with matters of fact or faith beyond their comprehensions.***
The Philosophy was 46 pages long. It consisted of sections cut from the
various Gospels of two Bibles and then glued to blank paper.
---------- -------- -------- ---------
Sometime after 1816, probably nearer to 1820 Jefferson compiled what he
titled
***The life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth extracted textually from the
Gospels in Greek, Latin, French & English.***
This creation was approx 100 pages or so long. This version was similar to
the earlier version, but did have some different extracts added to it and
some that appeared only in it. In addition, it was done in the four
languages.
No one knew Jefferson had created this so called "Bible" until after his
death. He told no one about it, not even members of his family. This
version was bound in leather with gold lettering. It was discovered in his
library after his death.
------ ------- ------- ------- ------- ----
Jefferson took great care to keep his religious
views private and only available to his most trusted friends. A letter
to Benjamin Rush when Jefferson sent his 'Syllabus' on Jesus to him
makes that desire for privacy quite clear.
In 1816 Jefferson gave Van der Kemp permission to publish in England the
"Syllabus" and the accompanying 21 April 1803 letter to Benjamin Rush,
subject to the stipulation that the authorship of both documents be
concealed.
Despite all of Jefferson's efforts, Van der Kemp bitterly disappointed his
expectations. He did arrange for the publication of the "Syllabus" and the
letter to Rush, both suitably altered to conceal the identity of their
author, in the October 1816 issue of the Monthly Repository of Theology and
General Literature, an English Unitarian periodical. Contrary to
Jefferson's hopes, however, they failed to elicit any comment in England,
------- ---------- -------- -------- -------
The SYLLABUS was published as part of Rush's letter in this country in the
4 volume set of books compiled by Thomas Jefferson Randolph, titled
The Memoirs, Correspondence and Miscellanies from the papers of Thomas
Jefferson, which were published in 1829.
------ ------ ------ ------ -----
In 1983 Dickson W. Adams published a reconstructed version in his book
Jefferson's Extracts from the Gospels
[based on the historical data that is available, most feel that the
reconstruction, while not perfect perhaps, is probably pretty accurate.]
Sometime between 1816 and 1820, with the weight of evidence now pointing
to around the 1820 time period Jefferson compiled the MORALS. It was this
particular item that is known as the Jefferson Bible, and it was this that
was done in four languages, not the PHILOSOPHY. Again, it was not something
Jefferson actually wrote, but instead was clippings of passages from
Bibles, in English, Latin, Greek, and French.
==========================================================
This search and study that Jefferson set out on was an attempt to "extract
the 'diamonds' of authentic Christianity from the corrupted text of the
Gospels..." (The Jefferson Bible, With an introduction by F. Forrester
Church, Beacon Press Boston (1989)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Priestley as he understood them.
However, he wasn't totally in agreement with all of Priestley's thinking on
some points. For example, Priestley accepted the divinity of Jesus,
Jefferson did not.
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson's most voluminous biographer, Henry J. Randall (vol. 3, pp.
553-562), insists upon calling him a "Christian," a word which is subject
to many qualifications. Yet Mr. Randall admits that Jefferson disbelieved
in all strictly orthodox dogmas, and was a Unitarian. Unitarians, like
Deists, were considered to be as much "Infidels" in Jefferson's day as an
Atheist is now. But in his own day, Jefferson could scarcely have claimed
to be a Unitarian, since in the first half of the 19th Century that Church
was supernaturalistic and far from being as broad as it is at the present
time.
Jefferson himself defined the word "Christian" as he wanted it applied to
himself, in these words: "I am a Christian in the only sense in which he
[Jesus] wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in
preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and
believing he never claimed any other." (Morse's Jefferson, American
Statesmen Series, p. 304.)
Jefferson, like Paine, believed in a God, and hoped for happiness beyond
this life, though of the two men, Paine was the more religious. As
Jefferson approached old age, Dr. William Ellery Channing, the noted
Unitarian divine, was attaining distinction. Jefferson admired him and
said, in 1822:
"I rejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief, which
has surrendered its creed and conscience neither to kings nor priests, the
genuine doctrine of the only true God is reviving; and I trust there is not
a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian."
From the book "Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents" by Franklin Steiner
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/jeffstein.htm)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A change from what? the priests indeed have heretofore thought proper to
ascribe to me religious, or rather anti-religious sentiments, of their own
fabric, but such as soothed their resentments against the act of Virginia
for establishing religious freedom. they wished him to be
thought atheist, deist, or devil, who could advocate freedom from their
religious dictations." "I never told my own religion, nor scrutinized that
of another. I never attempted to make a convert, nor wished to change
another's creed. I have ever judged of the religion of others by their
lives, and by this test, my dear Madam, I have been satisfied yours must be
an excellent one, to have produced a life of such exemplary virtue and
correctness." "But this does not satisfy the priesthood. They must have a
positive, a declared assent to all their interested absurdities, My opinion
is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a
priest."
To Mrs. M. Harrison Smith, August 6, 1816.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>:|> None of the three mentioned above would qualify as a "orthodox Christian,"
>:|> as that term was used and understood at that time.
>:|
>:|None of the three would have qualified as any kind of Christian
>:|as the term was used at that time. They may have sympathized
>:|with some of the ideas that Christianity was supposed to
>:|support philosophically, but they did not believe in the divinity
>:|of Jesus. The Jefferson Bible, especially, is quite clear on
>:|that point.
Actually, they would have, but what you end up with is some combinations of
beliefs. Adams did not totally walk away from all of his Congregational
background, yet he could not be considered a "orthodox Christian" either by
the latter half of his life. He was not a deist, in fact IIRC you can find
a number of letters by him that "blasts" such.
Franklin was very unorthodox religious wise, would very much fit into the
deist mold early in his life, a bit less so later in his life, yet he was
religious in his own unique way and held a combination of ideas about
religion as well. Orthodox Christian, no.
APRIL 21, 1803
TO DOCTOR BENJAMIN RUSH
Washington, April 21, 1803
[WHAT FOLLOWS IS THE ENTIRE SYLLABUS]
Syllabus of an Estimate of the Merit of the Doctrines of Jesus, compared
with those of others
[snip]
It can be safely said that of the "founders"
Some were orthodox Christians that were very into religion..
Some were orthodox Christians who were rather indifferent to religion
Some were Deist (Non-orthodox)
Some were Quakers (Non-orthodox)
Some were Catholic (Considered non-orthodox by most Protestant types who
were orthodox)
Some were Unitarian (Non-orthodox)
Some probably were closet atheists or "infidels"
None of the first six Presidents would qualify as "orthodox" Christians, as
that term was understood then.
**********************************************
jal...@cox.net
>:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<53i2eu0fuv023s9r7...@4ax.com>...
>:|> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|"Michelle Malkin" <hypa...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<f00E8.4597$fU2.9...@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
>:|> >:|> "ambrose searle" <ambros...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>:|>
>:|>
>:|> >:|> >
>:|> >:|> > That seems like an odd claim to me. Are you able to support such an
>:|> >:|> > assertion? Which of the founding fathers indicated that he was not a
>:|> >:|> > Christian?
>:|> >:|> >
>:|> >:|> > Ambrose
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams
>:|> >:|> were all deists, not Christians. There are many quotes to
>:|> >:|> support this. Do you want to see some of them?
>:|> >:|
>:|>
>:|> >:|The problem with your statement is that it is highly simplistic.
>:|>
>:|> Actually they weren't all deists.
>:|>
>:|> Jefferson would have qualified as a deist in his earlier years but by the
>:|> 1800s he was a Unitarian.
>:|
>:|What qualifies one as a Deist in your mind?
>:|
Here, just for you:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some resources:
http://www.deism.org
http://www.religioustolerance.org/deism.htm
http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/cm/features/cm01_celebration.html#Deism
From www.religioustolerance.org ---->>
Ladyhank:
Deism involves the belief in the existence of God, on purely rational
grounds, without any reliance on revealed religion or religious authority.
Deists: Do not follow the fundamental beliefs by most religions that God
revealed himself to mankind through the writings of the Bible, the
Qur'an or other religious texts. Disagree with Atheists who assert that
there is no evidence of the existence of God. They regard their faith as a
natural religion, as contrasted with one that is revealed by a God or which
is artificially created by humans.
From www.dictionary.com ---->>
Deism: The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the
universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no
influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.
Deist: One who believes in the existence of a God, but denies revealed
religion; a freethinker.
From Merriam-Webster Dictionary online www.m-w.com ---->>
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. (Deist listed here as another
form of the word, a noun, often capitalized.)
From the Encyclopedia Britannica online www.britannica.com ---->>
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.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia Online www.newadvent.org/cathen ---->>
Deism: The term used to denote certain doctrines apparent in a tendency of
thought and criticism that manifested itself principally in England towards
the latter end of the seventeenth century. The doctrines and tendency of
deism were, however, by no means entirely confined to England, nor to the
seventy years or so during which most of the deistical productions were
given to the world; for a similar spirit of criticism aimed at the nature
and content of traditional religious beliefs, and the substitution for them
of a rationalistic naturalism has frequently appeared in the course of
religious thought. ... The deists were what nowadays would be called
freethinkers, a name, indeed, by which they were not infrequently known;
and they can only be classed together wholly in the main attitude that they
adopted, viz. in agreeing to cast off the trammels of authoritative
religious teaching in favour of a free and purely rationalistic
speculation.
<snipped interesting Deism history lesson>
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
----------------------------------------------------------
Ladyhank: One "tenet" or principle continues to be a belief in God or
Creator.
Ladyhank:
"Do Deists believe that God created the creation and the world and then
just stepped back from it? Some Deists do and some believe God may
intervene in human affairs. " "Do Deists pray? Only prayers of thanks
and appreciation. We don't dictate to God. " My question to you would be,
does dictate mean the same thing as ask? Does appreciation mean that we
only say what we do appreciate or can it also mean what we would
appreciate? A word stretch, perhaps, but due to the intervention point
raised, one must ask whether God intervenes at God's choice only or at the
request of a prayee.
From the WUD Beauty of Deism Page: "From personal experience I know if my
problems seem overwhelming, all I need to do is force myself to only think
of the positive things in life and my spirits are soon picked up and
fortified. I not only feel better, but my mind is cleared and solutions to
the problems flow much smoother. And the more often I use this method the
easier it becomes." Does WUD become less of an authority because personal
experience is used to relate the positive aspects of Deism? I don't think
so based on a full study of the Deism descriptions, but does it become
problematic for you?
From the WUD Deism and Death Page: "Deism teaches that no one knows for
certain what happens after death, if anything at all. It teaches that,
based on the creation we are all a part of, we shouldn't worry about it. "
However, in the same article, there are quotes by both Benjamin Franklin
and Thomas Paine that shows they most certainly did think about it. Maybe
not worry, but they did think about it and formed their own personal
conclusions. Are such conclusions considered objective because of the
stature of these men? Did their intelligence and fame give them
exclusionary entitlements to these types of thoughts and weight to their
conclusions? What of the conclusions of men with intelligence and no fame?
How can one be certain that fame endows one with the correct conclusions?
Ladyhank: If you are suggesting that all Deists think or believe alike,
what you are saying is that Deism requires a group-think mentality. That
opposes the very nature of individualistic freethought.
Further, need it be explained that the very most basic tenet of Deism is
BELIEF in God?
In response to your specific question, no, Deism is not just a word.
Thereare definitions available. They've been posted above. But as there
is nocreed, no dogma, no doctrine, no religious authority, and the
definitions in many ways are vague using subjective terms like: (not
following) fundamental beliefs by most religions (what are those
fundamental beliefs, specifically?
Be careful how you answer.), emphasizing, morality, religious knowledge
that is inborn in every person (what specifically is that knowledge?),
certain doctrines apparent in a tendency of thought (where did Deists
gather and give signature to these doctrines? is not a tendency of thought
subjective to the thinker?), and finally the terms freethinker and reason.
From http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary Freethinker: one that forms
opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority; especially :
one who doubts or denies religious dogma. Opinions is a rather subjective
word, don't you agree? How is that we are to meet the definition of
freethinker and not form opinions? Or is it the sharing of those opinions
that poses either a problem or a disinterest for you? Do people not use
science, one of highest examples of our reasoning capabilities, and manage
to come up with differing conclusions about the physical world? Only time
and continuing study unravel the truth. How much more difference in those
conclusions might one see when discussing the basic tenet of Deism, BELIEF
in God, the unproved?
--
Peace, ladyhank
*********************************************************************
In the time frame 1760 to, oh say, 1840, in the colonies and then this
country, if a person was religious but was not "orthodox Christian," was
not Jewish, Hindoo, Mahometan, Buddhist or any of the other religions of
Japan, China, India, etc. Was not Catholic or Quaker, though many didn't
consider either of these to be valid religions.
What would one most likely be called or thought to be, in the language and
mind sets of the day?
One scholar has this to say about it:
The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson, by Charles B. Sanford. University
of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, (1984 --third paperback printing, 1992)
PAGE 85
"To most religious people including Jefferson's enemies, there was little
difference between being atheist, deist, or infidel. AIl were suspected of'
being nonbelievers, opponents of Christianity, and dangerous to society."
"But in the intellectual sense of one who believed in tne Deity, as
opposed to the atheist who did not, Jefferson was a staunch
deist.; His religious thought is steeped in the ideas of the English
deists, . . . "
PAGE 91
It is a moot question whether Jefferson was a deist or a theist in his
belief about God. He has been called both. Part of the confusion comes from
the fact that the terms deist and theist are often used interchangeably,
though they had distinct, if varying, meanings.
Early in the Enlightenment, the term theism was used to denote the
ideas of those who believed in God as the Creative Power behind the
universe, in contrast in atheism, which denoted the ideas of those who did
not. The term is derived from the Greek word for God, theos. Jefferson,
accordingly, used theist to describe one who believed in a "first cause"
behind the creation, in contrast to the atheist who instead believed in the
"unceasing motion of matter." Later in the movement, the term deism came to
describe the ideas of those who believed in a great, unknown Power behind
the creation, and the term theism was left for the thoughts of the medieval
theologians and those: who believed in orthodox, revealed religion.
Jefferson, thus, employed the term deism for the belief in one God, Creator
of man and the universe, in contrast to orthodox, Christian, Trinitarian
theism. He even went so far as to characterize Jesus' teachings as "pure:
deism," and the teachings of the Jews as "degraded deism," though both
might more properly be termed theistic.
To be theologically accurate, the distinction between dpi.st and
theist, as it finally developed in philosophy, was based on whether
man could know the attributes of God, and whether God continued
to be active in His creation. The deist believed in a Creator of the
universe who had determined the scientific laws by which it operated but
did not interfere in the operation of those laws. The deist also held that,
although something could be sensed about the greatness, intelligence and
wonder of the Creator from the creation, there was much that was beyond the
comprehension of man, particularly about the characteristics and final
purposes of the Creator. The theist believed that man could know God and
His nature and purposes not only by reasoning from the creation but by
faith, devotion, and mysticism as well and that the Creator continued to
guide and direct his creation. Immanuel Kant made the distinction,
'The deist believes that there is a God; the theist believes that there
is a living God.'
=======================================================
To complicate matters even more, there were some very real similarities
between such thought generally labeled as deist, Unitarian, and even some
connections to some of the Quaker thinking.
At various times throughout the time frame given all three of the above
were condemned by the "orthodox Christians."
To add to the fun, various Christian denominations viewed each others as
nonbelievers as well at various times. :o)
Bottom line is, there were a number of men of those times, including
founders, who did not fit or qualify as "orthodox Christians" yet were
religious, in their own minds, in their own ways.
They might accurately be called deists, or Quakers, or Unitarian, some
would call them atheists, or infidels.
It can be safely said that of the "founders"
Some were orthodox Christians that were very into religion..
Some were orthodox Christians who were rather indifferent to religion
Some were Deist (Non-orthodox)
Some were Quakers (Non-orthodox)
Some were Catholic (Considered non-orthodox by most Protestant types who
were orthodox)
Some were Unitarian (Non-orthodox)
Some probably were closet atheists or "infidels"
None of the first six Presidents would qualify as "orthodox" Christians, as
that term was understood then.
**********************************************
ambrose searle
> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>
> >:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<53i2eu0fuv023s9r7...@4ax.com>...
> >:|> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
> >:|>
> >:|> >:|"Michelle Malkin" <hypa...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<f00E8.4597$fU2.9...@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
> >:|> >:|> "ambrose searle" <ambros...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >:|>
> >:|>
> >:|> >:|> >
> >:|> >:|> > That seems like an odd claim to me. Are you able to support such an
> >:|> >:|> > assertion? Which of the founding fathers indicated that he was not a
> >:|> >:|> > Christian?
> >:|> >:|> >
> >:|> >:|> > Ambrose
> >:|> >:|>
> >:|> >:|> Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams
> >:|> >:|> were all deists, not Christians. There are many quotes to
> >:|> >:|> support this. Do you want to see some of them?
> >:|> >:|
>
> >:|> >:|The problem with your statement is that it is highly simplistic.
> >:|>
> >:|> Actually they weren't all deists.
> >:|>
> >:|> Jefferson would have qualified as a deist in his earlier years but by the
> >:|> 1800s he was a Unitarian.
> >:|
> >:|What qualifies one as a Deist in your mind?
> >:|
>
> Here, just for you:
I see you have a difficult time attempting to complete a dialogue and
a single train of thought. You tend to repeat postings over and over
and over, and even within a single posting you repeat paragraphs time
and again.
Perhaps you would be considered more sensible if you learned how to
have an exchange, a dialogue, to follow an argument through.
That said, granting the essence of your definitions of deism,
basically a naturalistic religion rejecting revelation, why do you
assert that Jefferson rejected revelation in his early years?
This doesn't require a huge answer, jalison. If you dump a lot of
tangential and abitrary material into a response post, it shall be
clear that you are not interested in a dialogue, only a monologue, and
I will get out of the way if all you want to do is spout a monologue.
Ambrose
ambrose searle
Yes. This is a key point that I think perhaps the atheists here
misunderstand. If one reads Henry May's THE ENLIGHTENMENT IN AMERICA,
he is very clear to point out that the American brand of enlightenment
Deism was very different from the Deism of Paris. In France, Deism was
violently hostile to the church, particularly Catholicism. Deism there
was only a few inches away from Atheism.
But the Enlightenment in America was much more friendly to the church
and to religion. For example, some of the strongest American
enlightenment thinkers, according to May, were clergymen: John
Witherspoon, Jonathan Edwards, and Ezra Stiles. Atheism simply was not
countenanced in the Eastern colonies, not even after the break was
made with England. Thus, Franklin said that one would have a difficult
time finding an Atheist in America.
Not so in France. Strong evidence confirms the fact that Bonaparte was
himself an Atheist.
In short, to coop Jefferson as a deist in order to classify him as
"nearly an atheist" is to do injustice to Jefferson and to historical
inquiry. It seems to be motivated by a desire among Atheists to garner
intellectual support for their cause that just isn't there.
Ambrose
jal...@cox.net
>:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<dsm1eugg233r5efcr...@4ax.com>...
>:|> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|satyr <RsEaM...@infidels.org> wrote in message news:<a3duduc8k08kr50mp...@4ax.com>...
>:|> >:|> Funny that they didn't write him into the Constitution. To the extent that the
>:|> >:|> founding fathers made reference to god, it was usually a deist god. With some
>:|> >:|> exceptions, these people were not Christians.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|That seems like an odd claim to me. Are you able to support such an
>:|> >:|assertion? Which of the founding fathers indicated that he was not a
>:|> >:|Christian?
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|Ambrose
>:|>
>:|> Most scholars agree that none of the first 6 Presidents could be considered
>:|> as being "orthodox Christians," as that term was used and understood at
>:|> that time.
>:|
>:|1) The poster, Mr. satyr, made the claim that "these people [the
>:|founders] were not Christians." He did not limit his assertion to the
>:|first six presidents, and he did not qualify his statement with the
>:|adjective "orthodox" (which is a very slippery term to say the least).
>:|One man's heterodoxy is another man's fundamentalism.
>:|
>:|2) My question was not "what do most scholars agree upon about the
>:|first 6 presidents" but "which of the founders indicated that he was
>:|not a Christian?" Your response did not answer that question. So
>:|again, I ask, which of the founders indicated he was not a Christian?
I could care less about your question.
Anyone can play word the comment or word the question in a loaded fashion
that is going to support your position or make it impossible for the other
to provide anything that is going to damage your position. The only problem
is, it seldom if ever provides valid information.
I am providing those readers who care to read it and think about it
information that is valid and does, in spite of your claims otherwise
provide insights answers to what many of the founders were with regards to
their particular religious beliefs.
A word of advice, if you don't like how I reply to posts, don't read my
replies. Simple, huh?
I reply in my own way, using my own style, and that isn't going to change.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are talking about a context and the term "orthodox" did, in fact, have a
meaning in that context.
It frequently meant acceptable and if you want to know what was acceptable
you can read the various colonial charters and the very first state
constitutions.
Orthodox meant that you belongs to the majority denomination or established
denomination of your area or region, that you professed a belief with
regards to certain things, trinity, divinity of Christ, virgin birth,
articles of faith, the infallibility of the Bible, it being divinely
inspired, the word of God, etc, etc, in other words the major tenets,
doctrines and dogmas of the major Protestant denominations, (Church of
England, Congregationalists in the N E area)
>:|3) You seem to want to amend satyr's claim by adding the term
>:|"orthodox" to Christian. What evidence, contemporaneous to the
>:|founding, can you give to show how the term "orthodox Christian" was
>:|used "at that time"?
Orthodox is not a confusing issue. Try reading the colonial charters, the
very first state constitutions. You will find that which was acceptable.
Orthodox simply means acceptable.
I'll get to the rest of this, if no one else takes it up later.
ambrose searle
> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>
> >:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<dsm1eugg233r5efcr...@4ax.com>...
> >:|> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
> >:|>
> >:|> >:|satyr <RsEaM...@infidels.org> wrote in message news:<a3duduc8k08kr50mp...@4ax.com>...
>
> >:|> >:|> Funny that they didn't write him into the Constitution. To the extent that the
> >:|> >:|> founding fathers made reference to god, it was usually a deist god. With some
> >:|> >:|> exceptions, these people were not Christians.
> >:|> >:|
> >:|> >:|That seems like an odd claim to me. Are you able to support such an
> >:|> >:|assertion? Which of the founding fathers indicated that he was not a
> >:|> >:|Christian?
> >:|> >:|
> >:|> >:|Ambrose
> >:|>
> >:|> Most scholars agree that none of the first 6 Presidents could be considered
> >:|> as being "orthodox Christians," as that term was used and understood at
> >:|> that time.
> >:|
> >:|1) The poster, Mr. satyr, made the claim that "these people [the
> >:|founders] were not Christians." He did not limit his assertion to the
> >:|first six presidents, and he did not qualify his statement with the
> >:|adjective "orthodox" (which is a very slippery term to say the least).
> >:|One man's heterodoxy is another man's fundamentalism.
> >:|
> >:|2) My question was not "what do most scholars agree upon about the
> >:|first 6 presidents" but "which of the founders indicated that he was
> >:|not a Christian?" Your response did not answer that question. So
> >:|again, I ask, which of the founders indicated he was not a Christian?
>
>
> I could care less about your question.
Then why did you give the impression that you had answered it??
I asked, which of the founders said he was not a Christian? and you
responded directly to the question by saying that scholars agree that
the first 6 presidents were not Orthodox questions. In other words you
answered the question, but you didn't. And now you're trying to wiggle
out of it by saying that you never cared about the question in the
first place.
If you don't care about the question, don't try to answer it.
> Anyone can play word the comment or word the question in a loaded fashion
> that is going to support your position or make it impossible for the other
> to provide anything that is going to damage your position. The only problem
> is, it seldom if ever provides valid information.
How is my question loaded?: which of the founders said that he was not
a Christian?
> I am providing those readers who care to read it and think about it
> information that is valid and does, in spite of your claims otherwise
> provide insights answers to what many of the founders were with regards to
> their particular religious beliefs.
Okay. I see. So you really don't want to dialogue with anyone here;
you simply want to post random information that you find interesting
and you hope others might as well. That's your right. But don't, then,
paint yourself as a person truly interested in academic or historic
inquiry and exchange.
> A word of advice, if you don't like how I reply to posts, don't read my
> replies. Simple, huh?
Okay. Good advice. Actually I have already taken it. I have read the
parts of your posts which seem relevant to the thread, and I have
skipped over the massive amounts of tangential material you pile on.
> I reply in my own way, using my own style, and that isn't going to change.
Your loss, I guess.
> We are talking about a context and the term "orthodox" did, in fact, have a
> meaning in that context.
>
> It frequently meant acceptable and if you want to know what was acceptable
> you can read the various colonial charters and the very first state
> constitutions.
>
> Orthodox meant that you belongs to the majority denomination or established
> denomination of your area or region, that you professed a belief with
> regards to certain things, trinity, divinity of Christ, virgin birth,
> articles of faith, the infallibility of the Bible, it being divinely
> inspired, the word of God, etc, etc, in other words the major tenets,
> doctrines and dogmas of the major Protestant denominations, (Church of
> England, Congregationalists in the N E area)
So, according to you "orthodox Christianity" means "acceptable
Christianity" and it necessitates those doctrines which defined
fundamentalism in 1910 (virgin birth, biblical infallibility, trinity,
etc.? I.e., "orthodox Christianty" is "fundamentalism" from your point
of view.
Two big problems with that: 1) you haven't really provided any
historical evidence to show that the word "orthodox" was used in that
fashion.
2) To be an "orthodox Christian" is not the same thing as being a
fundamentalist. Period. You simply don't know what you are talking
about.
> >:|3) You seem to want to amend satyr's claim by adding the term
> >:|"orthodox" to Christian. What evidence, contemporaneous to the
> >:|founding, can you give to show how the term "orthodox Christian" was
> >:|used "at that time"?
>
> Orthodox is not a confusing issue. Try reading the colonial charters, the
> very first state constitutions. You will find that which was acceptable.
> Orthodox simply means acceptable.
I have looked at a number of colonial charters this afternoon. I am
still trying to find one which uses the words "orthodox" or
"acceptable."
Perhaps you can point to one. It seems like you're grabbing for
straws.
Ambrose
ambrose searle
> very first state constitutions. You will find that which was acceptable.
> Orthodox simply means acceptable.
At your suggestion, I have checked various colonial constitutions to
find out what was "acceptable," and thus, according to you,
"orthodox":
Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina, at Yalelaw's website:
Acceptible is defined by only two doctrines:
1st. "That there is a God."
II. "That God is publicly to be worshipped."
Under that definition of "orthodox," which of the founders were
"unorthodox"?
The Rhode Island Constitution (1640) also at Yalelaw guarantees
liberty of conscience in matters of religion.
The Jersey Constitution (1676) also at Yalelaw says:
"no men, nor number of men upon earth, hath power or authority to rule
over men's consciences in religious matters, therefore it is
consented, agreed and ordained, that no person or persons whatsoever
within the said Province, at any time or times hereafter, shall be any
ways upon any presence whatsoever, called in question, or in the least
punished or hurt, either in person, estate, or priviledge, for the
sake of his opinion, judgment, faith or worship towards God in matters
of religion. But that all and every such person, and persons may from
time to time, and at all times, freely and fully have, and enjoy his
and their judgments, and the exercises of their consciences in matters
of religious worship throughout all the said Province."
The Pennsylvania Charter (1682) defines religious "acceptability" as
follows:
"That all persons who confess and acknowledge the one Almighty and
eternal God, to be the Creator, Upholder and Ruler of the world; and
that hold themselves obliged in conscience to live peaceably and
justly in civil society, shall, in no ways, be molested or prejudiced
for their religious persuasion"
Virginia's state Constitution (1776) which would determine religious
"acceptibility" (which, according to you is a synonym for "orthodox")
in the land of Jefferson, Washington, Madison, et al. says this:
"SEC. 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
practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."
If these charters and constitutions are the definers of "orthodoxy,"
as you have indicated, then one would have to conclude that the first
6 presidents all fit within the parameters of "orthodox christianity."
Are you sure you don't want to back off on your suggestion about
defining "orthodoxy" as "acceptibility" as determined by the colonial
charters and state constitutions?
Ambrose
jal...@cox.net
>:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<p0k4eucgchct6dgf9...@4ax.com>...
>:|> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<53i2eu0fuv023s9r7...@4ax.com>...
>:|> >:|> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> >:|"Michelle Malkin" <hypa...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<f00E8.4597$fU2.9...@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
>:|> >:|> >:|> "ambrose searle" <ambros...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> >:|> >
>:|> >:|> >:|> > That seems like an odd claim to me. Are you able to support such an
>:|> >:|> >:|> > assertion? Which of the founding fathers indicated that he was not a
>:|> >:|> >:|> > Christian?
>:|> >:|> >:|> >
>:|> >:|> >:|> > Ambrose
>:|> >:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> >:|> Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams
>:|> >:|> >:|> were all deists, not Christians. There are many quotes to
>:|> >:|> >:|> support this. Do you want to see some of them?
>:|> >:|> >:|
>:|>
>:|> >:|> >:|The problem with your statement is that it is highly simplistic.
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> Actually they weren't all deists.
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> Jefferson would have qualified as a deist in his earlier years but by the
>:|> >:|> 1800s he was a Unitarian.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|What qualifies one as a Deist in your mind?
>:|> >:|
>:|>
>:|> Here, just for you:
>:|
>:|I see you have a difficult time attempting to complete a dialogue and
>:|a single train of thought. You tend to repeat postings over and over
>:|and over, and even within a single posting you repeat paragraphs time
>:|and again.
Oh well. Guess you didn't like my reply, huh?
Well, I have my style, and if it doesn't suit you, don't bother to read
them.
I'm not going to change my style.
I did answer your question, you apparently didn't care for the manner that
I answered you. Too bad.
I tend to supply information from a variety of sources. As one once said,
at least three sources should be quoted or cited.
I do notice that you don't really attempt to reply to the data I provide.
You seem to prefer belly aching about my posting style.
>:|Perhaps you would be considered more sensible if you learned how to
>:|have an exchange, a dialogue, to follow an argument through.
Gee, I'm not sensible?
I am not here to cater to you or your ideas of how one should have a
discussion.
I read those threads that hold an interest for me, and I reply to those
posts in a thread that have an interest for me. I reply in my manner, my
style. Deal with that or ignore my replies, I don't really care which you
do.
I do know from various feedback over the years, that there are a good
number of people that do, in fact, enjoy my replies. I also have noticed
that most of those who gripe about my style are also people that are in
disagreement with the information I am providing.
I don't argue per se, I provide information which people can look at and
make up their own minds what they think about it.
>:|That said, granting the essence of your definitions of deism,
>:|basically a naturalistic religion rejecting revelation, why do you
>:|assert that Jefferson rejected revelation in his early years?
I didn't define deism. I provided information from a variety of sources, at
least one of which came from a so called modern day deist.
Jefferson walked away from the Church of England either in his teen years
or early 20s. You really are not aware of this?
>:|This doesn't require a huge answer, jalison. If you dump a lot of
>:|tangential and abitrary material into a response post, it shall be
>:|clear that you are not interested in a dialogue, only a monologue, and
>:|I will get out of the way if all you want to do is spout a monologue.
Then I suggest you get out of the way.
I provide information that gives what one might call other viewpoints, the
rest of the story, the other side of the story.
Having a "dialogue" with your personally? I could care less.
You will post that which you feel inclined to post, I can read it and when
I find that there are other viewpoints, more to the story, etc, I will post
examples of that.
I don't care if you reply to it or not. Readers, both those who might be
reading along in this tread and future readers who might run across this
thread at some future time in Google and other like places will have a
better, more balanced, more complete collection of information to consider.
jal...@cox.net
>:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<5s85eug1gur2vjfo3...@4ax.com>...
>:|> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:
>:|> Orthodox is not a confusing issue. Try reading the colonial charters, the
>:|> very first state constitutions. You will find that which was acceptable.
>:|> Orthodox simply means acceptable.
>:|
>:|At your suggestion, I have checked various colonial constitutions to
>:|find out what was "acceptable," and thus, according to you,
>:|"orthodox":
Ahhhh, there were no colonial constituions as such, there were colonial
charters/ grants etc.
The first actual constitutions as such were framed and passed in 1776.
I know, its just words. However, technically speaking the various colonies
operated under various forms of royal and/or commercial charters, grants
etc.
I recommend the follow as well in your search:
The Original Thirteen States:
Introduction (Original and Early State Constitutions)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/cnstntro.htm
>:|Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina, at Yalelaw's website:
>:|Acceptible is defined by only two doctrines:
>:|
>:|1st. "That there is a God."
>:|
>:|II. "That God is publicly to be worshipped."
>:|
>:|Under that definition of "orthodox," which of the founders were
>:|"unorthodox"?
Sorry, not going to play your game with you.
But you are very careful in constructing that game.
Why do I call it a game? Simple, you seem well versed enough in the topic
to already know what was the common beliefs of the Church of England and of
the denominations that touted Calvinism, which basically made up the most
prevalent established religions in the colonies from mid 1600s to mid
1700s.
If you are going to get into charters etc, you are going top find some
pretty harsh things as being required, expected, accepted, etc.
I wonder if you are going to list those as well? I bet not.
Moving from the charters and grants to the early state Constitutions you
are going to find such things as:
____________________________________________________
who shall confess and acknowledge Our almighty God, the Creator,
Upholder and Ruler of the world
AND that all Persons who also profess to believe in Jesus Christ, the
Saviour of the World,
. That all Persons professing the Christian Religion ought forever to enjoy
"I _______, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His
only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, One God, blessed for
evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old Testament and
New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration.
. Although it is the duty of all men frequently to assemble together for
the public worship of the Author of the universe, and piety and morality,
on which the prosperity of communities depends, are thereby promoted;
obedience of the only true GOD, and the Saviour of Mankind, and of the
Christian Faith,
"representatives . . . shall be of the Protestant religion,
That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he
thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian
religion, are equally entitled to Protection in their religious liberty;
wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested . . .
required "a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion" for all
state officers.
It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly and at
stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and
Preserver of the universe.
I _______, do declare that I believe the Christian religion,
That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the
Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments,
or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and
safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of
trust or profit in the civil department within this State.
That all persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one
God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is
publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated.
The Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed, and is hereby
constituted and declared to be, the established religion of this State.
That all denominations of Christian Protestants in this State, demeaning
themselves peaceably and faithfully, shall enjoy equal religious and civil
privileges.
Ist. That there is one eternal God, and a future state of rewards and
punishments.
2d. That God is publicly to be worshipped.
3d. That the Christian religion is the true religion.
4th. That the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are of divine
inspiration, and are the rule of faith and practice.
5th That it is lawful and the duty of every man being thereunto called by
those that govern, to bear witness to the truth.
That last sums it up pretty nicely.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of "orthodox" beliefs were
* A belief in Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the World,
* A belief in the trinity
* A belief in the divinity of Jesus
* A belief in the resurrection
* A belief in the assention
* A belief in the miracles as recorded in the Bible.
* That there is one eternal God, and a future state of rewards and
punishments. (A Heaven and Hell)
* That God is publicly to be worshipped.
* That the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are of divine
inspiration, and are the rule of faith and practice.
* 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
*Athanasian creed
*Various Article of Faith
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orthodox also meant the majority or established religion of a region or
area and of course further meant it was the one true religion. Dissenters
were considered to be infidels, heretics, worshipper of a false god
following bastardize and corrupted teachings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 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.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEBRUARY 1, 1800
Doctor Rush tells me that he has it from Asa Green, that when the clergy
addressed General Washington on his departure from the government, it was
observed in their consultation, that he had never, on any occasion, said a
word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and
they thought they should so pen their address, as to force him at length to
declare publicly whether he was a Christian or not. They did so. However,
he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every
article of their address particularly except that, which he passed over
without notice. Rush observes, he never did say a word on the subject in
any of his public papers, except in his valedictory letter to the Governors
of the States, when he resigned his commission in the army, wherein he
speaks of "the benign influence of the Christian religion."
I know that Gouverneur Morris, who pretended to be in his secrets
and believed himself to be so, has often told me that General Washington
believed no more of that system than he himself did.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Entry by Thomas Jefferson in his Anas. February 1
1800, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Selected and Edited by Saul K.
Padover , The Easton press. (1967) pp 217-218)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He [Madison] never became a member of the Episcopal Church, yet attended
its services and treated the clergy of Orange County with kind respect. He
relished Voltaire's devastating jibes at religion, yet frequently in his
career he had the cordial support of various religious groups.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: James Madison and Religion A New Hypothesis, by
Ralph L. Ketcham. James Madison on Religious Liberty, Edited, with
introductions and interpretations by Robert S. Alley. Prometheus Books,
Buffalo N.Y. (1985) pp 184)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Second, the contributions of religion, especially Protestantism,
to the shaping of American society must be put into clearer perspective. In
the generation that produced the Constitution, only about ten percent of
the population were church members, and "in 1800 there were fewer churches
relative to population than at any other time before or since"' Whether one
seeks to explain this by the rural nature of American society and the
relative lack of clergy, or the attraction to natural, as opposed to
revealed religion, the low level of church membership is a sobering fact."
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Religion & Constitutional Government in the United
States, A Historical Overview with Sources. John E. Semonche, Signet Books
Carrboro, N.C. (1985) pp 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
". . . Despite being the first Trinitarian to occupy the office, Jackson
refused to issue fast-day proclamations or to view with any sympathy the
religiously inspired movement to stop Sunday mail delivery. If Jackson went
too far with his democratic rhetoric in equating the voice of the people
with the voice of God, such an equation, he felt, did not diminish God. But
certain religious leaders viewed with suspicion the eager support Jackson
received from certain agnostics and atheists.
During this Jacksonian era a number of Christian denominations, now
organized on a national level, attempted to establish the boundaries of the
First Amendment by arguing that the no-establishment clause was designed
only to prevent one sect from being preferred over another, which was the
specific language found in many state constitutions. Such a reading would
leave the federal government free to support Christianity in general.
Religious interest groups seeking to gain specific recognition of the
nation's obligation to God in the Constitution, or in government's action
under it, is no recent-day phenomenon.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Religion & Constitutional Government in the United
States, A Historical Overview with Sources. John E. Semonche, Signet Books
Carrboro, N.C. (1985) pp 30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the time of the Revolution most of the founding fathers had not put
much emotional stock in religion, even when they were regular churchgoers.
As enlightened gentlemen, they abhorred "that gloomy superstition
disseminated by ignorant illiberal preachers" and looked forward to the day
when "the phantom of darkness will be dispelled by the rays of science, and
the bright charms of rising civilization." At best, most of the
revolutionary gentry only passively believed in organized Christianity and,
at worst, privately scorned and ridiculed it. Jefferson hated orthodox
clergymen, and he repeatedly denounced the "priestcraft" for having
converted Christianity into "an engine for enslaving mankind, . . . into a
mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves." Although few of
them were outright deists, most like David Ramsay described the Christian
church as "the best temple of reason." Even puritanical John Adams thought
that the argument for Christ's divinity was an "awful blasphemy" in this
new enlightened age. When Hamilton was asked why the members of the
Philadelphia Convention had not recognized God in the Constitution, he
allegedly replied, speaking for many of his liberal colleagues, "We
forgot."(11)
FOOTNOTE
(11) Nicholas Collins, "An Essay on those inquiries in Natural Philosophy
which at present are most beneficial to the United States of America,"
American Philosophical Society, Trans., II (1793), vii; George H. Knoles,
"The Religious Ideas of Thomas Jefferson," Mirsissippi Valley Historical
Review, XXX (1943-44), '94·: He"'y May, The Enlightenment in America (New
York, 1976), 72-73; Bufler, Awash in a Sea of Faith, 195-96, 214-15; Trevor
Colbourn, ed., Fame and the Founding Fathers: Essays by Douglass Adair (New
York, 1974), 147n.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Radicalism of the American Revolution, by
Gordon S. Wood, Alfred A. Knopf, N Y (1992) pp 330)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the last years of Washington's Presidency, Thomas Paine published The
Age of Reason, his extended attack on orthodox religious beliefs and on the
Bible. In doing so, he spoke for the most advanced liberal thinkers of his
day. Eight American editions of his book appeared the first year. Though
stating their opinions less bluntly, Franklin and Jefferson and perhaps a
majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence basically
agreed with Paine. Paine was not the atheist he has been called, but a
deist, believing in God the First Cause, who worked solely through the laws
of nature.
For ordinary folk the idea of God the Great Watchmaker frozen in the
immutable laws of His clockwork universe was not enough. They felt the need
of a comforting and personal God attainable beyond the reasoning mind.
Where intellectuals turned to Unitarianism--a polite amalgam of deism and
Congregationalism--the masses sought the heady evangelism of the Baptists
and the Methodists, which itself seemed a democratic form of religion.
Itinerant preachers carried the gospel message beyond the Appalachians to
the remote and lonely regions of the frontier. At camp meetings, in the
light of flaring bonfires, they prayed and sang the gospel hymns and
shouted their simple message of sin and repentance until the more fervent
among them fell to the ground in spasms of emotion.
While New England was shifting from the rigidities of Calvinism to
Unitarianism, the South, under the influence of its "peculiar institution,"
was moving toward a revival of Calvinist theology, buttressed by
evangelism, in which there was no room for deviation or ranging thought.
I,iberalism in theology could lead to embarrassing questions about slavery,
and the South, in sensing this danger, closed theological ranks. As for the
Negroes, by the time of the Revolution they had begun to drift into
separate churches conducted with primitive evangelistic zeal by their own
clergy.
The religiousness of the century's end, known as the Second Awakening--the
first, or Great Awakening, had been initiated by Jonathan Edwards fifty
years earlier-- though in a sense the ordinary man's reaction to the
detached intellectuals of the Enlightenment, was above all an indication
that the United States was in the main still religious-minded.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The American Heritage, History of Making the Nation
1783-1860, American Heritage/Bonanza Books N.Y. (1987) pp 77-78)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonetheless, disestablishment was an accomplished fact, a social
symptom of declining interest in organized Christianity. Church-going in
Virginia had long been on the decline as communicants found more reasons
for attending Sunday horse races or code fights than for being in pews. In
1784 a foreign traveler in Richmond noted that the village had only "one
small church, but [it was] spacious enough for all the pious souls of the
place and the region. If the Virginians themselves did not freely and
openly admit that zeal for religion, and religion generally, is now very
faint among them, the fact might easily be divined from other
circumstances" (Schoepf, Travels in the Confederation, 11, 62).
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The papers of James Madison, Volume 8, March 10,
1784- March 28, 1786. Edited by Robert A. Rutland, William M.E. Rachal.
The University of Chicago Press, (1973) pp 295-298
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . While at least thirteen of JM's petitions were circulated (and in
time bore 1,552 signatures), another (and still anonymous) petition writer
found that his attack on the "Teachers of Christian Religion" measure
gained more widespread support. Twenty-nine petitions, signed by 4,899
Virginians, came from the pen of this unknown opponent of a church-state
tie. These petitions were based on an argument that carries beyond JM's-the
General Assessment bill was not only contrary to the Virginia Declaration
of Rights and to the enlightened republicanism pronounced there, but the
proposed act was in conflict with "the Spirit of the Gospel." Whoever wrote
this petition, which was easily the most popular of the several circulating
protests, was clearly an active Christian who believed the General
Assessment bill would do nothing to check "that Deism with its banefull
Influence [which] is spreading itself over the state" (Vi: Westmoreland
County petition).
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The papers of James Madison, Volume 8, March 10,
1784- March 28, 1786. Edited by Robert A. Rutland, William M.E. Rachal.
The University of Chicago Press, (1973) pp 295-298
------------------------------------------
The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson, by Charles B. Sanford.
University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, (1984 --third paperback
printing, 1992)
------- ------- ------- --------
PREFACE
"Even scholars who are familiar with Jefferson's deism, Unitarianism,
and enthusiasm for Bible study do not seem to appreciate the importance
of his religious beliefs to his political philosophy and career."
PAGE 5 [What follows is the "conservative Unitarian," comment
including the part about who actually made the comment which Gardiner
"forgot" to include.]
" His great-grandson described Jefferson's religion as that of a
"conservative Unitarian . . . "
PAGE 14
"In summary, we may conclude that Jefferson, in his college years, began
an involvement with Enlightenment and deistic writers which deeply
influenced him toward a liberal, intellectual, moralistic, personal, and
humanitarian view of government, society, and religion. This study
continued all of his life and is reflected in his choice of favorite
quotations and the books in his extensive library."
PAGE 20
"In private, deists like Jefferson and Paine had some reservations about
the Old Testament and did not hesitate to correct the biblical account
of creation in the light of Newtonian science and emerging
anthropology."
PAGE 48
"Daniel Boorstin is closer to the truth than Trainer when he emphasizes
that Jefferson and the American deists took man's relation to nature
rather than to god as their starting point."
PAGES 85 -92 beginning with the sub heading "JEFFERSON WAS DEIST"
and including sub headings, "GOD, SEEN IN THE CREATION." "GOD, THE
CREATOR OF MAN," "ONE GOD, NOT THREE," "JEFFERSON WAS A THEIST."
PAGE 92
"He followed and promulgated the ideas of the English deists,
particularly their belief in a creator of the universe, known by reason,
in opposition to orthodox Christian theism based on revelation,
theology, and mysticism."
PAGE 92
"Jefferson may thus well be called a deist."
PAGE 105
"Privately discussing religion with interested friends, though, he was
just as vehement as Paine or Rousseau in separating what he called 'the
grain from the chaff," "the gold from the dross," and 'the diamond from
the dunghill' in biblical passages."
PAGE 130
"Another of the important teachings of christ about God, according to
Jefferson, was the belief in one God. The phrase frequently used by
Jefferson was the 'Deism taught us by Jesus of Nazareth,' which he used
in contrast to 'atheism,' meaning belief in no god, and 'theism,' by
which he meant orthodox Trinitarianism. Jefferson argued that the belief
of deism in the 'unity of the creator was the pure doctrine of Jesus
also.'"
PAGE 155
""I have often wondered for what good end the sensations of grief could
be intended. All of our other passions, within proper bounds, have a
useful object, but what is the use of grief in the economy [of life]?'"
"That question came from the deistic faith, which Jefferson and
Adams shared, that everything in nature and human experience had a good
purpose, since everything came from the good design of the perfect
Creator, God."
PAGE 173-177 (Just a small sampling here, be sure to read the all five
pages to put it in proper context.)
FROM PAGES 173-174
Conclusions about Jefferson's Religion
Was Jefferson really as radical in his religion as his opponents
declared or as some modern scholars indicate? In answer to the charge
that he was an "atheist, deist, or devil," he was not an atheist, he was
a deist, and personal morality and honor were important elements in his
character. He was strongly influenced by the liberal religious ideas of
the t·ighteenth-century Enlightenment, particularly the deism of
Scottish philosophers, beginning with the stimulation he received from
his favorite college professor, William Small, and continuing through a
lifetime of study of the books he acquired for his library."
An evaluation of Jefferson's deism indicates that his beliefs about
God were not as radical as those of many of his contemporaries.
Jefferson defended his French philosopher friends who were atheists
as being honorable men, hut he did not share their views that the
universe could have always existed without a Creator. Jefferson
believed in God as the planner, architect, first cause, and master
builder of the universe. He went further and believed that God continued
to guide, modify, and sustain his creation.
=====================================================
James Kent, (1763-1847) a close friend of U S Supreme Court Chief Justice
John Marshall and U S Supreme Court Associate Justice Joseph Story,
Attorney, Jurist, public official, first Professor of Law at Columbia
University, Judge on the New York State Supreme Court, and its chief
Justice, Author of the Commentaries on American Law, (1826-1830) author of
the infamous People v Ruggles decision in 1811, and along with Joseph
Story, called by some "Father of American Jurisprudence."
While James Kent disliked Thomas Jefferson, in part for Jefferson's
attacks on the Federalist judiciary but also because of the perceived
threat of Jeffersonian irreligion to public order and morality, his own
personal views regarding religion may not have been so different from
Thomas Jefferson.
"He despised Popery; scorned the fanaticism of certain of the Protestant
sects; and once, in the privacy of his club, had spoken of Christianity
itself as a vulgar superstition from which cultivated men were free. (209)
If he still held that opinion, then his comments on religion from the bench
were sincere only as they expressed an aristocratic conviction that
religious faith is useful as a buttress to social order. To the theory of
the case his hatred of Jefferson and his constant fear of Jacobinical
commotion lend support. Be his private beliefs what they may, whether he
was at heart a child of the Enlightenment or not, as a judge he reverenced
the Virgin and valued so highly the religion of her Son as to write it into
the law of the land."
(209) When visiting French Canada, Kent made caustic comments on the
Catholic religion. He called the "naked" image of Christ on the cross
"disgusting." Once, in describing an enthusiastic Protestant parson, he
called him "a pale distressed looking zealot." For his remark about
Christianity as a vulgar superstition, see William Dunlap's Diary,
September 30, 1797 supra cit.
James Kent, A Study in Conservatism, 1763-1847, by John Theodore Horton. Da
Capo Press, N Y (1969, Copyright 1939, The American Historical Association)
p. 192-93.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the very least, the above shows the common trend that people in the
public light have of saying and doing one thing in public while frequently
believing and saying totally different things in private.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Mr. Jefferson and Wythe, who did not conceal their disbelief in
Christianity, took their parts in the duties of vestrymen. . . . "(19)
"Of James Madison, Bishop Meade wrote:
His religious feeling . . . seems to have been short lived. His political
associations with those of infidel principles, of whom there were many in
his day, if they did not actually change his creed, yet subjected him to
general suspcion."(20)
Of the many who had infidel principles were Edmund Randolph(21) and Charles
Cotesworth Pinckney" (22)
FOOTNOTES:
(19) Meade, William, Old churches, Ministers and Families of Virginia.
(Philadelphia, 1857) pp191;
(20) Meade, pp 100
(21) Moncure Daniel Conway, Omitted Chapters of History Disclosed in the
Life and papers of Edmund Randolph (1888), pp 156
(22) Herbert M. Morals, Deism in America EB, XXI, 617
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Thomas Jefferson versus Religious oppression, by
Frank Swancara, University Books, N Y (1969) pp 130
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In 1787, prudence dictated that the Virginian be more reticent
than Hume, Smith, and Voltaire. By that time, Madison had already himself
become an encourager "of free inquiry" and an enemy to what the majority of
his contemporaries would have considered "serious religion." Political
action required discretion. The divines influential in the various states
would not have looked kindly on the proposed constitution had they
recognized that it embodied a strategy for reducing the various sects to a
"pure and rational religion" of the sort favored by "wise men"-even in
wholly pagan times. His reticence notwithstanding, Madison's purpose and
that evidenced by Hume, Smith, and Voltaire were one and the same. As he
conceded some three decades later in a letter to a prominent American lew,
the Virginian had not only long been inclined to consider "the freedom of
religious opinions & worship as equally belonging to every sect." He had
"ever regarded . . . the secure enjoyment of" that freedom "as the best
human provision for bringing all either into the same way of thinking, or
into that mutual charity which is the only substitute."(95) For Madison and
for Jefferson, freedom of conscience was as much a matter of policy as a
matter of principle. Like the author of the Declaration of Independence,
the father of the American Constitution was a Deist who looked for moral
and political guidance, not to the Holy Scriptures, but to the "law of
nature and of nature's God."(96) If his stratagem was successful, his
fellow citizens would someday be unable to distinguish the God of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob from the God of the philosophers; and when that day came,
the danger posed by parties of principle would disappear altoeether.(97)
Madison could take it for granted that religious factions were
entirely artificial because in antiquity there had been no parties of
abstract, speculative principle apart from the completely powerless
philosophical sects. Had it not been for the peculiar character of
Christianity, circumstances in modern times would have been much the same.
And even then, where good fortune and good policy combined to disarm
superstition, civil strife was most likely to arise in a fashion perfectly
familiar to the ancients.
In Madison's view, factions should normally spring into existence
because men (and the rich and the poor in particular) have conflicting
material interests. It was with this in mind that he developed the most
controversial and original aspect of his argument for the extended
republic. Alexander Hamilton had remarked on the scope given to "commercial
enterprise" in America by "the diversity in the productions of different
States."(98) Madison's sanguine experience with religious diversity in
Virginia enabled him to see that the economic diversity noted by Hamilton
could be politically advantageous as well.(99)
FOOTNOTES:
(95)· WrJM VIII 411--13: Letter to Mordecai M. Noah on 15 May 1818.
(96). It can hardly be fortuitous that, in critical documents, both resort
to the language of Deism. Cf. PTI 1 413-33 (esp. 423, 429): The
Declaration of independence with Madison, The Federalist 43 (297) See also
WrJM IX 573-607 (esp. 590, 599): Notes on Nullification, 1835-36-where "the
law of nature & of nature's God" turns out to be an extrapolation from
Thomas Hobbes's "natural right of self-preservation." For another
circumstance in which Madison appealed to "nature and nature's God," see
WrJM V1 332-40 (at 340): Address of the General Assembly to the People of
the Commonwealth of Virginia, 23 January 1799. At Princeton. if Madison
perused all of the books that Dr. Witherspoon assigned, he will have
encountered The Being and Attributes of God by Newton's Dr. Clarke. His own
testimony suggests that he was swayed from religious orthodoxy at about the
time of the Revolution by renewed study of the work. Fitty years later, he
would still endorse "reasoning from the effect to the cause, `from Nature
to Nature's God,' " and he evidently hoped that the students at the
University of Virginia would learn to do the same. Note the inclusion of
Clarke's work on the list that Madison drew up in 1824 Of theological works
appropriate for use at the university (WrJM IX 203-7n) and see WrJM IX
229--71: Letter to Frederick Beasley on 20 November 1825 Though Madison was
outwardly observant, he never joined any church, and his heterodoxy was
widely suspected at the time. For further discussion, see Brant, James
Madison I 68-71, 85· 1"-22, 127-31, 1II 268-73, and Ralph Ketcham, "James
Madison and Religion--A New Hypothesis," Journal of the Presbyterian
Historical Society 38, no. 2 (June 1960): 65-90, and James Madison: A
Biography (New York 1971) 55-58, 61, 66, 162-68. Ketcham demonstrates
Madison's inierest in metaphysical guestions but provides no evidence to
support his assertion that the mature Madison should be considered a more
or less orthodox Christian. In fact, given the political circumstances, the
absence of substantive evidence suggests the opposite opinion, for it is
far easier to explain the reticence of a statesman who holds unorthodox
opinions than to account for the silence of a politician whose views accord
well with those of his compatriots. In any case. as Madison's private
correspondence indicates, his motive for entering the fray on behalf of
freedom of conscience and against the establishment of religion was
from the outset political and not religious. Note that, from at least one
political perspective, Deism is the functional equivalent of atheism: see
Hobbes, De cive IIl.xv. 14, and consider 1I Prologue, note 46, above.
(97)· See J. G. A. Pocock, "Religious Freedom and the Desacralization of
Politics: From the English Civil Wars to the Virginia Statute," in The
Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom 43-73
(98). The Federalist 11 (71)·
(99). On this point, see Lance Banning, "James Madison, the Statute for
Religious Freedom, and the Crisis of Republican Convictions," in The
Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom 109-38.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Republics Ancient and Modern, Inventions of
Prudence: Constituting the American Regime, By Paul A. Rahe, Volume III,
The University of north carolina Press, Chapel Hill & London (1994) pp
53-54
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The religious differences of the American people gave rise to a
pluralistic society. Any talk of a Protestant America not only neglects
those who were not of that faith, but also obscures the vital and important
differences among Protestants in colonial society. More than anything else,
these differences ensured religious liberty in the new nation. This was the
conclusion reached by James Madison, often called the father of the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights, who felt that words on paper were less
a guarantee of liberty than the American population's religious diversity.
This fact, buttressed by philosophical beliefs in the rights of the
individual, insured religious freedom. When Madison was defending the
Constitution drafted at Philadelphia, he saw a broader cultural pluralism,
drawn from the religious differences of the people, as the brightest hope
of the new republic. Broadly diverse interests, he believed, guaranteed
that no single interest would be able to control or oppress the others.
Before the American past can be surveyed, some of the debris that
clutters the landscape must be cleared. First of all, using the terms
Church and State in the United States is quite misleading. Although a few
state establishments of religion survived the Revolutionary era, they, even
in their restricted sphere, bore little resemblance to the established
churches in Europe. In reality, there was no Church in the geographical
area that became the United States; that is, there was no single
institution that defined religious belief and prescribed the forms of its
exercise. In the European model, the Church as an institutionalized
authority coexisted with the civil authority; they reinforced each other.
The American experience with religion made such institutionalization
impossible. To endow the term, Church, with some overarching theological
significance and then juxtapose it with the authority of the State, is to
talk in terms of abstractions that have no grounding, legal or practical,
in American society. Understanding the nature of the conflict between
religious belief and practice and civil authority in the United States
cannot be aided by archaic formulations.
Second, the contributions of religion, especially Protestantism, to
the shaping of American society must be put into clearer perspective. In
the generation that produced the Constitution, only about ten percent of
the population were church members, and "in 1800 there were fewer churches
relative to population than at any other time before or since"' Whether one
seeks to explain this by the rural nature of American society and the
relative lack of clergy, or the attraction to natural, as opposed to
revealed religion, the low level of church membership is a sobering fact.
Compare, for instance, that figure with the present one, which approaches
two-thirds of the population. But such statistics, while giving pause to
hasty generalizations about religion in the nation's formative period,
ignore important Protestant influences upon the nation. From the time of
the Puritans to the present, the country has been viewed in missionary
terms. Whether such a perception is now desirable is another question, but
its evolution and longevity cannot be ignored.
What Protestantism did was synthesize, from diverse sources, a view
of man that it endowed with a religious mission. Man was a dignified
creation, an individual worthy of respect, who must be educated to read
God's word and do His bidding on earth. So thrust out into the world,
Protestant man succeeded. However, his very success produced a paradox,
which has been explained as follows:
Since early colonial times, religion has been engaging American
history in a special way. Instead of commanding that society conform to a
preplanned City of God, the American way has been to marshal campaigns to
inaugurate in this or that dimension of the common life a yearning to turn
holy hopes into earthly fruition. This religion has been predominantly
Christian and mainly Protestant during the three formative centuries of the
Angle-American experience. . . .
What is remarkable is not the failure but the success of religious
efforts to inspire hopes and summon energies for sanctifying the arenas of
common life in America. Once won, however, the spoils of each such campaign
belonged not to religious institutions but to society at large. In that
sense the unintended but nevertheless salutary effect of religion on
American history has been to make a nation profaned . . . outside of
religion's temple. Being without land of its own, as it were, organized
religion realized in frustration that the improvements it made belonged to
all America.(2)
Whatever the arena, education, personal morality, individual
participation in the political and social processes, etc., religious
motivation produced profound secular results. Surveying these results, many
religious leaders were dismayed: seeking the City of God, they had played
an important part in bringing forth the City of Man. In the process of
strengthening man's body, mind, and will, his soul had been neglected.
Their negative reaction shifted attention from the substantial
contributions religion had made and fueled attempts to obtain from the
profane society some recognition, if only symbolic, of the sacred.
FOOTNOTE
(2) William A. Clebsch, From Sacred to profane America: The Role of
Religion in American History (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), pp. 1-2
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Religion & Constitutional Government in the United
States, A Historical Overview with Sources. John E. Semonche, Signet Books
Carrboro, N.C. (1985) pp 30
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On Thursday, 4 July 1776, the Declaration was read, and agreed to.
hy Congress:
We hold these truths to be selfevident; that all men are created equal;
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,
that among these are life. liberty and the pursuit of happiness. -- That
to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving
their power from the consent of the governed . . .
The words are Jefferson's, the sentiments those of men who had dared to
turn the world upside-down: of Rainborough and Winstanley, of Locke,
Voltaire, Rousseau and Thomas Paine. Forty years on, William Cobbett
asserted that, whoever wrote the Declaration, its author was the Thetford
Quaker -- though, on that Thursday morning of 1776, he was two days'
journey from Philadelphia, serving with Washington's army on the approaches
to New York.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Paine, the greatest exile, by David powell, St.
Martin's Press N.Y. (1985) pp 75-76)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Paine's AGE OF REASON was written with the French Revolution in mind.
The context of that book and its thoughts should be seen in that light.
Even Jefferson was not pleased with the violent direction the French
were heading in their revolution. Edmund Randolph's *Reflections . . .*
was written as a rebuttle to Paine. Some Americans were horrified at
the executions and also were more conservative (not totally against
monarchies) than they were during the American Revolution. Some saw
Paine ans justifying this violence or inciting it. They weren't as
upset with his material written prior to or during the American
Revolution. There are books on that subject. Paine wrote for the masses
so his propaganda was valued by those who might disagree with some of
what he wrote.
Additionally, the deism in Europe was different from the deism in
England and even America. So people to consider the deism of Voltaire
and Diderot (I think) that was different from the Scottish Deist
Frances Hutchenson from whom Jefferson aquired much of his thoughts on
the moral sense. Then the deism of Hume (Scottish whig) and Bolingbroke
(English Jacobite) which is different from all the others. There was no
single kind of deism. American deism didn't really come into being
until late in the 1790s and it had nothing to do with Paine's AGE OF
REASON.
--
Mike Curtis
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Britannica:
By the end of the 18th century, Deism had become a dominant religious
attitude among intellectual and upper class Americans. Benjamin
Franklin, the great sage of the Colonies and then of the new republic,
summarized in a letter to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale College, a
personal creed that almost literally reproduced Herbert's five
fundamental beliefs. The first three presidents of the United States
also held Deistic convictions, as is amply evidenced in their
correspondence. "The ten commandments and the sermon on the mount
contain my religion," John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson in 1816.
Erm, no it isn't. It is, however, important to realise that "deism"
means something rather difference today than it did in the 18th
century. This is to say that to someone like Adams or Franklin, a
deistic outlook presupposes that there exists a "natural religion,
[i.e.] 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."
These days the "the word Deism [is] used theologically in
contradistinction to theism, the belief in an immanent God who
actively intervenes in the affairs of men. In this sense Deism was
represented as the view of those who reduced the role of God to a mere
act of creation in accordance with rational laws discoverable by man
and held that, after the original act, God virtually withdrew and
refrained from interfering in the processes of nature and the ways of
man. "
(again, quotations from Britannica]
It may well be that they were not deists in this second sense, but in
the first - they subscribed to the idea of a natural, intrinsic
religion. Which in some senses is about as far from Christianity,
particularly Protestant Christianity, as you can get.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>:|The Rhode Island Constitution (1640) also at Yalelaw guarantees
>:|liberty of conscience in matters of religion.
Rhode Island actually was a shinning light of religious freedom for a
period of time, but in time it too began to alter that.
>:|
>:|
Actually section 16 was part of the Declaration of Rights which was not
part of the Virginia Constitution originally.
>:|If these charters and constitutions are the definers of "orthodoxy,"
>:|as you have indicated, then one would have to conclude that the first
>:|6 presidents all fit within the parameters of "orthodox christianity."
>:|Are you sure you don't want to back off on your suggestion about
>:|defining "orthodoxy" as "acceptibility" as determined by the colonial
>:|charters and state constitutions?
See above, for Orthodoxy.
ambrose searle
> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>
> >:|That said, granting the essence of your definitions of deism,
> >:|basically a naturalistic religion rejecting revelation, why do you
> >:|assert that Jefferson rejected revelation in his early years?
>
> I didn't define deism. I provided information from a variety of sources, at
> least one of which came from a so called modern day deist.
Fair enough. Perhaps I should have said, "granting the essense of the
definitions of deism that you provided," rather than "granting the
essense of your definitions of deism." But let's face it, that is a
rather trifling difference.
> Jefferson walked away from the Church of England either in his teen years
> or early 20s. You really are not aware of this?
Frankly, no. I am not saying you aren't correct. I'm just saying that
it is my recollection that Jefferson maintained his pew in the Church
of England for most of his life. My recollection could be wrong. Help
me refresh it with some authoritative source.
> >:|This doesn't require a huge answer, jalison. If you dump a lot of
> >:|tangential and abitrary material into a response post, it shall be
> >:|clear that you are not interested in a dialogue, only a monologue, and
> >:|I will get out of the way if all you want to do is spout a monologue.
>
> Then I suggest you get out of the way.
Admitting that you're only interested in a monologue, eh?
> I provide information that gives what one might call other viewpoints, the
> rest of the story, the other side of the story.
> Having a "dialogue" with your personally? I could care less.
I see where you are coming from. Fine. As long as you aren't
hypocritical, expecting others to respond to your questions and
dialogue with you, so be it. If you expect me to read what you write,
and to respond, then you rightly should be dismissed as a hypocrite.
> I don't care if you reply to it or not.
Fair enough. I will indeed ignore superfluous and tangential blather.
Although I cannot make you do it, I am hoping that you might answer my
questions with relevant data. I am not sure yet what you are all
about. You seem to have researched a good bit of history, and yet you
also seem to be aligned with the atheistic parties who post in
alt.atheism; much of their "history" is very unhistorical and
misrepresented. Although I can't say that you have posted any
egregious historical claims (your comment about Jefferson saying "I am
a Christian" only once was a forgiveable error), your mishandling of
the term "orthodox" seems to be for political purposes. I suppose if I
read more of your posts, I will eventually understand your thinking
better.
Ambrose.
jal...@cox.net
>:|I know some who say they are. Jefferson certainly said he was a
>:|Christian.
He qualified it a great deal.
>:|Jefferson believed that Christ was the greatest human, but not a god.
Jefferson believed the man Jesus was a great teacher.
I don't recall him using the term Christ.
>:|Jalison has pointed out that Jefferson's religious biographer has
>:|labelled Jefferson both a Deist and a Theist. What do you make of
>:|that?
That people aren't a easy to pigeonhole as you want to make them
>:|He said what he meant: he was a follower of Christ and fully attached
>:|to Christ's teachings. Are you alleging that Christ's teachings were
>:|not religious?
I don't recall him using the term Christ. I recall him saying Jesus. Christ
was not the last name of Jesus.
Didn't you post this:
"I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be;
sincerely attached to his doctrines"
Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of
Jesus."
Jefferson to Charles Thomson, January 9, 1816
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I am, therefore, of his theology" ["his" referring to "that sublime
reformer of the Jewish religion"]
Jefferson to Ezra Stiles, June 25, 1819
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insofar as a Christian is defined as a disciple of Jesus Christ, Jefferson
owned that designation frequently:
------------ ------------ -----------
"Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under
my observation, none appear so pure as that of Jesus."
Jefferson to William Canby, Sept. 18, 1813
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"the greatest of all the reformers of the depraved religion of his own
country, was Jesus of Nazareth... a system of the most sublime morality
which has ever fallen from the lips of man."
Jefferson to William Short, Oct. 31, 1819
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"his [Jesus'] doctrines... composed the most beautiful morsel of morality
which has been given to us by man."
Jefferson to William Short, April 13, 1820
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus as
more pure, correct, and sublime than those of the ancient philosophers...
the morality of Jesus, as taught by himself, and freed from the corruptions
of later times, is far superior."
Jefferson to E. Dowse, April 19, 1803
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I place him among the greatest reformers of morals that have ever existed"
Jefferson to Charles Clay, Jan. 29, 1815
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"[in the New Testament] the world will at length see the immortal merit of
this first of human sages."
Jefferson to F.A. Van Der Kemp, April 25, 1816
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't see the word Christ used except by you.
jal...@cox.net
>:|What is left out of this summary is the fact that Jefferson was also
>:|very dedicated, by his own confession, to the teachings of Jesus
>:|Christ.
>:|
Try the man Jesus, you will be more accurate.
ambrose searle
> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>
> >:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<5s85eug1gur2vjfo3...@4ax.com>...
> >:|> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
> >:|>
> >:|> >:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:
> >:|> Orthodox is not a confusing issue. Try reading the colonial charters, the
> >:|> very first state constitutions. You will find that which was acceptable.
> >:|> Orthodox simply means acceptable.
> >:|
> >:|At your suggestion, I have checked various colonial constitutions to
> >:|find out what was "acceptable," and thus, according to you,
> >:|"orthodox":
>
> Ahhhh, there were no colonial constituions as such, there were colonial
> charters/ grants etc.
Really? Perhaps you should notify Yale Law School that their webpages
are wrong, viz.: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/nc05.htm
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/ct01.htm
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/nj10.htm
> The first actual constitutions as such were framed and passed in 1776.
Do you think the folks at Yale are just ignorant?
> I know, its just words. However, technically speaking the various colonies
> operated under various forms of royal and/or commercial charters, grants
> etc.
etc... constitutions...
> >:|Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina, at Yalelaw's website:
>
> >:|Acceptible is defined by only two doctrines:
> >:|
> >:|1st. "That there is a God."
> >:|
> >:|II. "That God is publicly to be worshipped."
> >:|
> >:|Under that definition of "orthodox," which of the founders were
> >:|"unorthodox"?
>
> Sorry, not going to play your game with you.
> But you are very careful in constructing that game.
> Why do I call it a game? Simple, you seem well versed enough in the topic
> to already know what was the common beliefs of the Church of England and of
> the denominations that touted Calvinism, which basically made up the most
> prevalent established religions in the colonies from mid 1600s to mid
> 1700s.
>
> If you are going to get into charters etc, you are going top find some
> pretty harsh things as being required, expected, accepted, etc.
>
> I wonder if you are going to list those as well? I bet not.
Sure, some charters required trinitarian adherence. But the subject
matter at hand was "orthodoxy" and Thomas Jefferson. You stated:
"Try reading the very first state constitutions. You will find that
which was acceptable. Orthodox simply means acceptable." (jalison)
The state constitution which would determine "acceptability" and
"orthodox" in Jefferson's domain would be the state Constitution of
Virginia, not the constitution of Massachusetts or South Carolina.
Here is what the first State Constitution of VA says is acceptable:
"all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion,
according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual
duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity
towards each other."
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/va05.htm
Given the conditions that you have stated for defining "orthodoxy"
(orthodox means acceptable as defined by the state constitution), you
would have to concede that Jefferson was "orthodox," at least after
1776.
> Moving from the charters and grants to the early state Constitutions you
> are going to find such things as:
> ____________________________________________________
> who shall confess and acknowledge Our almighty God, the Creator,
> Upholder and Ruler of the world
>
> AND that all Persons who also profess to believe in Jesus Christ, the
> Saviour of the World,
That's not what defined "acceptability" in the Virginia in which
Washington, Jefferson, and Madison lived after 1776.
Which one of these clauses have you taken from the Constitution which
determined
"acceptability" in the region which Washington, Jefferson, and Madison
called home?
> Orthodox also meant the majority or established religion of a region or
> area and of course further meant it was the one true religion. Dissenters
> were considered to be infidels, heretics, worshipper of a false god
> following bastardize and corrupted teachings.
I can't begin to tell you how far off the mark that is.
The Calvinists in America were known as "dissenters." Adams ironically
noted that the "Dissenters" in American were in the majority.
John Adams to J. Morse, December 2, 1815, in Works of John Adams,
Second President of the United States: With A Life of the Author,
Charles Francis Adams, ed., 10 vols.
John Bartlett, the famous quotations guy, says that "Dissenter" was a
synonym for "Presbyterian."
John R. Bartlett, Dictionary of Americanisms (New York: Bartlett and
Welford, 1848), 38.
> Washington, like many of our founding fathers was a Deist, not a Christian.
Speculative. Unlike Franklin and Jefferson, Washington never mentioned
the word deism in his religious correspondence. He did, however,
explicitly promote the religion of Jesus Christ.
Furthermore, if the definition of a Deist is essentially "one who
rejects and denies revelation"
http://work.ucsd.edu:5141/cgi-bin/http_webster?isindex=deist&method=exact
this man who spoke of "the pure and benign light of revelation"
probably did not fit that definition.
> Washington, like many of our founding fathers was a Deist, not a Christian.
Speculative, at best. Certainly flies in the face of one who knew him
most intimately.
http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/youasked/060.htm
----
Woodlawn, 26 February, 1833.
Sir,
I received your favor of the 20th instant last evening, and hastento
give you the information, which you desire.
Truro Parish is the one in which Mount Vernon, Pohick Church, and
Woodlawn are situated. Fairfax Parish is now Alexandria. Before the
Federal District was ceded to Congress, Alexandria was in Fairfax
County. General Washington had a pew in Pohick Church, and one in
Christ Church at Alexandria. He was very instrumental in establishing
Pohick Church, and I believe subscribed largely. His pew was near the
pulpit. I have a perfect recollection of being there, before his
election to the presidency, with him and my grandmother. It was a
beautiful church, and had a large, respectable, and wealthy
congregation, who were regular attendants.
He attended the church at Alexandria, when the weather and roads
permitted a ride of ten miles. In New York and Philadelphia he never
omitted attendance at church in the morning, unless detained by
indisposition. The afternoon was spent in his own room at home; the
evening with his family, and without company. Sometimes an old and
intimate friend called to see us for an hour or two; but visiting and
visitors were prohibited for that day.
No one in church attended to the services with more reverential
respect. My grandmother, who was eminently pious, never deviated from
her early habits. She always knelt. The General, as was then the
custom, stood during the devotional parts of the service. On communion
Sundays, he left the church with me, after the blessing, and returned
home, and we sent the carriage back for my grandmother.
It was his custom to retire to his library at nine or ten o'clock,
where he remained an hour before he went to his chamber. He always
rose before the sun, and remained in his library until called to
breakfasdt [sic]. I never witnessed his private devotions. I never
inquired about them. I should have thought it the greatest heresy to
doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove
that he was a Christian. He was not one of those who act or pray,
"that they may be seen of men." He communed with his God in secret.
My mother resided two years at Mount Vernon, after her marriage with
John Parke Custis, the only son of Mrs. Washington. I have heard her
say that General Washington always received the sacrament with my
grandmother before the revolution. When my aunt, Miss Custis, died
suddenly at Mount Vernon, before they could realize the event, he
knelt by her and prayed most fervently, most affectingly, for her
recovery. Of this I was assured by Judge Washington's mother, and
other witnesses.
He was a silent, thoughtful man. He spoke little generally; never of
himself. I never heard him relate a single act of his life during the
war I have often seen him perfectly abstracted, his lips moving, but
no sound was perceptible. I have sometimes made him laugh most
heartily from sympathy with my joyous and extravagant spirits. I was
probably one of the last persons on earth to whom he would have
addressed serious conversation, particularly when he knew that I had
the most perfect model of female excellence ever with me as my
monitress, who acted the part of a tender and devoted parent, loving
me as only a mother can love, and never extenuating or approving in me
what she disapproved in others.
She never omitted her private devotions, or her public duties; and she
and her husband were so perfectly united and happy, that he must have
been a Christian. She had no doubts, no fears for him. After forty
years of devoted affection and uninterrupted happiness, she resigned
him without a murmur into the arms of his Savior and his God, with the
assured hope of his eternal felicity. Is it necessary that any one
should certify, "General Washington avowed himself to me a believer in
Christianity?" As well may we question his patriotism, his heroic,
disinterested devotion to his country. His mottos were, "Deeds, not
Words"; and, "For God and my Country."
With sentiments of esteem, I am, & c.
Nelly Custis [G.W.'s adopted daughter who lived with him at Mt. Vernon
for 20 years]
> 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.
Incorrect. Whose ethics was he referring to when he wrote: "demean
ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind,
which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed
religion"?
What is "our blessed religion"? Deism? If so, who is the author of
deism who has these great ethical characteristics? Voltaire?
Furthermore, Washington did get around to promoting the religion of
Jesus Christ in his correspondence.
> 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.
Craftily stated. Although the word "Christ" doesn't show up in his
letters to "friends," the word "Christian" shows up routinely. And the
word "Christ" indeed does show up in his diplomatic correspondence.
> (Paul F. Boller, George Washington &
> Religion, Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, pp. 74-75.)
Boller has a reputation of being a bit radical.
> FEBRUARY 1, 1800
>
> Doctor Rush tells me that he has it from Asa Green, that when the clergy
> addressed General Washington on his departure from the government, it was
> observed in their consultation, that he had never, on any occasion, said a
> word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion,
Do you realize how much hearsay is involved in this assessment of
Washington?
This is the point of view not of Washington, but of Jefferson, who
supposedly got his info from the opinion of Benjamin Rush, who, in
turn, supposedly received his information from Asa Green... who makes
his assessment not on anything Washington said, but based on what
Washington didn't say. This is called the fallacy ad ignorantium, not
to mention triple hearsay.
Ever heard of the old game "telephone"? Do you remember the point of
it?
> He [Madison] never became a member of the Episcopal Church,
Doesn't Ketcham also indicate that Madison led in the celebration of
the sacrament of Holy Communion at Montpelier?
> "Second, the contributions of religion, especially Protestantism,
> to the shaping of American society must be put into clearer perspective. In
> the generation that produced the Constitution, only about ten percent of
> the population were church members,
Two big errors here:
1) religion is equated with church membership. Weird.
2) the data is factually wrong.
> In the last years of Washington's Presidency, Thomas Paine published The
> Age of Reason, his extended attack on orthodox religious beliefs and on the
> Bible. In doing so, he spoke for the most advanced liberal thinkers of his
> day. Eight American editions of his book appeared the first year. Though
> stating their opinions less bluntly, Franklin and Jefferson and perhaps a
> majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence basically
> agreed with Paine.
That assertion flies in the face of the evidence:
Before Paine published his Age of Reason, he sent a manuscript copy to
Benjamin Franklin, seeking his thoughts. Notice Franklin's strong and
succinct reply:
"burn this piece before it is seen by any other person"
Benjamin Franklin, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, Ed.,
(Boston: Tappan, Whittemore and Mason, 1840) X:281-282.
Samuel Adams was not quite as cordial as Franklin:
"[W]hen I heard you had turned your mind to a defence of infidelity, I
felt myself much astonished and more grieved that you had attempted a
measure so injurious to the feelings and so repugnant to the true
interest of so great a part of the citizens of the United States. The
people of New England, if you will allow me to use a Scripture phrase,
are fast returning to their first love. Will you excite among them the
spirit of angry controversy at a time when they are hastening to amity
and peace? I am told that some of our newspapers have announced your
intention to publish an additional pamphlet upon the principles of
your Age of Reason. Do you think your pen, or the pen of any other
man, can unchristianize the mass of our citizens, or have you hopes of
converting a few of them to assist you in so bad a cause?"
William V. Wells, The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams
(Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1865) III:372-73, to Thomas Paine on
Nov. 30, 1802.
Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence, wrote to his
friend and signer of the Constitution John Dickinson that Paine's Age
of Reason was "absurd and impious."
Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L.H. Butterfield, ed.,
(Princeton University Press, 1951) II:770, to John Dickenson on Feb
16, 1796.
Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration, described Paine's work
as "blasphemous writings against the Christian religion."
Joseph Gurn, Charles Carroll of Carrolton (NY: P.J. Kennedy & Sons,
1932), p. 203.
John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration and mentor to many other
Founders, said that Paine was "ignorant of human nature as well as an
enemy to the Christian faith."
John Witherspoon, The Works of the Reverend John Witherspoon (Phila:
Wm W. Woodward, 1802) III:24n2, from "The Dominion of Providence over
the Passions of Men," delivered at Princeton on May 17, 1776.
John Quincy Adams declared that "Mr. Paine has departed altogether
from the principles of the Revolution."
John Quincy Adams, An Answer to Pain's [sic] "Rights of Man" (London:
John Stockdale, 1793) p. 13.
Elias Boudinot, President of Congress, even published the Age of
Revelation -- a full-length rebuttal to Paine's work.
"I have endeavored to detect his falsehoods and misrepresentations and
to show his extreme ignorance of the Divine Scriptures which he makes
the subject of his animadversions"
Elias Boudinot, The Age of Revelation (Phila: Asbury Dickins, 1801)
pp. xii-xiv, from the prefatory remarks to his daughter, Mrs. Susan V.
Bradford.
Zephaniah Swift, author of America's first law book, warned:
"[W]e cannot sufficiently reprobate the beliefs of Thomas Paine in his
attack on Christianity by publishing his Age of Reason . . . . He has
the impudence and effrontery [shameless boldness] to address to the
citizens of the United States of America a paltry performance which is
intended to shake their faith in the religion of their fathers"
Zephaniah Swift, A System of Laws of the State of Connecticut
(Windham: John Byrne, 1796) II:323-24.
John Jay, co-author of the Federalist Papers and the original Chief
Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, was comforted by the fact that
Christianity would prevail despite Paine's attack:
"I have long been of the opinion that the evidence of the truth of
Christianity requires only to be carefully examined to produce
conviction in candid minds, and I think they who undertake that task
will derived advantages. . . . As to The Age of Reason, it never
appeared to me to have been written from a disinterested love of truth
or of mankind."
William Jay, The Life of John Jay (NY: J. & J. Harper, 1833) p. 80
from his "Charge to the Grand Jury of Ulster County" on Sept. 9, 1777.
Many other similar writings could be cited, but these are sufficient
to show that Paine's views were strongly rejected even by the least
religious Founders. In fact, Paine's views caused such vehement public
opposition that -- as Franklin predicted -- he spent his last years in
New York as "an outcast" in "social ostracism" and was buried in a
farm field because no American cemetery would accept his remains.
The rest of your post, which appears to be the same exact stuff you
post every day, was ignored.
Ambrose
ambrose searle
> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>
> >:|I know some who say they are. Jefferson certainly said he was a
> >:|Christian.
>
> He qualified it a great deal.
>
> >:|Jefferson believed that Christ was the greatest human, but not a god.
>
> Jefferson believed the man Jesus was a great teacher.
> I don't recall him using the term Christ.
He did.
Thomas Jefferson to Reverend James Madison, January 31, 1800
Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, July 5, 1814
> >:|Jalison has pointed out that Jefferson's religious biographer has
> >:|labelled Jefferson both a Deist and a Theist. What do you make of
> >:|that?
>
> That people aren't a easy to pigeonhole as you want to make them
That was my point. One of the initial posters here stated "the
founders were deists, not Christians" pigeonholing them with
simplistic labels. My point is that, with Sandford, I think that
Jefferson was many things: deist, theist, and Christian.
> >:|He said what he meant: he was a follower of Christ and fully attached
> >:|to Christ's teachings. Are you alleging that Christ's teachings were
> >:|not religious?
>
> I don't recall him using the term Christ. I recall him saying Jesus. Christ
> was not the last name of Jesus.
Try
Thomas Jefferson to Reverend James Madison, January 31, 1800
Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, July 5, 1814
not to mention throughout the Jefferson Bible.
> I don't see the word Christ used except by you.
I will take the blame for many things, but being the author of
Jefferson's letters is not one of them.
Ambrose
jal...@cox.net
>:|forl...@aol.complicated (Lord Calvert) wrote in message news:<20020514000732...@mb-de.aol.com>...
>:|> Thomas Paine was a pamphleteer
>:|
>:|Which of the founding conventions was Paine party to?
Don't try to devalue the man, it won't really work. His role and place in
American history is secure.
>:|What was the general opinion of Thomas Paine among the "generality" of
>:|the founding brothers?
"When the crisis came, Jefferson, Paine, John Adams,
Washington, Franklin, Madison, and many lesser lights
were to be reckoned among either the Unitarians or the
Deists. it was not Cotton Mather's God to whom the
author of the Declaration of Independence appealed, it
was to 'Nature's God.' From whatever source derived, the
effect of both Unitarianism and Deism was to hasten the
retirement of historic theology from its empire over the
intellect of American leaders, and to clear the atmosphere
for secular interests"
-- The Rise of American Civilization,"
by Charles A. and Mary R. Beard. (Vol. I., p. 449.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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. (Paul F. Boller, George Washington &
Religion, Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, pp. 74-75.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Following a tradition transmitted from Cicero, through Machiavelli, to
their own contemporaries like Paine and Jefferson, the
less pious men of the time saw in religion a necessary and assured
support of civil society. Although guided in their own conduct
by secular traditions, they felt that only religion could unite the
masses and induce their submission to custom and law. So they
joined their orthodox countrymen in attributing to the hero [George
Washington] a deep religious devotion. (Barry Schwartz,
George Washington: The Making of an American Symbol, New York: The
Free Press, 1987, p. 173.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In the last years of Washington's Presidency, Thomas Paine published The
Age of Reason, his extended attack on orthodox religious beliefs and on the
Bible. In doing so, he spoke for the most advanced liberal thinkers of his
day. Eight American editions of his book appeared the first year. Though
stating their opinions less bluntly, Franklin and Jefferson and perhaps a
majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence basically
agreed with Paine. Paine was not the atheist he has been called, but a
deist, believing in God the First Cause, who worked solely through the laws
of nature.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The American Heritage, History of Making the Nation
1783-1860, American Heritage/Bonanza Books N.Y. (1987) pp 77-78)
-----------------------------------------
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson, by Charles B. Sanford.
University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, (1984 --third paperback
printing, 1992)
------- ------- ------- --------
PAGE 20
"In private, deists like Jefferson and Paine had some reservations about
the Old Testament and did not hesitate to correct the biblical account
of creation in the light of Newtonian science and emerging
anthropology."
On Thursday, 4 July 1776, the Declaration was read, and agreed to.
hy Congress:
We hold these truths to be selfevident; that all men are created equal;
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,
that among these are life. liberty and the pursuit of happiness. -- That
to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving
their power from the consent of the governed . . .
The words are Jefferson's, the sentiments those of men who had dared to
turn the world upside-down: of Rainborough and Winstanley, of Locke,
Voltaire, Rousseau and Thomas Paine. Forty years on, William Cobbett
asserted that, whoever wrote the Declaration, its author was the Thetford
Quaker -- though, on that Thursday morning of 1776, he was two days'
journey from Philadelphia, serving with Washington's army on the approaches
to New York.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Paine, the greatest exile, by David powell, St.
Martin's Press N.Y. (1985) pp 75-76)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Paine's AGE OF REASON was written with the French Revolution in mind.
The context of that book and its thoughts should be seen in that light.
Even Jefferson was not pleased with the violent direction the French
were heading in their revolution. Edmund Randolph's *Reflections . . .*
was written as a rebuttle to Paine. Some Americans were horrified at
the executions and also were more conservative (not totally against
monarchies) than they were during the American Revolution. Some saw
Paine as justifying this violence or inciting it. They weren't as
upset with his material written prior to or during the American
Revolution. There are books on that subject. Paine wrote for the masses
so his propaganda was valued by those who might disagree with some of
what he wrote.
Additionally, the deism in Europe was different from the deism in
England and even America. So people to consider the deism of Voltaire
and Diderot (I think) that was different from the Scottish Deist
Frances Hutchenson from whom Jefferson aquired much of his thoughts on
the moral sense. Then the deism of Hume (Scottish whig) and Bolingbroke
(English Jacobite) which is different from all the others. There was no
single kind of deism. American deism didn't really come into being
until late in the 1790s and it had nothing to do with Paine's AGE OF
REASON.
Mike Curtis
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Jeff Sinclair <jeffrey...@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups:
soc.history.war.us-revolution,alt.history.colonial,sci.skeptic,alt.deism
Subject: Re: The Founders were Deists?? NOT!
Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2000 07:47:16 GMT
> Gard...@pitnet.net wrote:
> > Robert L. Johnson wrote:
> > Thank you very much for these great quotes! They are a gift! I often
> > wondered what it was that the founders had that is lacking today -
> >it's DEISM!
> > Sincerely, Robert L. Johnson
> > http://www.deism.com
> WRONG!!
> The Founding Fathers, Deism, and Unitarianism
> Thomas Paine and Deism
> Thomas Paine is sometimes grouped with the Founding Fathers. During
> the Revolution he wrote very important tracts which unquestionably fueled
> the Revolutionary spirit in the colonies. Among these tracts were Common
> Sense and The American Crisis. Neither of these tracts gave the readers any
> reason to believe that Paine's religion was unorthodox in any way. Long after
> the Revolution, Paine wrote a book in which he identified himself as
> a "Deist."
> The book was published in 1794 and entitled The Age Of Reason.
> What is seldom noted about this book is that most of the Founding
> Fathers disapproved of it. Even those who held unorthodox religious views like
> Benjamin Franklin and the "Unitarians" denounced Paine's book.
<<snip of multiple quotes denouncing Paine's "Age of Reason">>
The reason that Paine's _Age of Reason_ was attacked was not because
people such as Franklin or Adams objected to his religious views.
Remember that Paine's religious beliefs had already been known to be
unorthodox and that he had still been very influential in affecting
American political thinking during the Revolutionary years. The
founding fathers had made it very clear that even unorthodox beliefs
such as Paine's were protected by the constitution, which declared that
the government was officially neutral regarding religion and the
America was not to be officially a Christian nation as Thomas Jefferson
noted:
"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]
The source of the opposition to Paine came from the misperception that
_the Age of Reason_ constituted an attack on Christianity and on the
personal faith of many of the founders, as he took to task many of the
contradictions within the Bible:
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/paine.htm
"WRITINGS. If Paine's writings had been only political, he would have
been held in honor as a bold and vigorous friend of human liberty. He
was extraordinarily fertile in ideas, and broad-minded and progressive.
He was in fact a great genius. His power of speech has always been
admired. To him is to be traced the common saying, "These are the times
that try men's souls," which is the opening sentence of the first
number of _The Crisis_ (which was printed in the Pennsylvania Journal,
December 19, 1776). His pamphlet, _Common Sense_ (January, 1776), was
one of the memorable writings of the day, and helped the cause of
Independence. His _Rights of Man_; being an Answer to Mr. Burke's
Attack on the French Revolution is a complete statement of republican
principles. But it is as the author of _The Age of Reason_, an
uncompromising attack on the Bible, that he is most widely known,
indeed notorious. The first part of this work was handed by him, while
on his way to prison in the Luxembourg, to his friend Joel Barlow, and
appeared, London and Paris, March 1794; the second part, composed while
in prison, December, 1795; the third was left in manuscript. "His
ignorance," says Leslie Stephen, "was vast, and his language brutal;
but he had the gift of a true demagogue,--the power of wielding a fine
vigorous English, a fit vehicle for fanatical passion." Paine was not
an atheist, but a deist. In his will he speaks of his "reposing
confidence in my Creator-God and in no other being; for I know no
other, nor believe in any other." He voiced current doubt, and is still
formidable; because, although he attacks a gross misconception of
Christianity, he does it in such a manner as to turn his reader, in
many cases, away from any serious consideration of the claim of
Christianity. His _Age of Reason_ is still circulated and read. The
replies written at the time are not. Of these replies the most famous
is Bishop Watson's (1796)."
Why Gardiner would go to great lengths to attack Paine, who was no
longer influential in governmental circles, in a transparent effort to
argue that this constitutes evidence that the founders must have
intended this no be an officially Christian nation, when the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights says clearly that the government is
to be neutral on matters of religion, is beyond me. Unless, of course,
one considers this as the empty propaganda used to support the idea of
an officially Christian nation that it is.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A Biography of Thomas Paine
(1737-1809)
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/B/tpaine/paine.htm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Biographies of Thomas Paine
Rickman Biography - Part 1 (1819)
Rickman Biography - Part 2 (1819)
Thomas A. Edison - The Philosophy of Thomas Paine (1925)
Robert Ingersoll (1870)
Robert Ingersoll (1892)
http://www.thomaspaine.org/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
jal...@cox.net
>:|forl...@aol.complicated (Lord Calvert) wrote in message news:<20020514000732...@mb-de.aol.com>...
>:|> George Washington, the first president of the United States, never declared
>:|> himself a Christian according to contemporary reports or in any of his
>:|> voluminous correspondence.
>:|
>:|How did he become a member and a vestryman of the Pohick Church (of
>:|England)? You seem to be claiming that the oath of a vestryman did not
>:|include a "declaration" of Christian faith. You might want to go back
>:|and take a look at C of E history.
>:|
>:|Did Washington not personally promote the "religion of Jesus Christ"
>:|in his correspondence? You might want to go back and take a look
>:|again.
>:|
>:|> Washington Championed the cause of freedom from
>:|> religious intolerance and compulsion.
>:|
>:|I absolutely agree. But so did the Rev. Roger Williams, the Rev. Isaac
>:|Backus, and the Rev. John Leland.
>:|
>:|> When John Murray (a universalist who
>:|> denied the existence of hell) was invited to become an army chaplain, the other
>:|> chaplains petitioned Washington for his dismissal. Instead, Washington gave him
>:|> the appointment.
>:|
>:|That seems to me like the Christian thing to do. There are a similar
>:|stories in the Gospels about Jesus not rejecting Romans, Samaritans,
>:|and other non-Jewish individuals on the grounds of kindness to fellow
>:|men, regardless of affiliation or belief. Religious tolerance is a
>:|fundamental Christian principle. Washington's commitment to religious
>:|tolerance is evidence of, not evidence against, his Christianity.
>:|
>:|> On his deathbed, Washinton uttered no words of a religious
>:|> nature and did not call for a clergyman to be in attendance.
>:|
>:|So. Neither did my great-grandfather who was a Congregationalist
>:|minister all his life. Does that mean that my great-grandfather
>:|clearly wasn't REALLY a Christian?
>:|
GEORGE WASHINGTON:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
alt.bible,alt.christnet.philosophy,alt.christnet.theology,alt.religion.christian
Re: School Prayer Continued
"Richard Weatherwax" <Weath...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
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."
My source, "The Religious Beliefs Of Our Presidents" by Franklin Steiner
(not yet published, list both Adams as Unitarians. If you have other
information, please list it.
"When the crisis came, Jefferson, Paine, John Adams,
Washington, Franklin, Madison, and many lesser lights
were to be reckoned among either the Unitarians or the
Deists. it was not Cotton Mather's God to whom the
author of the Declaration of Independence appealed, it
was to 'Nature's God.' From whatever source derived, the
effect of both Unitarianism and Deism was to hasten the
retirement of historic theology from its empire over the
intellect of American leaders, and to clear the atmosphere
for secular interests"
-- The Rise of American Civilization,"
by Charles A. and Mary R. Beard. (Vol. I., p. 449.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"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: "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
Subject: Re: George Washington not Christian
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.)
Paul S. Browning Jr.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Path: 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: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 17:42:38 -0700
Gardiner wrote:
> I wonder if you can back your "understanding" up with something that
> Washington wrote identifying himself as a Deist? It can't be done.
>
> On the other hand, it's pretty easy to show you some stuff he wrote which
> identified him otherwise.
>
> see http://memory.loc.gov/mss/mgw/mgw3g/004/284.gif
>
> Furthermore, according to Washington's membership at Truro Parish, he was
> required to swear upon an oath that he subscribed to the Doctrine and Disciple
>
> of the Anglican Church, which oath Washington swore on August 19, 1765. That
> doctrine included the following precepts:
>
> ******
>
> I suppose one could say that Washington was not the kind of man who took
> "oaths" very seriously, or that he was not very concerned with his integrity
> or honor; but that has not been the general opinion of the scholars who have
> studied him.
Now for the reality check:
(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.
(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.
Source: St. George Tucker's Annotated Blackstone's Commentaries (1803)
Go to http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook-law.html
Tucker was chair of the school of law at William & Mary University in
1803. Although probably too young to have participated in the revolutionary
struggle, he was a contemporary of most of the founding generation. He
probably was actually acquainted with many of the founders, since so many
of them were Virginians, their state being the most populous of those in
the new republic. Tucker reflected revolutionary ideology in his
condemnation of religious oaths, observing that they were oftentimes
proforma rather than sincere, and they demeaned churches by holding out
worldly rewards for membership. From that, IF Washington ever took any
Christian oath (no direct proof), it is reasonable to assume that it had as
much meaning in colonial Virginia by 1765 as singing the national anthem
does at an American sports event today.
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. To reason otherwise would be to also suppose (for example),
that anyone who believed in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny never abandons
such convictions. Such reasoning would also support a contention that "born
again" Christians are all liars. What illogical humbug!
(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.
Source:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_3.html
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 if any
except possibly that one Episcopal pastor. Unfortunately, it cannot be
determined whether Washington's Deism was something he himself disclosed to
the pastor, whether that was the pastor's conclusion, and if the latter
what factual support there was for it.
Signs that point in opposite directions point nowhere. One might as
well post that Washington had to be a Christian because he kept slaves,
which was perfectly permissible under biblical law.
*************************************************************
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:
> >
> > (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 note, the Virginia Constitution of 1776 did not, in reality
disestablish the Anglican Church. Article 16 that Gardiner was referring to
here was in the Declaration of Rights was not part of the Virginia
Constitution of 1776. ]
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?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FEBRUARY 1, 1800
Doctor Rush tells me that he has it from Asa Green, that when the clergy
addressed General Washington on his departure from the government, it was
observed in their consultation, that he had never, on any occasion, said a
word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and
they thought they should so pen their address, as to force him at length to
declare publicly whether he was a Christian or not. They did so. However,
he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every
article of their address particularly except that, which he passed over
without notice. Rush observes, he never did say a word on the subject in
any of his public papers, except in his valedictory letter to the Governors
of the States, when he resigned his commission in the army, wherein he
speaks of "the benign influence of the Christian religion."
I know that Gouverneur Morris, who pretended to be in his secrets
and believed himself to be so, has often told me that General Washington
believed no more of that system than he himself did.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Entry by Thomas Jefferson in his Anas. February 1
1800, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Selected and Edited by Saul K.
Padover , The Easton press. (1967) pp 217-218)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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?
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
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
George Washington
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html
George Washington
(1732-1799; "Father of His Country"; 1st U.S. President, 1789-1797)
The following year [1784], when asking Tench Tilghman to secure a
carpenter and a bricklayer for his Mount Vernon estate,
he [Washington] remarked: "If they are good workmen, they may be of
Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mohometans,
Jews or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists." As he told a
Mennonite minister who sought refuge in the United
States after the Revolution: "I had always hoped that this land might
become a safe and agreeable Asylum to the virtuous and
persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong...."
He was, as John Bell pointed out in 1779, "a total
stranger to religious prejudices, which have so often excited
Christians of one denomination to cut the throats of those of
another." (Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion, Dallas:
Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, p. 118.
According to Boller, Washington wrote his remarks to Tilghman in a
letter dated March 24, 1784; his remarks to the
Mennonite--Francis Adrian Van der Kemp--were in a letter dated May 28,
1788.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Government being, among other purposes, instituted to protect the
consciences of men from oppression, it is certainly the duty
of Rulers, not only to abstain from it themselves, but according to
their stations, to prevent it in others. (George Washington,
letter to the Religious Society called the Quakers, September 28,
1789. From Gorton Carruth and Eugene Ehrlich, eds., The
Harper Book of American Quotations, New York: Harper & Row, 1988, p.
500.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it was by the
indulgence of one class of the people that another enjoyed the
exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government
of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to
persecution no assistance, requires only that those who live under its
protection should demean themselves as good citizens in
giving it, on all occasions, their effectual support. (George
Washington, letter to the congregation of Touro Synagogue Jews,
Newport, Rhode Island, August, 1790. From Gorton Carruth and Eugene
Ehrlich, eds., The Harper Book of American
Quotations, New York: Harper & Row, 1988, p. 500.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which
are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear
to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be
deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal
policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have
reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we
should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch
as to endanger the peace of society. (George Washington,
letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792; from George Seldes, ed.,
The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey:
Citadel Press, 1983, p. 726.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In the Enlightened Age and in this Land of equal Liberty it is our
boast, that a man's religious tenets will not forfeit the protection
of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the
highest Offices that are known in the United States.
(George Washington, letter to the members of the New Church in
Baltimore, January 27, 1793. Quoted in Richard B. Morris,
Seven Who Shaped Our Destiny: The Founding Fathers as Revolutionaries,
Harper & Row, 1973, p. 269.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
... Bird Wilson, Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, was one of
the first openly to challenge in public the pietistic picture
of Washington that was being built up by [Mason Locke] Weems and his
followers. In a sermon delivered in October, 1831,
which attracted wide attention when it was reported in the Albany
Daily Advertiser, Wilson stated flatly that "among all our
presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of
religion, at least not of more than unitarianism."
Washington, he went on to say, was a great and good man, but he was
not a professor of religion; he was really a typical
eighteenth-century Deist, not a Christian, in his religious outlook.
(Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion, Dallas:
Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, pp. 14-15.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
... Like his father before him, he [George Washington] served actively
for many years as one of the twelve vestrymen for Truro
parish, Virginia, in which Mount Vernon was located. According to
Charles H. Callahan, "The regularity of his attendance at
the meetings of the vestry and the progress of church work throughout
the parish during his incumbency is a striking testimonial
of the religious zeal and activity of him and his associates."
Actually, under the Anglican establishment in Virginia before the
Revolution, the duties of a parish vestry were as much civil as
religious in nature and it is not possible to deduce any exceptional
religious zeal from the mere fact of membership. Even Thomas Jefferson
was a vestryman for a while.* [Boller's footnote is
shown at the end of this selection.] Consisting of the leading
gentlemen of the parish in position and influence (many of whom,
like Washington, were also at one time or other members of the County
Court and of the House of Burgesses), the parish
vestry, among other things, levied the parish taxes, handled poor
relief, fixed land boundaries in the parish, supervised the
construction, furnishing, and repairs of churches, and hired ministers
and paid their salaries. *As Bishop William Meade put it,
somewhat nastily, in 1857: "Even Mr. Jefferson, and [George] Wythe,
who did not conceal their disbelief in Christianity, took
their parts in the duties of vestrymen, the one at Williamsburg, the
other at Albermarle; for they wished to be men of influence."
(William Meade, Old Churches, Ministers and Families of Virginia, 2
vols.; Philadelphia, 1857, I, 191). (Paul F. Boller, George
Washington & Religion, Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press,
1963, p. 26.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
... 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.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[on Washington's first inaugural speech in April 1789] . .. That he
was not just striking a popular attitude as a politician is
revealed by the absence of of the usual Christian terms: he did not
mention Christ or even use the word "God." Following the
phraseology of the philosophical Deism he professed, he referred to
"the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men," to
"the benign parent of the human race." (James Thomas Flexner, George
Washington and the New Nation [1783-1793],
Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1970, p. 184.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Washington's religious belief was that of the enlightenment: deism. He
practically never used the word "God," preferring the
more impersonal word "Providence." How little he visualized Providence
in personal form is shown by the fact that he
interchangeably applied to that force all three possible pronouns: he,
she, and it. (James Thomas Flexner, George Washington:
Anguish and Farewell [1793-1799], Boston: Little, Brown and Company,
1972, p. 490.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No citizens ... were more sensitive to Washington's role as an
upholder of liberties than the religious minorities. These groups
were less anxious to cultivate what they had in common with other
Americans than to sustain what kept them apart. Washington
recognized this, just as he recognized the tenacity of regional and
economic interests, and he took pains to explain precisely
what national unity meant to him. He carried to his countrymen a
vision of "organic" rather than "mechanical" solidarity, a union
based on difference and interdependence rather than uniformity of
belief and conduct. Washington's understanding of the kind
of integration appropriate to a modern state was not shared by the
most powerful Protestant establishments, the New England
Congregationalists and Presbyterians; but other religious groups could
not have been more pleased.... Acknowledging in each
instance that respect for diversity was a fair price for commitment to
the nation and its regime, Washington abolished
deep-rooted fears that would have otherwise alienated a large part of
the population from the nation-building process. For this
large minority, he embodied not the ideal of union, nor even that of
liberty, but rather the reconciliation of union and liberty.
(Barry Schwartz, George Washington: The Making of an American Symbol,
New York: The Free Press, 1987, pp. 85-86.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
George Washington's conduct convinced most Americans that he was a
good Christian, but those possessing first-hand
knowledge of his religious convictions had reasons for doubt. (Barry
Schwartz, George Washington: The Making of an
American Symbol, New York: The Free Press, 1987, p. 170.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Following a tradition transmitted from Cicero, through Machiavelli, to
their own contemporaries like Paine and Jefferson, the
less pious men of the time saw in religion a necessary and assured
support of civil society. Although guided in their own conduct
by secular traditions, they felt that only religion could unite the
masses and induce their submission to custom and law. So they
joined their orthodox countrymen in attributing to the hero [George
Washington] a deep religious devotion. (Barry Schwartz,
George Washington: The Making of an American Symbol, New York: The
Free Press, 1987, p. 173.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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.)
*******************************************************
Dwayne Conyers
> >:|the founding brothers?
That he was a real paine?
`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`
The Shadow of a Dog Never Bit Nobody (Copeland)
http://www.dwacon.com
jal...@cox.net
>:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<q0p9eu0qfsbcir7sj...@4ax.com>...
>:|
>:|Wouldn't it make more sense to just provide a link to these old posts?
>:|
Not really.
>:|In order to respond to everything you have posted, I would need a
>:|year.
That's your problem.
You see, you are making claims. Rather than me just saying you are not
giving the complete story, etc, I provide data, showing there is far more
to the story than you have shown or stated.
You can read it or not. If you read it you might even learn something. But
that is your choice.
You can respond or not. There really isn't a response required, unless of
course you are going to take the usual tactic and continue to hang onto
your claims and defend them. If you do that, you replies would consist of
attempts to devalue the data that I have provided. This seems to be what
you call "having a dialogue."
As I have said repeatedly, I post data in reply to something someone else
said that I feel in incorrect, out of context, incomplete, etc.
The first person posts I reply with the data I feel gives a more complete
picture or more accurate one. The readers can decide for themselves.
>:|If you want me to respond, give me something manageable to respond to;
If you wanted to respond you could pick any portion or reply to the whole.
It really isn't that difficult. I do it all the time. I do tend to take
point by point what someone says and address each point with data.
Of course, I do have something like 5000+ pages of material, most of it
primary source material on my computer so it is a lot easier for me to
reply in the manner in which I do, but you are perfectly capable of
replying to anything you want to reply to.
Stop blaming others for your decision not to do so.
>:|otherwise, the floor is yours... continue the monologue
I will. You are under no obligation to respond, ever. But do know that
which I am providing is usually in disagreement with what you said.
jal...@cox.net
>:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<9uh8euot4d319ksk5...@4ax.com>...
>:|> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|I know some who say they are. Jefferson certainly said he was a
>:|> >:|Christian.
>:|>
>:|> He qualified it a great deal.
>:|>
>:|> >:|Jefferson believed that Christ was the greatest human, but not a god.
>:|>
>:|> Jefferson believed the man Jesus was a great teacher.
>:|> I don't recall him using the term Christ.
>:|
>:|He did.
>:|
>:|Thomas Jefferson to Reverend James Madison, January 31, 1800
>:|Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, July 5, 1814
Not in the original list you provided, which was what I was addressing at
the time I replied.
Now why didn't you provide the letters?
How many letters that Jefferson wrote to others in which he discusses
religion will you find him use the term Christ?
How many letters does he use the term Jesus?
There are approx 3 maybe 4 letters/documents written by Jefferson that I
am aware of where he mentions the word Christ. In his autobiography he
mentions Jesus Christ, but in reference to a choice of words others were
trying to have passed into law when his Statute for religious freedom was
before the legislature.
You have identified two other letters. That sure isn't much considering
the number of letters, documents Jefferson did write that does mention
religion in some form or fashion. In short, it doesn't really do much for
your position. There is ample documentation to support the claim that
Jefferson thought that the man Jesus was just that, a man, not Jesus "The
Christ"
Now for the letters: ** Emphasis added by me **
JANUARY 31, 1800
Excerpt from a letter to Bishop James Madison from T. Jefferson
Philadelphia January 31, 1800
I have lately by accident got a sight of a single volume
(the 3rd .) of the Abbey Barruel's ‘antisocial conspiracy,' which gives me
the first idea I have ever had of what is meant by the illuminatism
against which ‘illuminate Morse' as he is now called, & his ecclesiastical
& monarchical associates have been making such a hue and cry. Barruel's
own parts of the book are perfectly the ravings of a bedlamite. But he
quotes largely from the Wishaupt who he considers as a founder of what the
calls the order. As you may not have an opportunity of forming a judgment
of this cry of mad dog which as been raised against his doctrines, I will
give you the idea of formal and hours reading the Barruel's quotations from
him, which may be sure not the most favorable. Wishaupt seems to be
enthusiastic Philanthropist. He is among those as you know the excellent
price and Priestley also are) who believe in the indefinite perfectibility
of man. He thinks he may in time be rendered so perfect that he will be
able to govern himself in every circumstance so as to injure none, to do
all the good he can, to leave government no occasion to exercise their
powers over him, & if course to render political government useless. This
you know is Godwin's doctrine, and this the book Robinson, Barruel & Mores
had called a conspiracy against all government. Wishaupt believes that to
promote this perfection of human character was the object of
**Jesus Christ.** That his the intention was simply to reinstate natural
religion, & by diffusing the light of his morality, to teach us to govern
ourselves. This precepts are the love of God & the love of our neighbor.
And by teaching innocense of conduct, he expected the place men in their
natural state of liberty and equality. He says, no one ever laid a surer
foundation for liberty than our grandmaster, Jesus of Nazareth. He
believes the Free masons were originally possessed of the true principles
and objects of Christianity, and still preserve some of them by tradition,
but much disfigured. The means he proposes to effect this improvement of
human nature are ‘to enlighten men, to correct their morals & inspire them
with that benevolence.
The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826 ILLUMINATISM
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl132.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the above letter jefferson was writing a Bishop in the E Church. ( A
relative of James Madison) Would the use of certain language really mean
anything special beyond talking to a man on his own terms?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
JULY 5, 1814
Excerpt of letter from T Jefferson to To John Adams
Monticello, 5 July 1814
. . . "I am just returned from one of my long absences, having been at my
other home for five weeks past. Having more leisure there than here for
reading, I amused myself with reading seriously Plate's republic. 1 am
wrong however in calling it amusement, for it was the heaviest task-work I
ever went through. I had occasionally before taken up some of his other
works, but scarcely ever had patience to go through a whole dialogue.
While wading thro' the whimsies, the puerilities, and unintelligible jargon
of this work, I laid it down often to ask myself how it could have been
that the world should have so long consented to give reputation to such
nonsense as this? How the soi-disant Christian world indeed should have
done it, is a piece of historical curiosity. But how could the Roman good
sense do it? And particularly how could Cicero bestow such eulogies on
Plate? Altho' Cicero did not wield the dense logic of Demosthenes, yet he
was able, learned, laborious, practised in the business of the world, and
honest. He could not be the dupe of mere style, of which he was himself the
first master in the world. With the Moderns, I think, it is rather a matter
of fashion and authority. Education is chiefly in the hands of persons who,
from their profession, have an interest in the reputation and the dreams of
Plate. They give the tone while at school, and few, in their after-years,
have occasion to revise their college opinions. But fashion and authority
apart, and bringing Plate to the test of reason, take from him his
sophisms, futilities, and incomprehensibilities, and what remains? In truth
he is one of the race of genuine Sophists, who has escaped the oblivion of
his brethren, first by the elegance of his diction, but chiefly by the
adoption and incorporation of his whimsies into the body of artificial
Christianity. His foggy mind, is for ever presenting the semblances of
objects which, half seen thro' a mist, can be defined neither in form or
dimension. Yet this which should have consigned him to early oblivion
really procured him immortality of fame and reverence. The Christian
priesthood, finding the doctrines of **Christ** levelled to every
understanding, and too plain to need explanation,' saw, in the mysticisms
of Plate, materials with which they might build up an artificial system
which might, From it's indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give
employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power and
pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of JesuS himself are
within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet
explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason
that nonsense can never be explained. Their purposes however are answered.
Plate is canonised; and it is now deemed as impious to question his merits
as those of an Apostle of Jesus. He is peculiarly appealed to as an
advocate of the immortality of the soul; and yet I will venture to say that
were there no better arguments than his in proof of it, not a man in the
world would believe it. It is fortunate for us that Platonic republicanism
has not obtained the same favor as Platonic Christianity; or we should now
have been all living, men, women and children, pell mell together, like the
beasts of the field or forest. Yet 'Plate is a great Philosopher,' said La
Fontaine. But says Fontenelle 'do you find his ideas very clear'?--'Oh no!
he is of an obscurity impenetrable.'--'Do you not find him full of
contradictions?-'Certainly,' replied La Fontaine,'he is but a Sophist.' Yet
immediately after, he exclaims again.'Oh Plato was a great
Philosopher--Socrates had reason indeed to complain of the
misrepresentations Plato; for in truth his dialogues are libels on
Socrates.". . .
RC (MHi: AM); addressed: "John Adams late President of the US. Quincy
Massachusets"; franked and postmarked: "Milton Va 7 July"; endorsed by
Adams: "ansd" ,
PoC (DLC).
T J TO JOHN ADAMS EXTRACTS PP 358
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 2nd series,
Jefferson's Extracts from the Gospels, "The Philosophy of Jesus" and "The
Life and Morals of Jesus." Dickinson W. Adams, Editor, Princeton University
Press, Princeton, N J, (1983) pp 345-47)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is he actually talking about above? What is the context?
>:|
>:|> >:|Jalison has pointed out that Jefferson's religious biographer has
>:|> >:|labelled Jefferson both a Deist and a Theist. What do you make of
>:|> >:|that?
>:|>
>:|> That people aren't a easy to pigeonhole as you want to make them
>:|
>:|That was my point. One of the initial posters here stated "the
>:|founders were deists, not Christians" pigeonholing them with
>:|simplistic labels. My point is that, with Sandford, I think that
>:|Jefferson was many things: deist, theist, and Christian.
That hasn't been your point. You like to keep referring back to the some
original poster. Only that person made that particular claim. Your argument
with regards to that particular claim is with him and only him.
Your point has been they were Christian. At least that is how it has come
across.
My point has been that many were not "orthodox" Christian, and no matter
how much you dislike the word orthodox, it is very valid as I have used it.
Many of the founders, founders meaning those who participated in some form
of fashion with the founding, setting up and kicking off the operation of
this nation, i. e. from approx 1770 to approx 1820, were in fact many
things.
As I have posted a number of times:
Some were orthodox Christians that were very into religion..
Some were orthodox Christians who were rather indifferent to religion
Some were Deist (Non-orthodox)
Some were Quakers (Non-orthodox)
Some were Catholic (Considered non-orthodox by most Protestant types who
were orthodox)
Some were Unitarian (Non-orthodox)
Some probably were closet atheists or "infidels"
Some began as one thing and later moved into other areas of thinking and
beliefs.
I might add that often times "ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS" meant a member of the
majority or established religion of a particular area or region. All
others were dissenters and, more often than not, not viewed as "orthodox
Christians."
Orthodox was usually defined by most or many of the following elements:
Some of "orthodox" beliefs were
* A belief in Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the World,
* A belief in the trinity
* A belief in the divinity of Jesus
* A belief in the resurrection
* A belief in the assention
* A belief in the miracles as recorded in the Bible.
* That there is one eternal God, and a future state of rewards and
punishments. (A Heaven and Hell)
* That God is publicly to be worshipped.
* That the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are of divine
inspiration, and are the rule of faith and practice.
* 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
*Athanasian creed
*Various Article of Faith
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None of the first six Presidents would qualify as "orthodox" Christians, as
that term was understood then. Nor were numerous others who would qualify
as a founder.
>:|> >:|He said what he meant: he was a follower of Christ and fully attached
>:|> >:|to Christ's teachings. Are you alleging that Christ's teachings were
>:|> >:|not religious?
>:|>
>:|> I don't recall him using the term Christ. I recall him saying Jesus. Christ
>:|> was not the last name of Jesus.
>:|
>:|Try
>:|Thomas Jefferson to Reverend James Madison, January 31, 1800
>:|Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, July 5, 1814
>:|
>:|not to mention throughout the Jefferson Bible.
Oh, don't even go there.
The Jefferson Bible? LOL
Did he write it?
No he did not, he cut excerpts of cheap bibles, thus any mention of Christ
came from the bible he cut the excerpts out of.
Some people might label your reference to the "Jefferson Bible" as evidence
that Jefferson used (read wrote) that term himself as a mite bit
unethical.
>:|> I don't see the word Christ used except by you.
>:|
>:|I will take the blame for many things, but being the author of
>:|Jefferson's letters is not one of them.
And you find the word Christ in only a couple of those many letters.
You used it in what little you wrote far more than he ever used it. That is
important for readers to note.
ambrose searle
Redundancy is a sign of alzheimers.
> >:|In order to respond to everything you have posted, I would need a
> >:|year.
>
> That's your problem.
> Of course, I do have something like 5000+ pages of material, most of it
> primary source material on my computer
So for you, all this is about is dumping the contents of your hard
drive onto usenet as many times as you possibly can.
It doesn't take much to Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V
I don't care if you have a million pages on your hard drive, if it is
not accurate or if it is off-topic, irrelevant, or misleading, the
size of it is meaningless.
Any one of the posters here can simply go and find websites that
support their views, cut-and-paste those websites, and avoid having to
answer for their claims.
But if you refer to usenet guides, that is not in keeping with the
spirit of a usenet debate.
But it is your modus operandi. So, enjoy. May the archives of usenet
record that you have been invited to a point-by-point (your term)
exchange on these issues, but you have preferred to simply cut and
paste old posts that oftentimes include massive amounts of tangential
material.
Google is a good thing. Readers will forever see your approach, and it
will not bode well for you.
But, as has been said, this is not about personalities; it is about
facts. So, enough said. Enjoy your monologue.
> But do know that which I am providing is usually in disagreement with what you
> said.
Not really. When you are dealing with facts, documents, and evidence,
I am fully in support of what you are posting; I think your rubric for
determining the important founders is a nice, quantitative, fact-based
instrument. It is a good way to do history. Where I disagree with you
is when you begin to engage in speculation; I tend to think that the
historical documents are reflective of the founders' sentiments. You
think that they were putting on a "public show."
You see, you have carved out a position in which you can never allow
yourself to be wrong: for when the founders say what you want them to
say, you say, "see, it's right there." But when they say things that
you don't want them to say, you say, "well, they really didn't mean
that, that was just for public consumption."
As long as you're unwilling to take the historical evidence
responsibly, and impose all of your psychological speculations upon
it, you and I will never see eye to eye. I'm more interested in
standard historical inquiry than pseudo-psychological-historical
guessing.
But, keep posting your speculations. The readers who understand how
scholarly history is done will see what you are all about.
Ambrose
ambrose searle
> >:|> I don't recall him using the term Christ.
> >:|
> >:|He did.
> >:|
> >:|Thomas Jefferson to Reverend James Madison, January 31, 1800
> >:|Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, July 5, 1814
>
> Not in the original list you provided, which was what I was addressing at
> the time I replied.
Oh, sure. Convenient parsing of words. You'd make a good politician.
"I don't recall Jefferson using the term Christ" doesn't mean "I don't
recall Jefferson using the term Christ in the few short sentences you
posted," any more than "I did not have sex with that woman" does not
mean "I did not have sex with that woman who lives in Alaska whom I
never met."
When you play games like this, I think it really hurts your
reputation.
Just admit that you forgot the couple of letters where Jefferson did
use the term Christ. No harm done. You don't have to always fib to
avoid having to admit that you are a human.
> Now why didn't you provide the letters?
Because your claim was that you didn't recall him ever using the term;
all I have to do is provide a legitimate citation to show that your
recollection is erroneous; I never made any claims about the context
of the use of the term Christ, I only corrected your faulty
recollection.
Furthermore, anyone who knows a modicum of information about
historical research on the internet, knows that the letters are
clearly available for anyone to find throught the Jefferson papers at
the LOC site.
> How many letters that Jefferson wrote to others in which he discusses
> religion will you find him use the term Christ?
I only know of two or three. In his version of the bible that he
edited, however, the word is used abundantly; he did not edit it out
the way he edited out other things he didn't like.
> How many letters does he use the term Jesus?
About 14 according to the Jefferson Papers word search at the LOC
site.
> There are approx 3 maybe 4 letters/documents written by Jefferson that I
> am aware of where he mentions the word Christ. In his autobiography he
> mentions Jesus Christ, but in reference to a choice of words others were
> trying to have passed into law when his Statute for religious freedom was
> before the legislature.
>
> You have identified two other letters. That sure isn't much considering
> the number of letters, documents Jefferson did write that does mention
> religion in some form or fashion. In short, it doesn't really do much for
> your position.
What is "my position"?? All I posted was two citations that showed
your recollection is faulty. That was "my position." Your "position"
seemed to be that he never used it. What I posted didn't do much for
"your position."
> There is ample documentation to support the claim that
> Jefferson thought that the man Jesus was just that, a man, not Jesus "The
> Christ"
What does "the Christ" entail that you think Jefferson was afraid of?
You are getting into issues of theology here: Christ, from the Greek
Christos, is the greek translation of the Hebrew "Meshiach" (Messiah)
which means nothing more than "anointed." It was was the Hebrew
equivalent of coronation.
It doesn't necessarily imply divinity, as King David was also referred
to as Meshiach.
It implies, however, a person chosen by God for a certain purpose.
Jefferson's letters indicate that Jesus indeed served a special
purpose for God. It does not appear anywhere in the record that
Jefferson felt "Christ" was not appropriate to call Jesus.
Now, if the word in question was "Emmanuel" (God with us) or "Son of
God," then Jefferson was the kind of person who probably would steer
clear of those terms.
> Now for the letters: ** Emphasis added by me **
Why? You're punching at the wind. I contest nothing about the context
of the letters. I am only contesting your faulty recollection that
Jefferson never used the word. That's it. Period.
> >:|> >:|Jalison has pointed out that Jefferson's religious biographer has
> >:|> >:|labelled Jefferson both a Deist and a Theist. What do you make of
> >:|> >:|that?
> >:|>
> >:|> That people aren't a easy to pigeonhole as you want to make them
> >:|
> >:|That was my point. One of the initial posters here stated "the
> >:|founders were deists, not Christians" pigeonholing them with
> >:|simplistic labels. My point is that, with Sandford, I think that
> >:|Jefferson was many things: deist, theist, and Christian.
>
> That hasn't been your point. You like to keep referring back to the some
> original poster. Only that person made that particular claim. Your argument
> with regards to that particular claim is with him and only him.
Yes, it was to him, so why did you butt in? And when you did step in
you said exactly what I was saying: we can't box up 18th century
people into exclusive camps Deist & Christian. Jefferson's writings
prove that he didn't see the two as exclusive. To see them as
exclusive is to agree with Jerry Falwell or Bob Jones, to agree with
their fundamentalist definition of Christianity. You seem to agree
very much with the fundamentalist definition. Jefferson did not. Why
do you insist that Bob Jones is more correct than Thomas Jefferson?
> Your point has been they were Christian. At least that is how it has come
> across.
Actually, if you follow the thread back to the beginning, I only
jumped in to contest the claim that at least half of the founders were
atheist or deists. That is simply a nonsensical claim, but one that
you appear to be eager to either defend, or at least countenance and
pat on the back those who do.
But yes, I would argue that most said they were Christians, even
Jefferson. I would also argue that their were not insincere when they
said it. I would also argue that some were not Christians under Bob
Jones' definition of Christianity.
> My point has been that many were not "orthodox" Christian, and no matter
> how much you dislike the word orthodox, it is very valid as I have used it.
The way you have used it makes Jefferson, Madison, Washington, etc.
all ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS.
I remind you of your definition:
"Orthodox means acceptable."
"Acceptable as defined in the early charters and state constitutions."
(Your words)
I would not use "orthodox" that way, and I don't think that you will
find much evidence contemporary to the founding that defines it that
way. I don't see that word used very much in 18th century
documentation.
Listen carefully, I do not think that Jefferson, Paine, Franklin etc.
were Trinitarians. That is a better and more appropriate way of
handling this discussion. "Trinitarian" was the word used in the 18th
century similar to the way you want to use "orthodox" today.
Trinitarianism entailed belief in the deity of Christ.
If you were to define orthodox as "trinitarian," no legitimate
historian could say that Jefferson, Franklin, or Paine were
trinitarians.
I would, however, allege that they were in the minority among the
founders in this regard. I have already posted a good deal of data
proving that, including the denominational commitments of the framers
and various last wills and testaments of some principal founders.
Your only response to the list has been "well, they really didn't mean
it, it was just a way to appease the public." Your speculation is both
convenient and unhistorical.
> Many of the founders, founders meaning those who participated in some form
> of fashion with the founding, setting up and kicking off the operation of
> this nation, i. e. from approx 1770 to approx 1820, were in fact many
> things.
Duh.
> As I have posted a number of times:
And as I have responded a number of times, using the word "some" is
almost always safe. Give us numbers, percentages; I never contested
your "some" list. I contested the 50% allegation of those you seem to
want to rescue.
> >:|> >:|He said what he meant: he was a follower of Christ and fully attached
> >:|> >:|to Christ's teachings. Are you alleging that Christ's teachings were
> >:|> >:|not religious?
> >:|>
> >:|> I don't recall him using the term Christ. I recall him saying Jesus. Christ
> >:|> was not the last name of Jesus.
> >:|
> >:|Try
> >:|Thomas Jefferson to Reverend James Madison, January 31, 1800
> >:|Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, July 5, 1814
> >:|
> >:|not to mention throughout the Jefferson Bible.
>
> Oh, don't even go there.
> The Jefferson Bible? LOL
> Did he write it?
He edited it. And if he didn't like the term "Christ" he could have
edited that as well, just like he did the miracles that he didn't
like.
> >:|> I don't see the word Christ used except by you.
> >:|
> >:|I will take the blame for many things, but being the author of
> >:|Jefferson's letters is not one of them.
>
> And you find the word Christ in only a couple of those many letters.
That's all I said. You said you recollected NONE. You were wrong, but
you don't have the character to simply say, whoops I was wrong.
Instead you play games and try to change the subject. Readers will
judge your character and integrity.
Ambrose
Herb Martin
> So for you, all this is about is dumping the contents of your hard
> drive onto usenet as many times as you possibly can.
>
Give us a break. The fellow bests you in an argument
with facts and logic and you complain about his use of
technology instead of supplying facts?
Participate like an adult or go away.
Herb Martin
Try ADDS for great Weather too:
http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/projects/adds
jal...@cox.net
>:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<g6nceu8g1n55eaktp...@4ax.com>...
>:|> >:|> GEORGE WASHINGTON:
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|Wouldn't it make more sense to just provide a link to these old posts?
>:|> >:|
>:|>
>:|> Not really.
>:|
>:|Redundancy is a sign of alzheimers.
More and more you sound like Richard Gardiner. How very interesting.
>:|> >:|In order to respond to everything you have posted, I would need a
>:|> >:|year.
>:|>
>:|> That's your problem.
>:|> Of course, I do have something like 5000+ pages of material, most of it
>:|> primary source material on my computer
>:|
>:|So for you, all this is about is dumping the contents of your hard
>:|drive onto usenet as many times as you possibly can.
Even to the point of using phrases that he liked to use when he was getting
his butt kicked.
The rest of your crap here I have no interest in. it is your Gardiner like
belly aching because you are getting your claims demolished.
You have all the time in the world to belly ache, but claim you haven't
enough time to properly address the data I reply with.
Which is ok. It doesn't fool very many people.
People are capable of reading the opinions you offer, and then the opinions
I offer from various respected scholars, the primary source data I offer
and decide for themselves who is making the better case.
They can decide for themselves who is feeling the need to resort to
personal insults and attacks, who is bitching and bellyaching and what all
that means.
They can even go back and compare your style with that of someone else,
Richard Gardiner, seeing how alike they are.
That would be real interesting because they would add life to 18 months
worth of "discussions" that took place between this Gardiner character and
about 20 other people that would routinely hand him his head on a platter.
Funny how the more things change the more they remain the same.
ambrose searle
> "ambrose searle" <ambros...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fe9a0c54.02051...@posting.google.com...
>
>
> > So for you, all this is about is dumping the contents of your hard
> > drive onto usenet as many times as you possibly can.
> >
>
> Give us a break. The fellow bests you in an argument
> with facts and logic
Are you claiming that this jalison character has proven the initial
claim that he has sought to vindicate? viz. "half of the founders were
atheists or deists"?
You better go back and read through his "use of technology" as you
call it.
You might want to also take a look at the four or five basic errors of
fact that he has been caught in along the way:
1) He said Jefferson only referred to himself as a Christian "in one
letter," and was proven wrong
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=fe9a0c54.0205142051.31d2f8a3%40posting.google.com
2) He said there were "no constitutions as such" before the first
state constitutions of 1776," and was proven flat wrong.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=fe9a0c54.0205162204.11cfc33b%40posting.google.com
3) He said Jefferson never used the word "Christ," and was proven
wrong
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=fe9a0c54.0205162339.e591bfe%40posting.google.com
4) He defined "orthodox" as "acceptable" writing, "You will find that
which was acceptable in the colonial charters, the very first state
constitutions. Orthodox simply means acceptable." And was shown that
given that definition, the first 6 presidents of the U.S. were
"orthodox," proving his claim to the contrary dead wrong.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=fe9a0c54.0205152025.4375a607%40posting.google.com
5) He tried to rescue another who claimed that Thomas Paine was a
principal "founder" of the U.S., and was proven, using his own
criteria, to be dead wrong
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=fe9a0c54.0205171729.6a6e0124%40posting.google.com
Now, Mr. Herb Martin, I ask you to, in similar fashion, point out
directly where I have made a single claim that Mr. jalison has
succinctly proven to be wrong even once.
In short, you can't. So your assessment that jalison has "bested" me
is clearly based upon either your own bias or your inability to read a
thread. I guess it demonstrates your own grasp of logic as well.
By the way, I have noticed that you didn't have anything to contribute
of substance to the topic at hand. Do you troll around like this
often?
Ambrose
jal...@cox.net
>:|So for you, all this is about is dumping the contents of your hard
>:|drive onto usenet as many times as you possibly can.
No it's about giving all the details people like you tend to leave out.
It's about showing readers that there is far more to the story than you
indicated, that your opinions, your claims and even what little data you
provided was not all there was.
It's about showing that there are scholars who disagree with your
conclusions, your opinions and even your bellyaching. It's about showing
that there is historical documentation, primary source material that paint
a different picture then you are painting.
That is some of what it is about.
jal...@cox.net
>:|"Herb Martin" <He...@LearnQuick.Com> wrote in message news:<N0EF8.20651$9z5.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>...
>:|> "ambrose searle" <ambros...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>:|> news:fe9a0c54.02051...@posting.google.com...
>:|>
>:|>
>:|> > So for you, all this is about is dumping the contents of your hard
>:|> > drive onto usenet as many times as you possibly can.
>:|> >
>:|>
>:|> Give us a break. The fellow bests you in an argument
>:|> with facts and logic
>:|
>:|Are you claiming that this jalison character has proven the initial
>:|claim that he has sought to vindicate? viz. "half of the founders were
>:|atheists or deists"?
=====================================================
Another Gardiner trait. Misrepresent, lie, misinform.
Sought to vindicate? LOL
You have your people mixed up.
I know you like to link everything back to whomever it was who made that
original claim, but I didn't make that claim.
I don't defend it, I don't vindicate it, I never replied to it, addressed
it, commented on it or about it never paid much attention to it.
You take your bitch with him, up with him.
I have made my position on this topic quite clear.
But since you seem to forget what it was, I repeat it, just for you.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I don't speak for anyone else, even those who may share my position.
They don't speak for me.
I have not used the term atheist except for this: "Some probably were
closet atheists or "infidels"
That is a comment you can't disprove.
I don't care what that original poster said.
I don't give a damn about numbers, percentages.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My point has been that many were not "orthodox" Christian, and no matter
how much you dislike the word orthodox, it is very valid as I have used it.
Many of the founders, founders meaning those who participated in some form
of fashion with the founding, setting up and kicking off the operation of
this nation, i. e. from approx 1770 to approx 1820, were in fact many
things.
I have posted information, by reputable serious scholars
who have named well known founders such as: Washington, Jefferson, Adams,
Franklin, Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen, Gouverneur Morris, James Madison,
George Wythe, Edmund Randolph, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, John Marshall,
(perhaps George Mason, Charles Pinckney)
showing that they would not qualify as orthodox Christians or Christians
with any real commitment to religion.
[Lesser known founders might be a bit harder to obtain information about]
Various of those scholars have also given us the following, which is only
some of what is out there:
(1) Second, the contributions of religion, especially Protestantism,
to the shaping of American society must be put into clearer perspective. In
the generation that produced the Constitution, only about ten percent of
the population were church members, and "in 1800 there were fewer churches
relative to population than at any other time before or since.
(2) Despite being the first Trinitarian to occupy the office,
[Andrew]Jackson
refused to issue fast-day proclamations or to view with any sympathy the
religiously inspired movement to stop Sunday mail delivery.
(3) At the time of the Revolution most of the founding fathers had not put
much emotional stock in religion, even when they were regular churchgoers.
As enlightened gentlemen, they abhorred "that gloomy superstition
disseminated by ignorant illiberal preachers" and looked forward to the day
when "the phantom of darkness will be dispelled by the rays of science, and
the bright charms of rising civilization."
(4) At best, most of the revolutionary gentry only passively believed in
organized Christianity and, at worst, privately scorned and ridiculed it.
(5) Although few of them were outright deists, most like David Ramsay
described the Christian church as "the best temple of reason.
(6) In the last years of Washington's Presidency, Thomas Paine published
The
Age of Reason, his extended attack on orthodox religious beliefs and on the
Bible. In doing so, he spoke for the most advanced liberal thinkers of his
day. Eight American editions of his book appeared the first year. Though
stating their opinions less bluntly, Franklin and Jefferson and perhaps a
majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence basically
agreed with Paine. Paine was not the atheist he has been called, but a
deist, believing in God the First Cause, who worked solely through the laws
of nature.
(7) Whoever wrote this petition, which was easily the most popular of the
several circulating protests, was clearly an active Christian who believed
the General Assessment bill would do nothing to check "that Deism with its
banefull Influence [which] is spreading itself over the state"
(8) Ketcham demonstrates Madison's interest in metaphysical questions but
provides no evidence to support his assertion that the mature Madison
should be considered a more
or less orthodox Christian. In fact, given the political circumstances, the
absence of substantive evidence suggests the opposite opinion, for it is
far easier to explain the reticence of a statesman who holds unorthodox
opinions than to account for the silence of a politician whose views accord
well with those of his compatriots. In any case. as Madison's private
correspondence indicates, his motive for entering the fray on behalf of
freedom of conscience and against the establishment of religion was
from the outset political and not religious. Note that, from at least one
political perspective, Deism is the functional equivalent of atheism: see
Hobbes, De cive IIl.xv. 14, and consider 1I Prologue, note 46, above.
(9) The religious differences of the American people gave rise to a
pluralistic society. Any talk of a Protestant America not only neglects
those who were not of that faith, but also obscures the vital and important
differences among Protestants in colonial society. More than anything else,
these differences ensured religious liberty in the new nation. This was the
conclusion reached by James Madison, often called the father of the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights, who felt that words on paper were less
a guarantee of liberty than the American population's religious diversity.
(10) By the end of the 18th century, Deism had become a dominant religious
attitude among intellectual and upper class Americans.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As I have posted a number of times:
Some were orthodox Christians that were very into religion..
Some were orthodox Christians who were rather indifferent to religion
Some were Deist (Non-orthodox)
Some were Quakers (Non-orthodox)
Some were Catholic (Considered non-orthodox by most Protestant types who
were orthodox)
Some were Unitarian (Non-orthodox)
Some probably were closet atheists or "infidels"
Some began as one thing and later moved into other areas of thinking and
beliefs.
I might add that often times "ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS" meant a member of the
majority or established religion of a particular area or region. All
others were dissenters and, more often than not, not viewed as "orthodox
Christians."
Orthodox also meant the majority or established religion of a region or
area and of course further meant it was the one true religion. Dissenters
were considered to be infidels, heretics, worshipper of a false god
following bastardize and corrupted teachings.
Orthodox was usually defined by most or many of the following elements:
Some of "orthodox" beliefs were
* A belief in Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the World,
* A belief in the trinity
* A belief in the divinity of Jesus
* A belief in the resurrection
* A belief in the assention
* A belief in the miracles as recorded in the Bible.
* That there is one eternal God, and a future state of rewards and
punishments. (A Heaven and Hell)
* That God is publicly to be worshipped.
* That the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are of divine
inspiration, and are the rule of faith and practice.
* 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
*Athanasian creed
*Various Article of Faith
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anywhere from four to six of the first U S Presidents would disqualify as
"orthodox" Christians, as that term was understood then.
=======================================================
>:|
>:|You better go back and read through his "use of technology" as you
>:|call it.
>:|
>:|You might want to also take a look at the four or five basic errors of
>:|fact that he has been caught in along the way:
LOL, are you going to include your errors? No, I didn't think so.
>:|
>:|1) He said Jefferson only referred to himself as a Christian "in one
>:|letter," and was proven wrong
>:|
>:|http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=fe9a0c54.0205142051.31d2f8a3%40posting.google.com
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
How many did he actually use those words. Not your paraphrasing of his
words, not your creative interpretation of those words, he actually used
those words?
How many?
Can we say two?
Didn't you post this?
*****************************
***********************************************
How many of the above examples you provided did Jefferson actually say the
following words: "I am a Christian"
One, only one. There is one other with a variation "I am a real Christian"
Thus two, I was off by one, major mistake, huh? LOL
Of course you don't want to get into how he qualified those words.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>:|
>:|2) He said there were "no constitutions as such" before the first
>:|state constitutions of 1776," and was proven flat wrong.
>:|
>:|http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=fe9a0c54.0205162204.11cfc33b%40posting.google.com
>:|
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
MY WORDS WERE:
Ahhhh, there were no colonial constitutions as such, there were colonial
charters/ grants etc.
The first actual constitutions as such were framed and passed in 1776.
I know, its just words. However, technically speaking the various colonies
operated under various forms of royal and/or commercial charters, grants
etc.
I recommend the follow as well in your search:
The Original Thirteen States:
Introduction (Original and Early State Constitutions)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/cnstntro.htm
*****************************************
Colonial Charters, Grants and Related Documents
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/statech.htm
General Charters:
Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, Vermont,Virginia
[READERS: Kindly note the use of the words charter and constitution at the
above site. It supports my original comments]
*******************************************
CONSTITUTION: Those organic and fundamental law of a nation or state, which
may be written or unwritten, establishing the character and conception of
its government, laying the basic principles to which its internal life is
to be conformed, organizing the government, and regulating, distributing,
and limiting the functions of its different departments, and prescribing
the extent and manner of the exercise of sovereign powers. A charter of
government deriving its whole authority from the governed. The written
instrument agreed upon by the people of the Union (e.g. United States
Constitution) or of a particular state, as the absolute rule of action and
decision for all departments (i.e. branches) and officers of the government
in respect to all the points covered by it, which must control until it
shall be changed by the authority which established it (i.e. by amendment),
and in opposition to which any act or ordinance of any such department or
officer is null and void.
Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, Centennial Edition
(1891-1991) West Publishing, (1991) pp. 214-215
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>:|3) He said Jefferson never used the word "Christ," and was proven
>:|wrong
>:|
>:|http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=fe9a0c54.0205162339.e591bfe%40posting.google.com
>:|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>:|He did.
>:|
>:|Thomas Jefferson to Reverend James Madison, January 31, 1800
>:|Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, July 5, 1814
Not in the original list you provided, which was what I was addressing at
the time I replied.
Now why didn't you provide the letters?
How many letters that Jefferson wrote to others in which he discusses
religion will you find him use the term Christ?
How many letters does he use the term Jesus?
There are approx 3 maybe 4 letters/documents written by Jefferson that I
am aware of where he mentions the word Christ. In his autobiography he
mentions Jesus Christ, but in reference to a choice of words others were
trying to have passed into law when his Statute for religious freedom was
before the legislature.
You have identified two other letters. That sure isn't much considering
the number of letters, documents Jefferson did write that does mention
religion in some form or fashion. In short, it doesn't really do much for
your position. There is ample documentation to support the claim that
Jefferson thought that the man Jesus was just that, a man, not Jesus "The
Christ"
>:|Try
>:|Thomas Jefferson to Reverend James Madison, January 31, 1800
>:|Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, July 5, 1814
>:|
>:|not to mention throughout the Jefferson Bible.
Oh, don't even go there.
The Jefferson Bible? LOL
Did he write it?
No he did not, he cut excerpts of cheap bibles, thus any mention of Christ
came from the bible he cut the excerpts out of.
Some people might label your reference to the "Jefferson Bible" as evidence
that Jefferson used (read wrote) that term himself as a mite bit
unethical.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>:|4) He defined "orthodox" as "acceptable" writing, "You will find that
>:|which was acceptable in the colonial charters, the very first state
>:|constitutions. Orthodox simply means acceptable." And was shown that
>:|given that definition, the first 6 presidents of the U.S. were
>:|"orthodox," proving his claim to the contrary dead wrong.
>:|
>:|http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=fe9a0c54.0205152025.4375a607%40posting.google.com
>:|
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
See above.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>:|5) He tried to rescue another who claimed that Thomas Paine was a
>:|principal "founder" of the U.S., and was proven, using his own
>:|criteria, to be dead wrong
>:|
>:|http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=fe9a0c54.0205171729.6a6e0124%40posting.google.com
>:|
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You like words games, huh?
More and more you look like Gardiner, amazing. Kindly quote where I stated
Thomas Paine was a "principle founder."
You tend to like to do the Gardiner thing of putting words into anothers
mouth. A suggestion, if you wish to reply to me, reply to me, not others.
Reply to that which I actually post. Not what others post and you then want
to try and link me to.
I speak for me. I don't speak for anyone else, I don't "rescue" or
"vindicate" others.
That seems to be a bit hard for you to understand.
MY actual comments regarding Paine were really quite short and simple:
ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>:|forl...@aol.complicated (Lord Calvert) wrote in message news:<20020514000732...@mb-de.aol.com>...
>:|> Thomas Paine was a pamphleteer
>:|
>:|Which of the founding conventions was Paine party to?
Don't try to devalue the man, it won't really work. His role and place in
American history is secure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, where in the above did forlornh claim Paine was a principle founder?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>:|Now, Mr. Herb Martin, I ask you to, in similar fashion, point out
>:|directly where I have made a single claim that Mr. jalison has
>:|succinctly proven to be wrong even once.
How about all the data that you keep belly aching is too much?
LOL.
>:|In short, you can't.
In short, anyone can who has read what you have claimed and the data I
replied with.
>:|So your assessment that jalison has "bested" me
>:|is clearly based upon either your own bias or your inability to read a
>:|thread. I guess it demonstrates your own grasp of logic as well.
Keep believing that and you will continue to be your own worse enemy,
because you won't change anything which makes it so easy to reply to your
posts.
ambrose searle
> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>
> >:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<g6nceu8g1n55eaktp...@4ax.com>...
> >:|> >:|> GEORGE WASHINGTON:
> >:|> >:|
> >:|> >:|Wouldn't it make more sense to just provide a link to these old posts?
> >:|> >:|
> >:|>
> >:|> Not really.
> >:|
> >:|Redundancy is a sign of alzheimers.
>
> More and more you sound like Richard Gardiner. How very interesting.
>
>
> >:|> >:|In order to respond to everything you have posted, I would need a
> >:|> >:|year.
> >:|>
> >:|> That's your problem.
> >:|> Of course, I do have something like 5000+ pages of material, most of it
> >:|> primary source material on my computer
> >:|
> >:|So for you, all this is about is dumping the contents of your hard
> >:|drive onto usenet as many times as you possibly can.
>
Point out one single sentence I have posted that you have
"demolished."
Now, let's see a few of yours that have been "demolished":
1) You said Jefferson only referred to himself as a Christian "in one
letter," and were proven wrong
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=fe9a0c54.0205142051.31d2f8a3%40posting.google.com
2) You said there were "no constitutions as such" before the first
state constitutions of 1776," and were proven flat wrong.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=fe9a0c54.0205162204.11cfc33b%40posting.google.com
3) You said Jefferson never used the word "Christ," and were proven
wrong
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=fe9a0c54.0205162339.e591bfe%40posting.google.com
4) You defined "orthodox" as "acceptable" writing, "You will find that
which was acceptable in the colonial charters, the very first state
constitutions. Orthodox simply means acceptable." And were shown that
given that definition, the first 6 presidents of the U.S. were
"orthodox," proving your claim to the contrary dead wrong.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=fe9a0c54.0205152025.4375a607%40posting.google.com
5) You tried to rescue another who claimed that Thomas Paine was a
principal "founder" of the U.S., and were proven, using your own
criteria, to be dead wrong
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=fe9a0c54.0205171729.6a6e0124%40posting.google.com
I could also point out that you "bellyached" about me somehow clipping
posting groups, which, since I'm sure there is a techological way to
determine whether I did or not, would proof you, again, flat wrong.
Now, what have I posted that you have "demolished"? All I ask is for
one quoted sentence. I'm waiting.
Furthermore, you prove to the general public that you are inconsistent
when you say things like "all I do is provide reams of data" but at
the same time this last post of yours was nothing more than peacocking
about your previous usenet fights.
Ambrose
Melody Blaiser
>jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<a5seeukmmqgtlk4s3...@4ax.com>...
>> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>>
>> >:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<g6nceu8g1n55eaktp...@4ax.com>...
>> >:|> >:|> GEORGE WASHINGTON:
>> >:|> >:|
>> >:|> >:|Wouldn't it make more sense to just provide a link to these old posts?
>> >:|> >:|
>> >:|>
>> >:|> Not really.
>> >:|
>> >:|Redundancy is a sign of alzheimers.
>>
>> More and more you sound like Richard Gardiner. How very interesting.
>>
>>
>> >:|> >:|In order to respond to everything you have posted, I would need a
>> >:|> >:|year.
>> >:|>
>> >:|> That's your problem.
>> >:|> Of course, I do have something like 5000+ pages of material, most of it
>> >:|> primary source material on my computer
>> >:|
>> >:|So for you, all this is about is dumping the contents of your hard
>> >:|drive onto usenet as many times as you possibly can.
>>
>> you are getting your claims demolished.
>
>Point out one single sentence I have posted that you have
>"demolished."
>
>Now, let's see a few of yours that have been "demolished":
>
>1) You said Jefferson only referred to himself as a Christian "in one
>letter," and were proven wrong
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=fe9a0c54.0205142051.31d2f8a3%40posting.google.com
I do believe the man was giving you an example that should have been
clear to any educated man. It has been repeated many times within the
sundry newsgroups but the short of it is that Jefferson appreciated
greatly the philosophy of Jesus and did not accept the anointed part.
That is what "Christ" means. He did not accept the Son of God
business. As a follower of the philosophy Jefferson felt he was more
Christian than those who claimed to be Christians.
>3) You said Jefferson never used the word "Christ," and were proven
>wrong
Actually no. The usage of the words in context is most interesting:
I am just returned from one of my long absences,
having been at my other home for five weeks past.
Having more leisure there’ than here for reading,
I amused myself with reading seriously Plato’s
Republic. I am wrong, however, in calling it
amusement, for it was the heaviest task-work I
ever went through. I had occasionally before
taken up some of his other works, but scarcely
ever had patience to go through a whole dialogue.
While wading through the whimsies, the puerilities
and unintelligible jargon of this work, I laid it down
often to ask myself how it could have been, that the
world should have so long consented to give reputa-
tion to such nonsense as this? How the soi-disant
Christian world, indeed, should have done it, is a
piece of historical curiosity. But how could the
Roman good sense do it? And particularly,
how could Cicero bestow such eulogies on Plato?
Although Cicero did not wield the dense logic of
Demosthenes, yet he was able, learned, laborious,
practised in the business of the world, and honest.
He could not be the dupe of mere style, of which
he was himself the first master in the world. With
the moderns, I think, it is rather a matter of fashion
and authority. Education is chiefly in the hands
of persons who, from their profession, have an
interest in the reputation and the dreams of Plato.
They give the tone while at school, and few in
their after years have occasion to revise their college
opinions. But fashion and authority apart, and
bringing Plato to the test of reason, take from
him his sophisms, futilities and incomprehensi-
bilities, and what remains? In truth, he is one
of the race of genuine sophists, who has escaped
the oblivion of his brethren, first, by the elegance
of his diction, but chiefly, by the adoption and
Correspondence *49
incorporation of his whimsies into the body of
artificial Christianity. His foggy mind is forever
presenting the semblances of objects which, half
seen through a mist, can be defined neither in
form nor dimensions. Yet this, which should have
consigned him to early oblivion, really procured
him immortality of -fame and reverence. *The
Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ
levelled to every understanding, and too plain to
need explanation, saw in the mysticism of Plato
materials with which they might build up an arti-
ficial system, which might, from its indistinctness,
admit everlasting controversy, give employment
for their order, and introduce it to profit, power
and preeminence.* The doctrines which flowed
from the lips of Jesus himself are within the com-
prehension of a child ; but thousands of volumes
have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted
on them; and for this obvious reason, that nonsense
can never be explained. Their purposes, however,
are answered. Plato is canonized ; and it is now
deemed as impious to question his merits as those
of an Apostle of Jesus. He is peculiarly appealed
to as an advocate of the immortality of the soul ;
and yet I will venture to say, that were there no
better arguments than his in proof of it, not a man
in the world would believe it. It is fortunate for
us, that Platonic republicanism has not obtained
the same favor as Platonic Christianity ; or we
should now have been all living, men, women and
children, pell mell together, like beasts of the field
or forest. Yet "Plato is a great philosopher," said
La Fontaine. But, says Fontenelle, "do you find
his ideas very clear?" "Oh no! he is of an obscurity
impenetrable." "Do you not find him full of con-
tradictions?" "Certainly," replied La Fontaine,
"he is but a sophist." Yet immediately after, he
exclaims again, "Oh, Plato was a great philosopher."
Socrates had reason, indeed, to complain of the
misrepresentations of Plato ; for in truth, his dia-
logues are libels on Socrates.
The above is from the July 25th letter and brings the context to the
discussion. "Platonic Christianity/" Fascinating. I'm sure that
Jefferson's audience, on John Adams, understood quite well the terms
Thomas Jefferson was using for his benefit. I think so, do you not?
Melody S. Blaiser
Melody Blaiser
ambrose searle
> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>
> >:|Are you claiming that this jalison character has proven the initial
> >:|claim that he has sought to vindicate? viz. "half of the founders were
> >:|atheists or deists"?
> =====================================================
>
> Another Gardiner trait. Misrepresent, lie, misinform.
>
> Sought to vindicate? LOL
>
> You have your people mixed up.
Nope, it was you
"Charles" wrote:
"Half the founding fathers were atheists or Deists,"
I responded with evidence proving this assertion wrong, by listing the
denominational pledges the framers made. Your immediate response was
the old "fingers crossed behind their backs" defense:
"What a man might "pledge" with regards to religion and what he
actually
believed can be worlds apart. The men of your list would not be the
first
group of men who said and did one thing for public and said and did
another
thing in private."
This can be seen at
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=8b85euka48qpumla2ae5v63r06787j1vpr%404ax.com
> I know you like to link everything back to whomever it was who made that
> original claim, but I didn't make that claim.
No, but you sure tried to defend the guy who did.
See
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=8b85euka48qpumla2ae5v63r06787j1vpr%404ax.com
> I don't defend it, I don't vindicate it, I never replied to it, addressed
> it, commented on it or about it never paid much attention to it.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=8b85euka48qpumla2ae5v63r06787j1vpr%404ax.com
> I have not used the term atheist except for this: "Some probably were
> closet atheists or "infidels"
> That is a comment you can't disprove.
Nor can you prove. You might as well have said, some of the founders
were probably aliens from outerspace.
> I don't give a damn about numbers, percentages.
That's obvious. Saying "some" is easy to do, because you only need
one. Some of the founding fathers were among the Calvinist clergy.
> My point has been that many were not "orthodox" Christian, and no matter
> how much you dislike the word orthodox, it is very valid as I have used it.
> Many of the founders, founders meaning those who participated in some form
> of fashion with the founding, setting up and kicking off the operation of
> this nation, i. e. from approx 1770 to approx 1820, were in fact many
> things.
Duh duh.
> the contributions of religion, especially Protestantism,
> to the shaping of American society must be put into clearer perspective. In
> the generation that produced the Constitution, only about ten percent of
> the population were church members, and "in 1800 there were fewer churches
> relative to population than at any other time before or since.
A myth entirely exploded by Patricia U. Bonomi and Peter R.
Eisenstadt, "Church Adherence in the Eighteenth-Century British
Colonies," WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY 39 (April 1982): 245-86.
> (2) Despite being the first Trinitarian to occupy the office,
> [Andrew]Jackson
> refused to issue fast-day proclamations or to view with any sympathy the
> religiously inspired movement to stop Sunday mail delivery.
Good.
> (3) At the time of the Revolution most of the founding fathers had not put
> much emotional stock in religion,
But the founders sure did put a lot of stock in the importance of
religion:
"[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the
principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation
of a free constitution is pure virtue."
(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the
United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown,
1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)
"[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with
human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our
constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is
wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the
United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown,
and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)
"There are three points of doctrine the belief of which forms the
foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of God; the
second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future
state of rewards and punishments. Suppose it possible for a man to
disbelieve either of these three articles of faith and that man will
have no conscience, he will have no other law than that of the tiger
or the shark. The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to
death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy."
(Source: John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams to His Son on
the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850), pp.
22-23.)
"They who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so
sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal
misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are
undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the
duration of free governments."
Charles Carroll to James McHenry, November 4, 1800.
"Is it probable that an empire can rise without his [God's] aid? We
have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that 'except the Lord
build the House, they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe
this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall
succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of
Babel."
(Source: James Madison, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787,
Max Farrand, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. I,
pp. 450-452, June 28, 1787.)
"To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil
freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys.
. . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our
present republican forms of government, and all blessings which flow
from them, must fall with them."
(Source: Jedediah Morse, Election Sermon given at Charleston, MA, on
April 25, 1799.)
"The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be
laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without
virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of
all republican governments."
(Source: Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical
(Philadelphia: Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), p. 8.)
"While just government protects all in their religious rights, true
religion affords to government its surest support."
(Source: George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C.
Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1932), Vol. XXX, p. 432 n., from his address to the Synod of
the Dutch Reformed Church in North America, October 9, 1789.)
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political
prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain
would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to
subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of
the duties of man and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the
pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not
trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it
simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation,
for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which
are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?
And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be
maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence
of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and
experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail
in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that
virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The
rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free
government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with
indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?"
(Source: George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of
the United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore:
George and Henry S. Keatinge), pp. 22-23. In his Farewell Address to
the United States in 1796.)
"The most perfect maxims and examples for regulating your social
conduct and domestic economy, as well as the best rules of morality
and religion, are to be found in the Bible. . . . The moral principles
and precepts found in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all
our civil constitutions and laws."
(Source: Noah Webster, History of the United States, "Advice to the
Young" (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), pp. 338-340, par. 51, 53,
56.)
"Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters,
friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into
each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral
sense, forms an essential part of both."
(Source: James Wilson, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson
(Philadelphia: Bronson and Chauncey, 1804), Vol. I, p. 106.)
> As enlightened gentlemen, they abhorred "that gloomy superstition
> disseminated by ignorant illiberal preachers" and looked forward to the day
> when "the phantom of darkness will be dispelled by the rays of science, and
> the bright charms of rising civilization."
Try reading the quote in context. Those superstitions and darknesses
were the Roman Catholic vestiges of the middle ages, not "religion"
per se. You do the same thing as those who claim Madison's aversion
for establishments equate to an aversion for religion, or like the
claim you posted saying that because Kent hated the R.C. crucifix, he
must have hated Christianity.
> (4) At best, most
I thought you said you weren't interested in percentages?
> (5) Although few of them were outright deists, most like David Ramsay
> described the Christian church as "the best temple of reason.
Yes. Harvard was founded by Puritans in 1636 who believed, like
Augustine, that reason and revelation were of the same province.
> (6) Franklin and Jefferson and perhaps a majority of the signers of the
> Declaration of Independence basically agreed with Paine.
That assertion flies in the face of the primary source evidence:
> (10) By the end of the 18th century, Deism had become a dominant religious
> attitude among intellectual and upper class Americans.
Says who?
> LOL, are you going to include your errors? No, I didn't think so.
Point out one of my errors. Just one sentence. I'm waiting.
Ambrose
ambrose searle
The man was making a factual claim that was demonstraby proven wrong.
He said that Jefferson claimed to be a Christian only once, in one
letter. He was proven wrong on that score. Period. Don't try to bring
in a red herring to save the man.
> >3) You said Jefferson never used the word "Christ," and were proven
> >wrong
>
> Actually no. The usage of the words in context is most interesting:
Actually, yes. The context wasn't the issue. Jalison simply said that
Jefferson didn't use the word "Christ." He was wrong, regardless of
context. He made a factual claim that was factually wrong. Hemming and
hawing won't change that.
A.
jal...@cox.net
>:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<pgd7eu4qt7i4a8kua...@4ax.com>...
>:|> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<5s85eug1gur2vjfo3...@4ax.com>...
>:|> >:|> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> >:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:
>:|> >:|> Orthodox is not a confusing issue. Try reading the colonial charters, the
>:|> >:|> very first state constitutions. You will find that which was acceptable.
>:|> >:|> Orthodox simply means acceptable.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|At your suggestion, I have checked various colonial constitutions to
>:|> >:|find out what was "acceptable," and thus, according to you,
>:|> >:|"orthodox":
>:|>
>:|> Ahhhh, there were no colonial constituions as such, there were colonial
>:|> charters/ grants etc.
>:|
>:|Really? Perhaps you should notify Yale Law School that their webpages
>:|are wrong, viz.: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/nc05.htm
>:|http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/ct01.htm
>:|http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/nj10.htm
>:|
>:|> The first actual constitutions as such were framed and passed in 1776.
>:|
>:|Do you think the folks at Yale are just ignorant?
>:|
>:|> I know, its just words. However, technically speaking the various colonies
>:|> operated under various forms of royal and/or commercial charters, grants
>:|> etc.
>:|
>:|etc... constitutions...
>:|
>:|> >:|Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina, at Yalelaw's website:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>:|
>:|2) He said there were "no constitutions as such" before the first
>:|state constitutions of 1776," and was proven flat wrong.
>:|
>:|http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=fe9a0c54.0205162204.11cfc33b%40posting.google.com
>:|
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I knew when I originally wrote the following, and thinking that maybe
Searle and Gardiner are one and the same person, or Searle has read some
of Gardiner's posts and it trying to duplicate his style, that there would
be attempts to play games with words and jump on the following.
One of Gardiner's biggest ways of trying to dominate and control; a
discussion was to pick out something that he could take from a ant hill and
turn into a mountain, and then ride that horse for a month.
He was famous for playing word games, famous for taking a alleged or real
mistake by another and playing it, riding it for all it was worth, while
completely and totally ignoring, denying his own mistakes and errors, of
which there were plenty.
There is a basic understanding of what a constitution is. The word is such
that it can and is sometimes used interchangeably with other words of
similar meanings. However, there is a basic understanding of the term and
the manner in which I used it most people would understand and have no
problems with.
What I originally said was:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahhhh, there were no colonial constitutions as such, there were colonial
charters/ grants etc.
The first actual constitutions as such were framed and passed in 1776.
I know, its just words. However, technically speaking the various colonies
operated under various forms of royal and/or commercial charters, grants
etc.
I recommend the follow as well in your search:
The Original Thirteen States:
Introduction (Original and Early State Constitutions)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/cnstntro.htm
*****************************************
The above is true in the manner I gave it and as defined below:
=====================================================
CHARTER: n. An instrument emanating from the sovereign power, in the
nature of a grant, either to the whole nation, or to a class or portion of
the people, to a corporation, or to a colony or dependency, assuring to
them certain rights, liberties, or powers. Such was the "Great Charter" or
' Magna Charts, " and such also were the charters granted to certain of the
English colonies in America.
A charter differs from a constitution, in that the former is granted by the
sovereign, while the latter is established by the people themselves.
Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, Centennial Edition
(1891-1991) West Publishing, (1991)p. 161
======================================================
GRANT: To bestow or confer, with or without compensation, a gift or
bestowal by one having control or authority over it, as of land or money.
Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, Centennial Edition
(1891-1991) West Publishing, (1991)p. 483
===========================================================
CONSTITUTION: Those organic and fundamental law of a nation or state, which
may be written or unwritten, establishing the character and conception of
its government, laying the basic principles to which its internal life is
to be conformed, organizing the government, and regulating, distributing,
and limiting the functions of its different departments, and prescribing
the extent and manner of the exercise of sovereign powers.
A charter of government deriving its whole authority from the governed.
The written instrument agreed upon by the people of the Union (e.g. United
States Constitution) or of a particular state, as the absolute rule of
action and decision for all departments (i.e. branches) and officers of the
government in respect to all the points covered by it, which must control
until it shall be changed by the authority which established it (i.e. by
amendment), and in opposition to which any act or ordinance of any such
department or officer is null and void.
Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, Centennial Edition
(1891-1991) West Publishing, (1991) pp. 214-215
==================================================
Colonial Charters, Grants and Related Documents
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/statech.htm
General Charters:
Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, Vermont,Virginia
[READERS: Kindly note the use of the words charter and constitution at the
above site. It supports my original comments]
Connecticut
1639 - Fundamental Orders; January 14
1639 - Fundamental Agreement, or Original Constitution of the Colony of
New Haven, June 4
1643 - Government of New Haven Colony
1662 - Charter of Connecticut
[SUMMATION: The term constitution used interchangeably with Fundamental
Agreements. The Colony of Conn. eventually existed and operated under the
Charter of 1662, later to be replaced by a constitution]
---------------------------------------------------
Delaware
1701 - Charter of Delaware
1776 - Constitution of Delaware
[SUMMATION: supporting my original comments]
--------------------------------------------------
Georgia
1732 - Charter of Georgia
1777 - Constitution of Georgia; February 5
[SUMMATION: supporting my original comments]
-------------------------------------------------
Maine
1622 - A Grant of the Province of Maine to Sir Ferdinando Gorges and John
Mason, esq., 10th of August
1639 - Grant of the Province of Maine
1664 - Grant of the Province of Maine
1674 - Grant of the Province of Maine
SUMMATIONS: Grants which were later replaced by a Constitution as Maine
became a state., supporting my original comments]
----------------------------------------------------------
Maryland
1632 - Charter of Maryland
1776 - Constitution of Maryland; November 11
[SUMMATION: supporting my original comments]
------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts
1620 - The Charter of New England
1620 - Agreement Between the Settlers at New Plymouth
1629 - Charter of the Colony of New Plymouth Granted to William Bradford
and His Associates
1629 - The Charter of Massachusetts Bay
1691 - The Charter of Massachusetts Bay. October 7
1725 - Explanatory Charter of Massachusetts Bay - August 26
[SUMMATION: Charters replaced by a Constitution, supporting my original
comments]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
New Hampshire
1629 - Grant of Hampshire to Capt. John Mason, 7th of Novemr.
1635 - Grant of the Province of New Hampshire to John Wollaston, Esq.,
1635 - Grant of the Province of New Hampshire From Mr. Wollaston to Mr.
Mason, 11th June
1635 - Grant of the Province of New Hampshire to Mr. Mason, 22 April , By
the Name of Masonia
1635 - Grant of the Province of New Hampshire to Mr. Mason, 22 Apr., By the
Name of New Hampshire
1776 - Constitution of New Hampshire
[SUMMATION: supporting my original comments]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey
1674 - His Royal Highness's Grant to the Lords Proprietors, Sir George
Carteret, 29th July.
1676 - The Charter or Fundamental Laws, of West New Jersey, Agreed Upon
1683 - The Fundamental Constitutions for the Province of East New Jersey
in America
1776 - Constitution of New Jersey
[SUMMATION: here we have a grant, charter or fundamental laws, fundamental
laws or constitution and finally a actual constitution.]
--------------------------------------------------------------
New York
1777 - The Constitution of New York : April 20
-----------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina
1663 - Charter of Carolina : March 24
1665 - Charter of Carolina; June 30
1669 - The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina : March 1
1776 - Constitution of North Carolina : December 18
[SUMMATION: We have charters to begin with then we have fundamental orders
or laws called a constitution, and finally actual constitutions. If Ambrose
(maybe Gardiner) wants to continue making this a big production, he is
welcome to it.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania
1681 - Charter for the Province of Pennsylvania : February 28
1701 - Charter of Privileges Granted by William Penn, esq. to the
Inhabitants of Pennsylvania and Territories, October 28
1776 - Constitution of Pennsylvania - September 28
[SUMMATION: supports my original comments]
----------------------------------------------------------
Rhode Island
1663 - Charter of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations - July 15
SUMMATION: supports my original comments. RI operated under its Charter
into the 1800s. before finally writing its constitution.]
-----------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina
1776 - Constitution of South Carolina - March 26
1778 - Constitution of South Carolina - March 19
[SUMMATION: Again created from a larger bulk of land which did have an
original grant/charter. Began its statehood with its own constitution.]
---------------------------------------------------
Vermont
1777 - Constitution of Vermont - July 8
1786 - Constitution of Vermont - July 4
[SUMMATION: never was a colonial charter or grant as such. Was created from
other colonies. Thus began with its independent state constitution]
----------------------------------------------------
Virginia
1606 - The First Charter of Virginia; April 10
1609 - The Second Charter of Virginia; May 23
1611 - The Third Charter of Virginia; March 12
1621 - Ordinances for Virginia; July 24-August 3
1776 - The Constitution of Virginia; June 29
[SUMMATION: supports my original comments]
*******************************************
BTW:
The name is interesting:
Ambrose Searle
---------------------------------------------------------------
THE CHRISTIAN REMEMBRANCER
SEARLE, AMBROSE
1862 F 1808
PRINTED BY JOHN AUSTIN CRANE
NEWARK, N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Serle, Ambrose
The American Journal of Ambrose Searle,
(New York: New York Times & Arno Press, Harvard University Press),
1930
The American Journal of Ambrose Searle, Secretary to Lord Howe
1776-1778. Edited by Edward H. Tatum, Jr. San Marino, Calif.
He is involved in the American Revolution.
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/reference/revbib/britp.htm
------------------------------------------------------------
SECOND CONVENTION OF ASSENT OF THE TERRITORY OF MICHIGAN
Convened at Ann Arbor, December 14, and adjourned December 15, 1836
Representative Searle, Ambrose from Kalamazoo
-------------------------------------------------------------------
St Nicholas's Church
The names of almost all of the rectors of St Nicholas's Church are known
from 1344.
1798 Ambrose Searle
jal...@cox.net
>:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<a5seeukmmqgtlk4s3...@4ax.com>...
>:|> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<g6nceu8g1n55eaktp...@4ax.com>...
>:|> >:|> >:|> GEORGE WASHINGTON:
>:|> >:|> >:|
>:|> >:|> >:|Wouldn't it make more sense to just provide a link to these old posts?
>:|> >:|> >:|
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> Not really.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|Redundancy is a sign of alzheimers.
>:|>
>:|> More and more you sound like Richard Gardiner. How very interesting.
>:|>
>:|>
>:|> >:|> >:|In order to respond to everything you have posted, I would need a
>:|> >:|> >:|year.
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> That's your problem.
>:|> >:|> Of course, I do have something like 5000+ pages of material, most of it
>:|> >:|> primary source material on my computer
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|So for you, all this is about is dumping the contents of your hard
>:|> >:|drive onto usenet as many times as you possibly can.
>:|>
>:|> you are getting your claims demolished.
>:|
>:|Point out one single sentence I have posted that you have
>:|"demolished."
>:|
>:|Now, let's see a few of yours that have been "demolished":
>:|
>:|1) You said Jefferson only referred to himself as a Christian "in one
>:|letter," and were proven wrong
>:|
>:|http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=fe9a0c54.0205142051.31d2f8a3%40posting.google.com
Here is a horse I expect you will Gardiner like ride for a month or more.
He referred to himself as being a Christian in how many letters?
How many letters?
How many letters did he write where religion was a topic or mentioned?
How many letters did he say he was a Christian in/ How far off was I?
How many letters did you try and sneak in that you say indicated he was a
Christian?
Let's discuss that since that is an error on your part. NO, you would
prefer not doing that. LOL
Didn't you post this:
"I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be;
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You provided two letters, in which he actually said
"I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be;
sincerely attached to his doctrines"
Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of
====================================================
BTW he was referring to what might be called primitive Christianity.
It was a far cry from that which passed as orthodox Christianity of his
day. That is what is, take it or leave it.
Now what else did you add that you claim means the same thing, but which
doesn't use those particular words:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You also said the following:
Insofar as a Christian is defined as a disciple of Jesus Christ, Jefferson
owned that designation frequently:
The above is false. We have already established that there is 2 letters in
which he tosses in the word Christ, and there is a reference to Jesus
Christ in his Autobiography when he talks about what some members of the Va
Legislature wanted to add to his bill for religious freedom.
That doesn't really constitute frequent, especially when one counts the
number of letters, etc., Jefferson wrote that talks about religion in some
form or fashion.
I see how this is going so I will make it easier since I suppose you are
going to Gardiner like repeat this quite a few times.
jal...@cox.net
>:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<a5seeukmmqgtlk4s3...@4ax.com>...
>:|> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<g6nceu8g1n55eaktp...@4ax.com>...
>:|> >:|> >:|> GEORGE WASHINGTON:
>:|> >:|> >:|
>:|> >:|> >:|Wouldn't it make more sense to just provide a link to these old posts?
>:|> >:|> >:|
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> Not really.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|Redundancy is a sign of alzheimers.
>:|>
>:|> More and more you sound like Richard Gardiner. How very interesting.
>:|>
>:|>
>:|> >:|> >:|In order to respond to everything you have posted, I would need a
>:|> >:|> >:|year.
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> That's your problem.
>:|> >:|> Of course, I do have something like 5000+ pages of material, most of it
>:|> >:|> primary source material on my computer
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|So for you, all this is about is dumping the contents of your hard
>:|> >:|drive onto usenet as many times as you possibly can.
>:|>
>:|> you are getting your claims demolished.
>:|
>:|Point out one single sentence I have posted that you have
>:|"demolished."
>:|
>:|Now, let's see a few of yours that have been "demolished":
>:|2) You said there were "no constitutions as such" before the first
>:|state constitutions of 1776," and were proven flat wrong.
>:|
>:|http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=fe9a0c54.0205162204.11cfc33b%40posting.google.com
>:|
>:|
>:|2) He said there were "no constitutions as such" before the first
>:|state constitutions of 1776," and was proven flat wrong.
>:|
>:|http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=fe9a0c54.0205162204.11cfc33b%40posting.google.com
>:|
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/reference/revbib/britp.htm
**********************************************
jal...@cox.net
>:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<a5seeukmmqgtlk4s3...@4ax.com>...
>:|> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<g6nceu8g1n55eaktp...@4ax.com>...
>:|> >:|> >:|> GEORGE WASHINGTON:
>:|> >:|> >:|
>:|> >:|> >:|Wouldn't it make more sense to just provide a link to these old posts?
>:|> >:|> >:|
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> Not really.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|Redundancy is a sign of alzheimers.
>:|>
>:|> More and more you sound like Richard Gardiner. How very interesting.
>:|>
>:|>
>:|> >:|> >:|In order to respond to everything you have posted, I would need a
>:|> >:|> >:|year.
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> That's your problem.
>:|> >:|> Of course, I do have something like 5000+ pages of material, most of it
>:|> >:|> primary source material on my computer
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|So for you, all this is about is dumping the contents of your hard
>:|> >:|drive onto usenet as many times as you possibly can.
>:|>
>:|> you are getting your claims demolished.
>:|
>:|Point out one single sentence I have posted that you have
>:|"demolished."
>:|
>:|Now, let's see a few of yours that have been "demolished":
>:|
>:|3) You said Jefferson never used the word "Christ," and were proven
>:|wrong
>:|
>:|http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=fe9a0c54.0205162339.e591bfe%40posting.google.com
>:|
**********************************************
jal...@cox.net
>:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<a5seeukmmqgtlk4s3...@4ax.com>...
>:|> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<g6nceu8g1n55eaktp...@4ax.com>...
>:|> >:|> >:|> GEORGE WASHINGTON:
>:|> >:|> >:|
>:|> >:|> >:|Wouldn't it make more sense to just provide a link to these old posts?
>:|> >:|> >:|
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> Not really.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|Redundancy is a sign of alzheimers.
>:|>
>:|> More and more you sound like Richard Gardiner. How very interesting.
>:|>
>:|>
>:|> >:|> >:|In order to respond to everything you have posted, I would need a
>:|> >:|> >:|year.
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> That's your problem.
>:|> >:|> Of course, I do have something like 5000+ pages of material, most of it
>:|> >:|> primary source material on my computer
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|So for you, all this is about is dumping the contents of your hard
>:|> >:|drive onto usenet as many times as you possibly can.
>:|>
>:|> you are getting your claims demolished.
>:|
>:|Point out one single sentence I have posted that you have
>:|"demolished."
>:|
>:|Now, let's see a few of yours that have been "demolished":
>:|4) You defined "orthodox" as "acceptable" writing, "You will find that
>:|which was acceptable in the colonial charters, the very first state
>:|constitutions. Orthodox simply means acceptable." And were shown that
>:|given that definition, the first 6 presidents of the U.S. were
>:|"orthodox," proving your claim to the contrary dead wrong.
>:|
>:|http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=fe9a0c54.0205152025.4375a607%40posting.google.com
>:|
As I have posted a number of times:
Some were orthodox Christians that were very into religion..
Some were orthodox Christians who were rather indifferent to religion
Some were Deist (Non-orthodox)
Some were Quakers (Non-orthodox)
Some were Catholic (Considered non-orthodox by most Protestant types who
were orthodox)
Some were Unitarian (Non-orthodox)
Some probably were closet atheists or "infidels"
**********************************************
jal...@cox.net
>:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<a5seeukmmqgtlk4s3...@4ax.com>...
>:|> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<g6nceu8g1n55eaktp...@4ax.com>...
>:|> >:|> >:|> GEORGE WASHINGTON:
>:|> >:|> >:|
>:|> >:|> >:|Wouldn't it make more sense to just provide a link to these old posts?
>:|> >:|> >:|
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> Not really.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|Redundancy is a sign of alzheimers.
>:|>
>:|> More and more you sound like Richard Gardiner. How very interesting.
>:|>
>:|>
>:|> >:|> >:|In order to respond to everything you have posted, I would need a
>:|> >:|> >:|year.
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> That's your problem.
>:|> >:|> Of course, I do have something like 5000+ pages of material, most of it
>:|> >:|> primary source material on my computer
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|So for you, all this is about is dumping the contents of your hard
>:|> >:|drive onto usenet as many times as you possibly can.
>:|>
>:|> you are getting your claims demolished.
>:|
>:|Point out one single sentence I have posted that you have
>:|"demolished."
>:|
>:|Now, let's see a few of yours that have been "demolished":
>:|
>:|5) You tried to rescue another who claimed that Thomas Paine was a
>:|principal "founder" of the U.S., and were proven, using your own
>:|criteria, to be dead wrong
>:|
>:|http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=fe9a0c54.0205171729.6a6e0124%40posting.google.com
>:|
>:|5) He tried to rescue another who claimed that Thomas Paine was a
>:|principal "founder" of the U.S., and was proven, using his own
>:|criteria, to be dead wrong
>:|
>:|http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=fe9a0c54.0205171729.6a6e0124%40posting.google.com
>:|
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You like words games, huh?
More and more you look like Gardiner, amazing. Kindly quote where I stated
Thomas Paine was a "principle founder."
You tend to like to do the Gardiner thing of putting words into anothers
mouth. A suggestion, if you wish to reply to me, reply to me, not others.
Reply to that which I actually post. Not what others post and you then want
to try and link me to.
I speak for me. I don't speak for anyone else, I don't "rescue" or
"vindicate" others.
That seems to be a bit hard for you to understand.
MY actual comments regarding Paine were really quite short and simple:
ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>:|forl...@aol.complicated (Lord Calvert) wrote in message news:<20020514000732...@mb-de.aol.com>...
>:|> Thomas Paine was a pamphleteer
>:|
>:|Which of the founding conventions was Paine party to?
Don't try to devalue the man, it won't really work. His role and place in
American history is secure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, where in the above did forlornh claim Paine was a principle founder?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
**********************************************
jal...@cox.net
>:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<a5seeukmmqgtlk4s3...@4ax.com>...
>:|> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<g6nceu8g1n55eaktp...@4ax.com>...
>:|> >:|> >:|> GEORGE WASHINGTON:
>:|> >:|> >:|
>:|> >:|> >:|Wouldn't it make more sense to just provide a link to these old posts?
>:|> >:|> >:|
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> Not really.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|Redundancy is a sign of alzheimers.
>:|>
>:|> More and more you sound like Richard Gardiner. How very interesting.
>:|>
>:|>
>:|> >:|> >:|In order to respond to everything you have posted, I would need a
>:|> >:|> >:|year.
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> That's your problem.
>:|> >:|> Of course, I do have something like 5000+ pages of material, most of it
>:|> >:|> primary source material on my computer
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|So for you, all this is about is dumping the contents of your hard
>:|> >:|drive onto usenet as many times as you possibly can.
>:|>
>:|> you are getting your claims demolished.
>:|
>:|Point out one single sentence I have posted that you have
>:|"demolished."
>:|
>:|
>:|I could also point out that you "bellyached" about me somehow clipping
>:|posting groups, which, since I'm sure there is a techological way to
>:|determine whether I did or not, would proof you, again, flat wrong.
Ho hum, that is really a great historical point, isn't it?
>:|
>:|Now, what have I posted that you have "demolished"? All I ask is for
>:|one quoted sentence. I'm waiting.
>:|
LOL, you have made some claims regarding Madison, Washington, Jefferson,
and a few others, etc.
I reply I have posted a vast amount of information. Information from a
variety of sources, that does not agree with those claims you have made.
Some even point blank disagree.
One could call that demolishing your claims.
If you failed to read all of that material, that's not my problem.
Now, I could post it all again, or I could give the short version, which
was just some highlights from various portions of it, or I could just post
a whole bunch of URLs from Google.
I can think about which I would prefer doing, or I can go on adding to that
vast volume of information, totally ignoring your attempts, such as this to
reframe the discussion away from your failure to support your positions in
most cases.
One simple little fact as you work to hard trying to claim Jefferson, oh so
many of his own contemporaries pointed out he didn't qualify as a Christian
as they defined it, meant it, knew it, understood it, claimed it.
On that note, I really don't need to say anymore on that subject.
Melody Blaiser
So was your intent found to be factually wrong when the context is
examined closely. This was *my* point and you snipped the letter.
>He said that Jefferson claimed to be a Christian only once, in one
>letter. He was proven wrong on that score. Period. Don't try to bring
>in a red herring to save the man.
My point was the kind of *Christian* Jefferson was claiming to be. I
can see the context of Jefferson's message is not important to your
propaganda.
>> >3) You said Jefferson never used the word "Christ," and were proven
>> >wrong
>>
>> Actually no. The usage of the words in context is most interesting:
>
>Actually, yes. The context wasn't the issue.
It was for my post.
> Jalison simply said that
>Jefferson didn't use the word "Christ." He was wrong, regardless of
>context. He made a factual claim that was factually wrong. Hemming and
>hawing won't change that.
My point was how it was used and your hemming and hawing won't change
the context.
Dwayne Conyers
news:fe9a0c54.02051...@posting.google.com...
> "Half the founding fathers were atheists or Deists,"
But they were ALL masons.
____________________________________
Star Trek Enterprise Theme Song Parodies
http://www.dwacon.com/scifi/index.htm
ambrose searle
> charters/ grants etc.
>
> The first actual constitutions as such were framed and passed in 1776.
>
"hem... haw... yahbut, yahbut, what I meant to say was... well, in the
manner I gave it, but... I did't mean that really... I wasn't talking
about... because if you define it a certain way, then... I can bob,
weave, dodge, finesse, obscure, obfuscate... hem... haw..."
jalison's opinion on the matter: "there were no colonial constitutions
as such"
Yale Law School's opinion on the matter:
ambrose searle
>
> "I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be;
> sincerely attached to his doctrines"
> Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803
I sure did post that.
> "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of
> Jesus."
> Jefferson to Charles Thomson, January 9, 1816
Yep. Posted that too.
> "I am, therefore, of his theology" ["his" referring to "that sublime
> reformer of the Jewish religion"]
> Jefferson to Ezra Stiles, June 25, 1819
I posted that too.
How many did you insist that he said that? Since you want to define
"constitution" to mean something other than a document calling itself
a constitution, then tell me what problem you have with the definition
of a Christian being a follower of Jesus; take a look at Webster's my
friend.
> BTW he was referring to what might be called primitive Christianity.
> It was a far cry from that which passed as orthodox Christianity of his
> day. That is what is, take it or leave it.
Where did I use the adjective "orthodox" in referring to Jefferson's
Christianity. Never did, never have, never would.
You build a straw man to knock down. It's a sign that you are either
paranoid, or can't handle the reality of what's in front of you, so
you have to build a phantasm to punch at. Go for it.
> Now what else did you add that you claim means the same thing, but which
> doesn't use those particular words:
>
> Insofar as a Christian is defined as a disciple of Jesus Christ, Jefferson
> owned that designation frequently:
>
> The above is false.
The above is absolutely true when words are taken at face value (i.e.,
when the word constitution means constitution, when the word disciple
means disciple, when the word frequent means frequent.
A disciple is one who submits to the teaching of...
Jefferson frequently said that the teaching of Jesus was the best that
he had ever read anywhere.
Yes, frequently.... by frequently, I mean at least a half dozen times.
ambrose searle
> >:|wrong
> >:|
> >:|http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=fe9a0c54.0205162339.e591bfe%40posting.google.com
>
>
> the time I replied.
jalison said nothing about qualifying his recollection that Jefferson
never used the word Christ being limited to "the original list you
provided." That's a Bill Clintonism if any has ever been used.
Take a look:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=fe9a0c54.0205162339.e591bfe%40posting.google.com
ambrose searle
and to be discovereed in each colonies' charters and constitutions;
but then he says
that...
> Some of "orthodox" beliefs were
> * A belief in Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the World,
> * A belief in the trinity
> * A belief in the divinity of Jesus
> * A belief in the resurrection
> * A belief in the assention
> * A belief in the miracles as recorded in the Bible.
> * That there is one eternal God, and a future state of rewards and
> punishments. (A Heaven and Hell)
> * That God is publicly to be worshipped.
> * That the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are of divine
> inspiration, and are the rule of faith and practice.
> * 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
> *Athanasian creed
> *Various Article of Faith
If he is consistent, he will then be able to show in the Virginia
state constitution, where these "beliefs" are indicated to define
"acceptability," for he has alleged that three Virginians were not
"acceptable" under the state constitution (Washington, Jefferson,
Madison).
But he is caught in a corner that he can't extricate himself from, so
he will whine, divert, blow smoke, blah blah blah.... anything but
say, "I made a mistake."
It's for the record.
Ambrose
ambrose searle
> >:|principal "founder" of the U.S., and was proven, using his own
> >:|criteria, to be dead wrong
> >:|
> >:|http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=fe9a0c54.0205171729.6a6e0124%40posting.google.com
> >:|
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> You like words games, huh?
> More and more you look like Gardiner, amazing. Kindly quote where I stated
> Thomas Paine was a "principle founder."
Kindly quote where I claimed that you stated Thomas Paine was a
"principle founder." I did say that you tried to rescue someone else
who said this; and this is seen in the following post--
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=fe9a0c54.0205171729.6a6e0124%40posting.google.com
> You tend to like to do the Gardiner thing of putting words into anothers
> mouth.
You tend to do the Clinton thing of claiming "it depends on what the
definition of 'is' is."
Ambrose
ambrose searle
> >:|posting groups, which, since I'm sure there is a techological way to
> >:|determine whether I did or not, would proof you, again, flat wrong.
>
>
> Ho hum, that is really a great historical point, isn't it?
The whole thing about "removing newsgroups" had nothing at all to do
with making a historical point... so why did you get your pants all in
a wad about it?
> >:|Now, what have I posted that you have "demolished"? All I ask is for
> >:|one quoted sentence. I'm waiting.
>
> LOL, you have made some claims regarding Madison, Washington, Jefferson,
> and a few others, etc.
I'm still waiting for just one claim I have made regarding Madison,
Washington, and Jefferson that you have "demolished."
> I reply I have posted a vast amount of information. Information from a
> variety of sources, that does not agree with those claims you have made.
What claim? I am waiting?
> Some even point blank disagree.
Still waiting.
> One could call that demolishing your claims.
One could call a rose an elephant, it would still be a rose.
>
> If you failed to read all of that material, that's not my problem.
>
> Now, I could post it all again, or I could give the short version, which
> was just some highlights from various portions of it, or I could just post
> a whole bunch of URLs from Google.
>
> I can think about which I would prefer doing, or I can go on adding to that
> vast volume of information, totally ignoring your attempts, such as this to
> reframe the discussion away from your failure to support your positions in
> most cases.
>
> One simple little fact as you work to hard trying to claim Jefferson, oh so
> many of his own contemporaries pointed out he didn't qualify as a Christian
> as they defined it, meant it, knew it, understood it, claimed it.
When did I say otherwise? Do you enjoy building straw men? I said that
he called himself a Christian. Period. Proven fact. More than just
once, as you have insisted.
Searle
ambrose searle
> "ambrose searle" <ambros...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fe9a0c54.02051...@posting.google.com...
>
> > "Half the founding fathers were atheists or Deists,"
>
>
> But they were ALL masons.
I'd love to see the documentation for that.
ambrose searle
>
> So was your intent found to be factually wrong
My intent was nothing more than to show that the man's facts were
wrong. Thus, my intent was NOT factually wrong.
> >He said that Jefferson claimed to be a Christian only once, in one
> >letter. He was proven wrong on that score. Period. Don't try to bring
> >in a red herring to save the man.
>
> My point was the kind of *Christian* Jefferson was claiming to be.
That was NEVER contended one way or the other by me. You are arguing
with a ghost.
> >> >3) You said Jefferson never used the word "Christ," and were proven
> >> >wrong
> >>
> >> Actually no. The usage of the words in context is most interesting:
> >
> >Actually, yes. The context wasn't the issue.
>
> It was for my post.
Good for you. Talk about context all you want. You're not rebutting
anything I said.
> > Jalison simply said that
> >Jefferson didn't use the word "Christ." He was wrong, regardless of
> >context. He made a factual claim that was factually wrong. Hemming and
> >hawing won't change that.
>
> My point was how it was used and your hemming and hawing won't change
> the context.
Whatever context he used it in, he did use it; jalison said he didn't
use it. Period. He was wrong. Period. All this "yahbut... what I
really meant was... you see... because... if you think of it this
way... I didn't mean to say... although I said it, that's not what I
meant... let me go back and try to wriggle out of this... because I
don't know how to admit an error... let me try to divert... let me try
to confuse the situation by throwing in the word 'context' even though
that was never the issue... but, because, adeeb, adoob, adahb..."
won't save him.
Ambrose
ambrose searle
> charters/ grants etc.
>
> The first actual constitutions as such were framed and passed in 1776.
>
"hem... haw... yahbut, yahbut, what I meant to say was... well, in the
jal...@cox.net
>:|> Ahhhh, there were no colonial constitutions as such, there were colonial
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
RIDE THIS HORSE, LOL
See how many miles you can get out of it.
=======================================
Meanwhile
[Constitution-Charter-Grant, --- 5/20/02]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl146791123d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=ddtheuc184uorjhg2kaf72o0jd4hiq2uvm%404ax.com
Melody Blaiser
>> >The man was making a factual claim that was demonstraby proven wrong.
>>
>> So was your intent found to be factually wrong
>
>My intent was nothing
I think this about sums you up.
jal...@cox.net
>:|> >:|5) He tried to rescue another who claimed that Thomas Paine was a
>:|> >:|principal "founder" of the U.S., and was proven, using his own
>:|> >:|criteria, to be dead wrong
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=fe9a0c54.0205171729.6a6e0124%40posting.google.com
>:|> >:|
>:|> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>:|> You like words games, huh?
>:|> More and more you look like Gardiner, amazing. Kindly quote where I stated
>:|> Thomas Paine was a "principle founder."
>:|
>:|Kindly quote where I claimed that you stated Thomas Paine was a
>:|"principle founder." I did say that you tried to rescue someone else
>:|who said this; and this is seen in the following post--
>:|
>:|http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=fe9a0c54.0205171729.6a6e0124%40posting.google.com
>:|
>:|> You tend to like to do the Gardiner thing of putting words into anothers
>:|> mouth.
>:|
>:|5) You tried to rescue another who claimed that Thomas Paine was a
>:|principal "founder" of the U.S., and were proven, using your own
>:|criteria, to be dead wrong
>:|
>:|http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=fe9a0c54.0205171729.6a6e0124%40posting.google.com
>:|
>:|5) He tried to rescue another who claimed that Thomas Paine was a
>:|principal "founder" of the U.S., and was proven, using his own
>:|criteria, to be dead wrong
>:|
>:|http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=fe9a0c54.0205171729.6a6e0124%40posting.google.com
>:|
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You like words games, huh?
More and more you look like Gardiner, amazing. Kindly quote where I stated
Thomas Paine was a "principle founder."
You tend to like to do the Gardiner thing of putting words into anothers
mouth. A suggestion, if you wish to reply to me, reply to me, not others.
Reply to that which I actually post. Not what others post and you then want
to try and link me to.
I speak for me. I don't speak for anyone else, I don't "rescue" or
"vindicate" others.
That seems to be a bit hard for you to understand.
MY actual comments regarding Paine were really quite short and simple:
ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>:|forl...@aol.complicated (Lord Calvert) wrote in message news:<20020514000732...@mb-de.aol.com>...
>:|> Thomas Paine was a pamphleteer
>:|
>:|Which of the founding conventions was Paine party to?
Don't try to devalue the man, it won't really work. His role and place in
American history is secure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, WHERE IN THE ABOVE DID FORLORNH CLAIM PAINE WAS A PRINCIPLE FOUNDER?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
jal...@cox.net
>:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<hin9eu86hf9i9t4dt...@4ax.com>...
>:|> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|forl...@aol.complicated (Lord Calvert) wrote in message news:<20020514000732...@mb-de.aol.com>...
>:|> >:|> Thomas Paine was a pamphleteer
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|Which of the founding conventions was Paine party to?
>:|>
>:|> Don't try to devalue the man, it won't really work. His role and place in
>:|> American history is secure.
>:|
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
SOME EXAMPLES
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The struggle between the democratic-minded and the eliteminded had begun
even before America declared independence, but it manifested itself most
clearly in the drafting of the first state constitutions and in the battles
over the establishment of a central government. Many of the ideas of the
democratic-minded were put into practice in the Pennsylvania, Georgia, and
Vermont Constitutions, and to a certain extent in the Articles of
Confederation. The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 and, to a somewhat
lesser extent, the United States Constitution of 1788 are good examples of
the institutional implementation of the views of the elite-minded.6
To support their position the eliteminded took their inspiration and many
of their ideas from the political writings of John Adams and James Madison;
whereas, if Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts are any indication,
the democratic-minded most often appealed to the writings of Tom Paine. 7
7. For examples of Paine's influence in Kentucky, Massachusetts, and
Pennsylvania see: Kentucky Gazette (Lexington), 19 November 1791;
"H.S.B.M.," ibid., 7 January, 4 February 1792; Arthur Campbell to Isaac
Shelby, 20 March 1792, Durrett Collection, University of Chicago (UC); Levi
Lincoln to Thomas Jefferson, 6 December 1802, 9 March 1805, Jefferson
Papers, LC; Philip S. Foner, The Complete Writings of Thomas Paine (2
vols., Binghamton, 1945), II, 992-1007. I seriously question Miss Cecelia
Kenyon's claim that Paine's political ideas did not have any influence
after 1776. "Where Paine Went Wrong," The American Political Science
Review, XLV (December, 1951), 1086-99.
pp. 252, 335
The two wings of the party also split over the kind of reception to be
given the aged but still popular Tom Paine, who returned to America in
1804. The radicals wanted him to be given a hero's welcome and did so in
many of the newspapers under their control; but Jefferson and the
moderate-controlled national administration did not pay him a great deal of
attention and even went so far as to have Sam Adams and William Duane
request him to stop writing controversial newspaper articles on religious
subjects. 26
pp. 277, 343
For example, Tom Paine, perhaps the most influential of all
eighteenth-century democrats, . . .
p. 259
In December 1804, Levi Lincoln, having just resigned his position in the
cabinet, began the long trip back to his home in Worchester. On the way he
stopped in New York, where he spent some time conferring with Tom Paine,
whom he described as a man of surprising intellect and of bold independent
reflection.
p. 212
The radicals' main issue was the need to overhaul the state constitution
and make the government more directly and immediately responsive to the
electorate. The essence of their argument was that the Pennsylvania
Constitution of 1776, with its provisions for a judiciary to be elected and
appointed for specific terms, an annually elected legislature, and a weak
executive dominated by the legislature, had most fully expressed the
democratic implications of the Revolution. On the other hand, the
Constitution of 1790, with its independent judiciary, strong and
independent executive, and senators who held their offices for four year
terms, had made the government less democratic. No one could make this case
more ably than Tom Paine, that arch radical, who more than any other
individual had helped bring about the adoption of the Constitution of 1776,
and who had recently returned to America. He endorsed the radical position
in 1805:
At the time this Constitution [of 17901 was formed, there was a great
departure from the principles of the Revolution, among those who then
assumed the lead, and the country was grossly imposed upon. This accounts
for some inconsistencies that are to be found in the present Constitution,
among which is the negativing power inconsistently copied from England.
While the exercise of the power over the state remained dormant it remained
unnoticed; but the instant it began to be active it began to alarm; and the
exercise of it against the rights of the people to settle their private
pecuniary differences by the peaceable mode of arbitration, without the
interference of lawyers, and the expense of tediousness of courts of law,
has brought its existence to a crisis . . . .
Much yet remains to be done in the improvements of constitutions. The
Pennsylvania Convention, when it meets, will be possessed of advantages
which those that preceded it were not. The ensuing Convention will have two
constitutions before them; that of 1776, and that of 1790, each of which
continued about fourteen years. I know no material objection against the
Constitution of 1776, except that in practice it might be subject to
precipitancy; but this can be easily and effectually remedied . . . . But
there have been many and great objections and complaints against the
present Constitution and the practice upon it arising from the improper and
unequal distribution it makes of power.10
10 Philip S. Foner (ed) The Complete Writings of Thomas Paine(2 Vols.
Binghampton, New York, 1945) II, 995, 1006.
pp.175-76
The radicals argued that, at best, government was a necessary evil.
To support their position they quoted Tom Paine, whom they admired, . . .
p. 124
All the above from The Jeffersonian Crisis, Courts and Politics in the
Young Republic. Richard E. Ellis. W.W. Norton & Company N.Y. London, (1971
Oxford University Press, 1974 W. W. Norton)
============================================================
THOMAS PAINE 1737-1809
political philosopher and writer
http://www.mindspring.com/~phila1/paine.htm
Friends of Thomas Paine
http://www.mindspring.com/~phila1/
18th Century U.S. History > Thomas Paine
http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities/History/U_S__History/By_Time_Period/18th_Century/People/Paine__Thomas__1737_1809_/
Science and Religion: In Conflict?
http://forums.about.com/ab-atheism2/messages/?msg=67
Rights of Man
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/c1-016.htm
Thomas Paine.
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/index.htm
"The Age of Paine" by Jon Katz
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.05/paine_pr.html
========================================================
>:|Let us go ahead and assess this man, Paine, using the rubric provided
>:|by men named Jim Allison and Ted Peters
>:|
>:|see http://members.tripod.com/~candst/founder1.htm
Never heard of any Ted Peters.
Dear Ambrose/Gardiner
IN case you hadn't noticed, the topic had to do with the founders being
Christian or otherwise.
The importance of Tom Paine is a horse you brought to the corral as a
decoy.
Tom Paine was not a orthodox Christian. That is a fact.
Tom Paine's importance? Not really essential to this discussion. However,
just a comment on that decoy you have introduced, history doesn't exactly
agree with your opinion of Paine.
>:|> >:|What was the general opinion of Thomas Paine among the "generality" of
>:|> >:|the founding brothers?
>:|>
>:|>
>:|> "When the crisis came, Jefferson, Paine, John Adams,
>:|> Washington, Franklin, Madison, and many lesser lights
>:|> were to be reckoned among either the Unitarians or the
>:|> Deists. it was not Cotton Mather's God to whom the
>:|> author of the Declaration of Independence appealed, it
>:|> was to 'Nature's God.' From whatever source derived, the
>:|> effect of both Unitarianism and Deism was to hasten the
>:|> retirement of historic theology from its empire over the
>:|> intellect of American leaders, and to clear the atmosphere
>:|> for secular interests"
>:|> -- The Rise of American Civilization,"
>:|> by Charles A. and Mary R. Beard. (Vol. I., p. 449.)
>:|
>:|Charles Beard's day in the sun as a historian ended with Prohibition.
>:|
Your opinion doesn't impress me, never did, never will.
>:|> In the last years of Washington's Presidency, Thomas Paine published The
>:|> Age of Reason, his extended attack on orthodox religious beliefs and on the
>:|> Bible. In doing so, he spoke for the most advanced liberal thinkers of his
>:|> day. Eight American editions of his book appeared the first year. Though
>:|> stating their opinions less bluntly, Franklin and Jefferson and perhaps a
>:|> majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence basically
>:|> agreed with Paine.
>:|
>:|Oh really?
>:|
>:|That assertion flies in the face of the evidence:
>:|
>:|Before Paine published his Age of Reason, he sent a manuscript copy to
>:|Benjamin Franklin, seeking his thoughts. Notice Franklin's strong and
>:|succinct reply:
>:|
>:|"burn this piece before it is seen by any other person"
>:|
>:|Benjamin Franklin, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, Ed.,
>:|(Boston: Tappan, Whittemore and Mason, 1840) X:281-282.
A comment about Sparks:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 professions 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, Your blowing your cover Gardiner.
>:|Samuel Adams was not quite as cordial as Franklin:
Interesting group you have assembled, and a group that Gardiner admired and
mentioned many times in his past incarnation in the Newsgroups.
With the exceptions of maybe one or two all would very much qualify as
orthodox Christian.
Thus, would their comments really be surprising?
Also, I might add, there is no mention by Ambrose/Gardiner pertaining to
the politics that very much formed the context of the anti-Paine,
anti-Jefferson, bilge that took place during this general time period.
Those politics played a very major role in the creation and sustaining of
that bilge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOVEMBER 30, 1802
BOSTON, Nov. 30th, 1802.
SIR,
I have frequently with pleasure reflected on your services to my native,
and your adopted country. Your Common Sense, and your Crisis unquestionably
awakened the public mind, and led the people loudly to call for a
declaration of our national independence. I therefore esteemed you as a
warm friend to the liberty, & lasting welfare of the human race. But when I
heard, that you had turned your mind to a defence of infidelity, I felt
myself much astonished, and more grieved, that you had attempted a measure
st, injurious to the feelings, and so repugnant to the true
interest of so great a part of the citizens of the United States. The
people of New-England, if you will allow me to use a Scripture phrase, are
fast returning to their first love. Will you excite among them the spirit
of angry controversy, at a time, when they are hastning to unity and
peace., I am told that some of our news-papers have announced your
intention to publish an additional pamphlet upon the principles of your Age
of Reason. Do you think, that your pen, or the pen of any other man can
unchristianize the mass of our citizens, or have you hopes of converting a
few of them to assist you in so bad a cause? We ought to think ourselves
happy in the enjoyment of opinion without the danger of persecution by
civil or ecclesiastical law.
Our friend, the present President of the United States, has been
calumniated for- his liberal sentiments by men, who have attributed that
liberality to a latent design to promote the Cause of infidelity. This, and
all other slanders have been made without a shadow of proof. Neither
religion, nor liberty can long subsist in the tumult of alteration, and
amidst the noise and violence of faction.
Felix qui cautus.
Adieu.
SAMUEL ADAMS..
Mr. Thomas Paine
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter from Samuel Adams to Thomas Paine, Nov. 30,
1802. Paine, Collected Writings, Eric Foner selected the content and wrote
the notes for this volume. The Library of America (1995) pp 415)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JANUARY 1, 1803
TO SAMUEL ADAMS
My dear and venerable friend,
I received with great pleasure your friendly and affectionate letter of
Nov. 30th and I thank you also for the frankness of it. Between men in
pursuit of truth, and whose object is the happiness of man both here and
hereafter, there ought to be no reserve. Even error has a claim to
indulgence, if not to respect, when it is believed to be truth. I am
obliged to you for your affectionate remembrance of what you stile my
services in awakening the public mind to a declaration of independence and
supporting it after it was declared. I also, like you, have often looked
back on those times, and have thought that if independence had not been
declared at the time it was the public mind could not have been brought up
to it afterwards. It will immediately occur to you, who were so intimately
acquainted with the situation of things at that time, that I allude to the
black times of Seventy six; for though I know, and you my friend also know,
they were no other than the natural consequences of the military blunders
of that campaign, the country might have viewed them as proceeding from a
natural inability to support its cause against the enemy, and have sunk
under the despondency of that misconceived idea. This was the impression
against which it was necessary the country should be strongly animated.
I now come to the second part of your letter, on which I shall be as frank
with you as you are with me. "But, (say you) when I heard you had turned
your mind to a defence of infidelity, I felt myself much astonished, &c."
What, my good friend, do you call believing in God infidelity? for that is
the great point maintained in the Age of Reason against all divided beliefs
and allegorical divinities. The bishop of Landaff (Doctor Watson) not only
acknowleges this, but pays me some compliments upon it in his answer to the
second part of that work. "There is, (says he) a philosophical sublimity in
some of your ideas when speaking of the Creator of the Universe. "
What then, (my much esteemed friend for I do not respect you the less
because we differ, and that perhaps not much, in religious sentiments) what
I ask is this thing called infidelity? If we go back to your ancestors and
mine, three or four hundred years ago, for we must have had fathers and
grandfathers or we should not be here, we shall find them praying to saints
and virgins, and believing in purgatory and transubstantiation, and
therefore all of us are infidels according to our forefathers belief. If we
go back to times more ancient Eve shall again be infidels according to the
belief of some other forefathers.
The case, my friend, is, that the world has been over-run with fable and
creeds of human invention, with Sectaries of whole nations, against other
nations, and sectaries of those sectaries in each of them against each
other. Every sectary, except the quakers, has been a persecutor. Those who
fled from persecution persecuted in their turn, and it is this confusion of
creeds that has filled the world with persecution and deluged it with
blood. Even the depredation on your commerce by the Barbary powers, sprang
from the crusades of the church against those powers. It was a war of creed
against creed, each boasting of God for its author, and reviling each other
with the name of infidel. If I do not believe as you believe, it proves
that you do not believe as I believe, and this is all that it proves.
There is however one point of union wherein all religions meet, and that
is in the first article of every man's creed, and of every nation's creed,
that has any creed at all. I believe in God. Those who rest here, and there
are millions who do, cannot be wrong as far as their creed goes. Those who
chuse to go further may be wrong, for it is impossible that all can be
right since there is so much contradiction among them. The first,
therefore, are in my opinion on the safest side.
I presume you are so far acquainted with ecclesiastical history as to
know, and the bishop who has answered me has been obliged to acknowlege the
fact, that the books that compose the New Testament were voted by yeas and
navs to be the word of God as you now vote a law, by the popish councils of
Nice and Laodocia, about 1450 Years ago. With respect to the fact there is
no dispute, neither do I mention it for the sake of controversy. This vote
may appear authority enough to some, and not authority enough to others. It
is proper however that every body should know the fact.
With respect to the Age of Reason which you so much condemn, and that I
believe without having read it, for you say only that you heard of it, I
will inform you of a circumstance because you cannot know it by other
means.
I have said in the first Page of the first part of that work, that it had
long been my intention to publish my thoughts upon religion, but that I had
reserved it to a later time of life. I have now to inform you why I wrote
it and published it at the time I did.
In the first place, I saw my life in continual danger. My friends were
falling as fast the guilliotine could cut their heads off, and as I every
day expected the same fate, I resolved to begin my work. I appeared to
myself to be on my death bed, for death was on every side of me, and I had
no time to lose. This accounts for my writing at the time 1 did; and so
nicely did the time and the intention meet, that I had not finished the
first part of that work more than six hours before I was arrested and taken
to prison. Joell Barlow was with me, and knows the fact.
In the second place, the people of France were running headlong into
Atheism, and I had the work translated and published in their own language,
to stop them in that career, and fix them to the first article (as I have
before said) of every man's creed who has any creed at all, I believe in
God. I endangered my own life, in the first place, by opposing in the
convention the execution of the king, and labouring to shew they were
trying the monarchy, and not the man, and that the crimes imputed to him
were the crimes of the monarchical system; and I endangered it a second
time by opposing Atheism, and yet some of your priests, for I do not
believe that all are perverse, cry out, in the war whoop of monarchical
priestcraft, What an infidel! What a wicked man is Thomas Paine! They might
as well add, for he believes in God, and is against shedding blood.
But all this wav whoop of the pulpit has some concealed object. Religion
is not the cause, but is the stalking horse. They put it fonvard to conceal
themselves behind it. It is not a secret that there has been a party
composed of the leaders of the Federalists, for I do not include all
Federalists with their leaders, who have been working by various means for
several years past, to overturn the Federal constitution established on the
representative system, and place government in the new world on the corrupt
system of the old. To accomplish this a large standing army was necessary,
and as a pretence for such an army, the danger of a foreign invasion must
be bellowed forth, from the pulpit, from the press, and by their public
orators.
I am not of a disposition inclined to suspicion. It is in its nature a
mean and cowardly passion, and upon the whole, even admitting error into
the case, it is better, I am sure it is more generous, to be wrong on the
side of confidence, than on the side of suspicion. But I know as a fact,
that the English government distributes annually fifteen hundred pounds
sterling among the Presbyterian ministers in England, and one thousand
among those of Ireland, and when I hear of the strange discourses of some
of your ministers and professors of colleges, I cannot, as the quakers say,
find freedom in my mind to acquit them. Their anti-revolutionary doctrines
invite suspicion even against one's will, and in spite of one's charity to
believe well of them.
As you have given me one scripture phrase I will give you another for
those ministers. It is said in Exodus, chapter 22, verse 28, "Thou shalt
not revile the gods nor curse the ruler of thy people." But those
ministers, such I mean as Dr. Emmons, curse ruler and people both, for the
majority
are, politically, the people, and it is those who have chosen the ruler
whom they curse. As to the first part of the verse, that of not reviling
the gods, it makes no part of my scripture. I have but one God.
Since I began this letter, for I write it by piece-meals, as I have
leisure, I have seen the four letters that passed between you and John
Adams. In your first letter you say, "let divines and philosophers,
statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavours to renovate the age by
inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity, and
universal philanthropy." Why, my dear friend, this is exactly my religion,
and is the whole of it. That you may have an idea that the Age of Reason
(for I believe you have not read it) inculcates this reverential fear and
love of the Deity, I will give you a paragraph from it:
"Do we want to contemplate his power? We see it in the immensity of the
creation. Do we want to contemplate his wisdom! We see it in the
unchangeable order by which the incomprehensible whole is governed. Do we
want to contemplate his munificence! We see it in the abundance with which
he fills the earth. Do we want to contemplate his mercy., We see it in his
not withholding that abundance even from the unthankful."
As I am fully with you in your first part, that respecting the deity, so
am I in your second, that of universal philanthropy, by which I do not mean
merely the sentimental benevolence of wishing well, but the practical
benevolence of doing good. We cannot serve the Deity in the manner we serve
those who cannot do without chat service. He needs no service from us. We
can add nothing to eternity. But it is in our power to render a service
acceptable to him, and that is not by praying, but by endeavouring to make
his creatures happy. A man does not serve God when he prays, for it is
himself he is trying to serve, and as to hiring or paying men to pray, as
if the Deity needed instruction, it is in my opinion an abomination. One
good School Master is of more use and of more value than a load of such
persons as Dr. Emmons and some others.
You, my dear and much respected friend, are now far in the vale of years;
I have yet, I believe, some years in store, for I have a good state of
health and a happy mind, and I take care of both, by nourishing the first
with temperance and the latter with abundance.
This, I believe, you will allow to be the true philosophy of life. You
will see by my third letter to the citizens of the United States, that I
have been exposed to, and preserved through, many dangers, but instead of
buffetting the Deity with prayers as if I distrusted him or must dictate to
him, I reposed myself on his protection; and you, my friend, will find,
even in your last moments, more consolation in the silence of resignation
than in the murmuring wish of prayer.
In every thing which you say in your second letter to John Adams
respecting our rights as men and citizens in this world I am perfectly with
you. On other points we have to answer to our creator and not to each
other. The key of heaven is not in the keeping of any sect, nor ought the
road to it be obstructed by any. Our relation to each other in this world
is as men, and the man who is a friend to man and to his rights, let his
religious opinions be what they may, is a good citizen, to whom I can give,
as I ought to do, and as every other ought, the right hand of fellowship,
and to none with more hearty good will, my dear friend, than to you.
THOMAS PAINE
Federal City, Jan I, 1803.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter from Thomas Paine to Samuel Adams, Jan 1,
1803. Paine, Collected Writings, Eric Foner selected the content and wrote
the notes for this volume. The Library of America (1995) pp 416-20)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Thomas Paine --- 5/17/02]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2727323779d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=hin9eu86hf9i9t4
dtdv2apnqccqm6f8m03%404ax.com
>:|Many other similar writings could be cited, but these are sufficient
>:|to show that Paine's views were strongly rejected even by the least
>:|religious Founders.
By some of the founders and others of the period.
Evidence has been shown that he had a great deal of popularity with others.
Funny you never seem to mention those things.
>:|In fact, Paine's views caused such vehement public
>:|opposition that -- as Franklin predicted -- he spent his last years in
>:|New York as "an outcast" in "social ostracism" and was buried in a
>:|farm field because no American cemetery would accept his remains.
Falsehoods can be sustained for very long periods of time. Look at the 200
+ year long run of Jefferson-Hemings
There is not doubt he was damaged by the efforts of the intolerant, the
same ones who tried to damage Jefferson, however, he survives.
jal...@cox.net
>:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<nbd7eukbqpupq4a6g...@4ax.com>...
>:|> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|That said, granting the essence of your definitions of deism,
>:|> >:|basically a naturalistic religion rejecting revelation, why do you
>:|> >:|assert that Jefferson rejected revelation in his early years?
>:|>
>:|> I didn't define deism. I provided information from a variety of sources, at
>:|> least one of which came from a so called modern day deist.
>:|
>:|Fair enough. Perhaps I should have said, "granting the essense of the
>:|definitions of deism that you provided," rather than "granting the
>:|essense of your definitions of deism." But let's face it, that is a
>:|rather trifling difference.
>:|
>:|> Jefferson walked away from the Church of England either in his teen years
>:|> or early 20s. You really are not aware of this?
>:|
>:|Frankly, no. I am not saying you aren't correct. I'm just saying that
>:|it is my recollection that Jefferson maintained his pew in the Church
>:|of England for most of his life. My recollection could be wrong. Help
>:|me refresh it with some authoritative source.
So what?
He also attended church at various times, gave money to various churches,
had ministers to his home for dinner, visits, etc.
That doesn't alter the fact that he walked away from orthodox religion in
his teen or early 20s.
Why do you think so many of his contemporaries attacked him so often on his
"perceived lack of religion" if he was as you are trying to make him?
I am not impressed with your opinions or recollection.
>:|
>:|> >:|This doesn't require a huge answer, jalison. If you dump a lot of
>:|> >:|tangential and abitrary material into a response post, it shall be
>:|> >:|clear that you are not interested in a dialogue, only a monologue, and
>:|> >:|I will get out of the way if all you want to do is spout a monologue.
>:|>
>:|> Then I suggest you get out of the way.
>:|
>:|Admitting that you're only interested in a monologue, eh?
>:|
>:|> I provide information that gives what one might call other viewpoints, the
>:|> rest of the story, the other side of the story.
>:|> Having a "dialogue" with your personally? I could care less.
>:|
>:|I see where you are coming from. Fine. As long as you aren't
>:|hypocritical, expecting others to respond to your questions and
>:|dialogue with you, so be it. If you expect me to read what you write,
>:|and to respond, then you rightly should be dismissed as a hypocrite.
>:|
>:|> I don't care if you reply to it or not.
>:|
>:|Fair enough. I will indeed ignore superfluous and tangential blather.
>:|Although I cannot make you do it, I am hoping that you might answer my
>:|questions with relevant data. I am not sure yet what you are all
>:|about. You seem to have researched a good bit of history, and yet you
>:|also seem to be aligned with the atheistic parties
I seem to recall I found your posts/replies there.
What does that mean, that your a troll, trying to stir up the homeboys and
girls in alt.atheism?
Ambrose/Gardiner, I suspect you know exactly what I am "all about," as you
put it.
There is a web site that makes it rather clear.
You can continue with your masquerade if you like. I suspect the more I
recall your old posts that game will become more and more transparent to
any who cares to read and see how alike your current wording, positions,
etc are to that infamous nut case (Gardiner)
jal...@cox.net
>:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<pgd7eu4qt7i4a8kua...@4ax.com>...
>:|> >:|Acceptible is defined by only two doctrines:
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|1st. "That there is a God."
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|II. "That God is publicly to be worshipped."
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|Under that definition of "orthodox," which of the founders were
>:|> >:|"unorthodox"?
>:|>
>:|> Sorry, not going to play your game with you.
>:|> But you are very careful in constructing that game.
>:|> Why do I call it a game? Simple, you seem well versed enough in the topic
>:|> to already know what was the common beliefs of the Church of England and of
>:|> the denominations that touted Calvinism, which basically made up the most
>:|> prevalent established religions in the colonies from mid 1600s to mid
>:|> 1700s.
>:|>
>:|> If you are going to get into charters etc, you are going top find some
>:|> pretty harsh things as being required, expected, accepted, etc.
>:|>
>:|> I wonder if you are going to list those as well? I bet not.
>:|Sure, some charters required trinitarian adherence.
BZZZZZZZZZZZ, TRY AGAIN
LOL, that is quite a understatement. Another Gardiner trait.
Just a few items found in the various charters that helped define
orthodoxy:
Religious Test for Admittance
Death Penalty for Blasphemy, 1610
Sunday Law of 1610
Law Requiring Church Attendance, 1623/4?
Sunday Travel and Church Attendance, 1661/2
Law of 1662, Requiring Baptism of Children
Law of 1663 Against Quakers
Lashes for Sunday Labor, Travel, and Nonattendance
at Church, 1705
Death Penalties for Idolatry, Infidelity, Witchcraft, 1671
Death Penalty for Presumptuous Sunday Desecration, 1671
Orthodoxy Required of Freeman, 1672
Church Membership Required for Commissioners of the
New England Confederacy
The First “Sabbath” Regulation, 1629 ’
First Prosecution Under Religious Rule, 1630
Court Compels Church Attendance on Sundays, 1635
Civil Government on Basis of Divine Government, 1636
May,
Religious Death Penalties, 1641
Banishment for Heresy, 1646
Catholic Priests Banned on Penalty of Death, 1647
Banishment or Death for Denying the Bible, 1651
“An Act to Punish Blasphemers, Swearers, Drunkards, and
Sabbathebreakers,” 1723.
An Act Prohibiting Sports and Labors on the
First Day of the Week, 1679
Support of State Religion
Civil Concern With Religion
An Act for the Suppression of Immorality, 1704
Conversion of the Indians
Branding for Blasphemy, 1739-l 740
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: PART I. COLONIAL PERIOD
-Early Colonial Religious Laws 15, American State Papers on Freedom in
Religion. 4th Revised Edition. Published in 1949 for The Religious Liberty
Association, Washington, D.C. First Edition Compiled by William Addison
Blakely, of the Chicago Bar. (1890) under the Title American State Papers
Bearing on Sunday Legislation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>:|But the subject
>:|matter at hand was "orthodoxy" and Thomas Jefferson. You stated:
>:|
>:|"Try reading the very first state constitutions. You will find that
>:|which was acceptable. Orthodox simply means acceptable." (jalison)
>:|
>:|The state constitution which would determine "acceptability" and
>:|"orthodox" in Jefferson's domain would be the state Constitution of
>:|Virginia, not the constitution of Massachusetts or South Carolina.
Ho hum.
Biographers have often noted that Story and Jefferson disliked each other.
. . . Story in turn, disagreed with Jefferson's economic programs as well
as his overall political philosophy, and saw Jefferson's Religious views as
a threat to that moral virtue [he felt was] indispensable for the success
of the Republic. (111)
111. See Joseph Story to Jeremiah Mason, January 10, 1822, Life and
Letters, 1:411; Joseph Story to Samuel Fay, February 18, 1830, 1:33; Joseph
Story to Edward Everett, May 31, 1832, 2:429-431. See also Newmyer, pp 31,
183; McCellan, p. 119.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Rhetoric and Reality of the "Christian Nation"
Maxim in American Law, 1810-1920, by Steven Keith Green. A unpublished
Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History. Chapel Hill (1999) p.
114)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
FEBRUARY 15, 1830
Washington,
February 15th, 1830.
MY DEAR FRIEND:
I thank you for your half of the letter I lately received, and
still more for the better half from another source, which, not intending to
raise any domestic strife, I must say was quite interesting,
Have you seen Mr. Jefferson's Works? If not, sit down at once and
read his fourth volume. It is the most precious melange of all sorts of
scandals you ever read. It will elevate your opinion of his talents, but
lower him in point of principle and morals not a little, His attacks on
Christianity are (i la mode de Voltaire; and singularly bold, and
mischievous. Few public men have escaped his reproof; but the Federalists
are dealt with in terms of unmeasured harshness.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter written by Justice Joseph Story to Judge
Fay, February 15, 1830, Life and Letters of Joseph Story, edited by William
Story, Volume II, Little and Brown, Boston, 1851, pp 33)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES KENT
James Kent, (1763-1847) a close friend of U S Supreme Court Chief Justice
John Marshall and U S Supreme Court Associate Justice Joseph Story,
Attorney, Jurist, public official, first Professor of Law at Columbia
University, Judge on the New York State Supreme Court, and its chief
Justice, Author of the Commentaries on American Law, (1826-1830) author of
the infamous People v Ruggles decision in 1811, and along with Joseph
Story, called by some "Father of American Jurisprudence."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Original Intent, The Courts, the Constitution, &
Religion. David Barton, Wallbuilder Press, (1996) p. 393)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND
James Kent also disliked Jefferson, in part for Jefferson's attacks on the
Federalist judiciary but also because of the perceived threat of
Jeffersonian irreligion to public order and morality. After reading George
Tucker's Life of Thomas Jefferson, published in 1837, Kent reputedly made
notations in the book's margins criticizing Jefferson's "hostility to
religion" and his preference for "the study of moral philosophy."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Rhetoric and Reality of the "Christian Nation"
Maxim in American Law, 1810-1920, by Steven Keith Green. A unpublished
Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History. Chapel Hill (1999) p.
136
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sentiments of Chancellor Kent toward Thomas Jefferson and his
principles are, perhaps, well shown forth by a letter addressed to the
Chancellor by Theodore Dwight, in August, 1837. It is unfortunate that no
copy of his reply to this letter is preserved, but from the circumstance
that Mr. Dwight desired to submit the plan of his work for his criticism,
it cannot be doubted that that gentleman was confident of the sentiments of
the man whom.he was addressing.
Theodore Dwight to Chancellor, Kent.
HARTFORD, August 3, 1837.
19. Was not .a Christian.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That Chancellor Kent was thoroughly in accord with Mr. Dwight in
his conception of the character of Jefferson is fairly shown by his notes
pencilled in the first volume of George Tucker's " Life of Thomas
Jefferson," published in 1837, which illustrate not only his method of
making such memoranda, but reveal his sentiments on reaching that portion
of the narrative which dealt with that period of Jefferson's` political
career with which he himself was the most familiar.
Notes in Tucker's " Life of Jefferson."
" His hostility to religion. and the study of moral philosophy, p.
243."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION.William Kent, Memoirs and Letters of James Kent, LL.
D. Little, Brown, and Company, Boston, (1898) p. 219-223
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shall I list all the attacks on Jefferson during the elections of 1796,
1801, 1805, based on his "lack of religion, and his unorthodox religious
views," etc.?
>:|
>:|Here is what the first State Constitution of VA says is acceptable:
State Constitutions
The sections dealing with religion of the state constitutions have
been excerpted on the following pages:
The Original Thirteen States:
Introduction (Original and Early State Constitutions)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/cnstntro.htm
[snip]
>:|
>:|> Moving from the charters and grants to the early state Constitutions you
>:|> are going to find such things as:
>:|> ____________________________________________________
>:|> who shall confess and acknowledge Our almighty God, the Creator,
>:|> Upholder and Ruler of the world
>:|>
>:|> AND that all Persons who also profess to believe in Jesus Christ, the
>:|> Saviour of the World,
>:|
>:|That's not what defined "acceptability" in the Virginia in which
>:|Washington, Jefferson, and Madison lived after 1776.
>:|
>:|> . That all Persons professing the Christian Religion ought forever to enjoy
>:|> "I _______, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His
>:|> only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, One God, blessed for
>:|> evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old Testament and
>:|> New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration.
>:|>
>:|> . Although it is the duty of all men frequently to assemble together for
>:|> the public worship of the Author of the universe, and piety and morality,
>:|> on which the prosperity of communities depends, are thereby promoted;
>:|>
>:|> obedience of the only true GOD, and the Saviour of Mankind, and of the
>:|> Christian Faith,
>:|>
>:|> "representatives . . . shall be of the Protestant religion,
>:|>
>:|> That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he
>:|> thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian
>:|> religion, are equally entitled to Protection in their religious liberty;
>:|> wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested . . .
>:|>
>:|> required "a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion" for all
>:|> state officers.
>:|>
>:|> It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly and at
>:|> stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and
>:|> Preserver of the universe.
>:|>
>:|> I _______, do declare that I believe the Christian religion,
>:|>
>:|> That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the
>:|> Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments,
>:|> or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and
>:|> safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of
>:|> trust or profit in the civil department within this State.
>:|>
>:|> That all persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one
>:|> God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is
>:|> publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated.
>:|>
>:|> The Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed, and is hereby
>:|> constituted and declared to be, the established religion of this State.
>:|> That all denominations of Christian Protestants in this State, demeaning
>:|> themselves peaceably and faithfully, shall enjoy equal religious and civil
>:|> privileges.
>:|>
>:|> Ist. That there is one eternal God, and a future state of rewards and
>:|> punishments.
>:|>
>:|> 2d. That God is publicly to be worshipped.
>:|>
>:|> 3d. That the Christian religion is the true religion.
>:|>
>:|> 4th. That the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are of divine
>:|> inspiration, and are the rule of faith and practice.
>:|>
>:|> 5th That it is lawful and the duty of every man being thereunto called by
>:|> those that govern, to bear witness to the truth.
>:|>
>:|>
>:|> That last sums it up pretty nicely.
>:|
>:|Which one of these clauses have you taken from the Constitution which
>:|determined
>:|"acceptability" in the region which Washington, Jefferson, and Madison
>:|called home?
>:|
>:|> Orthodox also meant the majority or established religion of a region or
>:|> area and of course further meant it was the one true religion. Dissenters
>:|> were considered to be infidels, heretics, worshipper of a false god
>:|> following bastardize and corrupted teachings.
>:|
>:|I can't begin to tell you how far off the mark that is.
>:|
Good, don't waste my time or yours.
>:|The Calvinists in America were known as "dissenters." Adams ironically
>:|noted that the "Dissenters" in American were in the majority.
>:|
>:|John Adams to J. Morse, December 2, 1815, in Works of John Adams,
>:|Second President of the United States: With A Life of the Author,
>:|Charles Francis Adams, ed., 10 vols.
>:|
>:|John Bartlett, the famous quotations guy, says that "Dissenter" was a
>:|synonym for "Presbyterian."
>:|
>:|John R. Bartlett, Dictionary of Americanisms (New York: Bartlett and
>:|Welford, 1848), 38.
>:|
>:|> Washington, like many of our founding fathers was a Deist, not a Christian.
>:|
>:|Speculative. Unlike Franklin and Jefferson, Washington never mentioned
>:|the word deism in his religious correspondence. He did, however,
>:|explicitly promote the religion of Jesus Christ.
>:|
>:|Furthermore, if the definition of a Deist is essentially "one who
>:|rejects and denies revelation"
>:|http://work.ucsd.edu:5141/cgi-bin/http_webster?isindex=deist&method=exact
>:|this man who spoke of "the pure and benign light of revelation"
>:|probably did not fit that definition.
>:|
>:|> Washington, like many of our founding fathers was a Deist, not a Christian.
>:|
>:|Speculative, at best. Certainly flies in the face of one who knew him
>:|most intimately.
NEW
George Washington and Religion
http://www.virginiaplaces.org/religiongw.html
Six Historic Americans George Washington
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_3.html
GEORGE WASHINGTON AND DEISM
http://www.deism.com/washington.htm
George Washington's, Silent Lack of Piety
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/washington.htm
What Was Washington's Belief? by Franklin Steiner
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/steiner0.htm#WASHINGTON
http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9710.htm
George Washington's Attitude Towards Religion
http://www.bessel.org/gwrelig.htm
[Nellie #1 --- 8-27-00]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl676151689d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=7v4iqsgne7n0s8gi
i8dsufg0m8adttbb63%404ax.com
[ Nellie #2 --- 8-26-00]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2496782560d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=oehfqsc5cgpimo
c04fu3ues8gtbnpi27m3%404ax.com
[Nellie #3 --- 8-26-00]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2496782560d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=1XUp5.11972%
24Xg.240374%40news-east.usenetserver.com
[Nellie #4 --- 8-27-00]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2184778732d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=WGaq5.24672%
24Xg.668492%40news-east.usenetserver.com
[Nellie #5 --- 8-30-00
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2184778732d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=N0hr5.36056%2
4IM3.804901%40news-east.usenetserver.com
[Nellie #6 --- 8-26-00
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2184778732d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=8o9p4s%24rkv
%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
[Washington-Bean, --- 5/16/20]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl206590337d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=lsh8eucp8ttc9smn
dpcqdnne9d4um7c1dm%404ax.com
[George Washington --- 5/17/02]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2727323779d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=q0p9eu0qfsbcir7
sj5ikeuo0mtuk7c5rh6%404ax.com
=========================================================================
>:|http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/youasked/060.htm
>:|
>:|Nelly Custis [G.W.'s adopted daughter who lived with him at Mt. Vernon
>:|for 20 years]
See the URLs above.
>:|
>:|> 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.
>:|
>:|Incorrect. Whose ethics was he referring to when he wrote: "demean
>:|ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind,
>:|which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed
>:|religion"?
>:|
>:|What is "our blessed religion"? Deism? If so, who is the author of
>:|deism who has these great ethical characteristics? Voltaire?
>:|
>:|Furthermore, Washington did get around to promoting the religion of
>:|Jesus Christ in his correspondence.
Take it up with the scholar who stated it. I see no reason to give any
credence to your Ambrose/Gardinerisms over that scholar or any scholar.
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.)
>:|> 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.
>:|
>:|Craftily stated. Although the word "Christ" doesn't show up in his
>:|letters to "friends," the word "Christian" shows up routinely. And the
>:|word "Christ" indeed does show up in his diplomatic correspondence.
You have anything to offer other than ambrose/Gardinerisms?
>:|
>:|> (Paul F. Boller, George Washington &
>:|> Religion, Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, pp. 74-75.)
>:|
>:|Boller has a reputation of being a bit radical.
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>:|
>:|> FEBRUARY 1, 1800
>:|>
>:|> Doctor Rush tells me that he has it from Asa Green, that when the clergy
>:|> addressed General Washington on his departure from the government, it was
>:|> observed in their consultation, that he had never, on any occasion, said a
>:|> word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion,
>:|
>:|Do you realize how much hearsay is involved in this assessment of
>:|Washington?
Sure.
Having some official legal training, I sure do.
However, this isn't a court of law. Now, is that your best shot?
Have you disproved it?
You do realize that your opinions would not be allowed in a court of law
either. You sure you really want to go this route?
>:|This is the point of view not of Washington, but of Jefferson, who
>:|supposedly got his info from the opinion of Benjamin Rush, who, in
>:|turn, supposedly received his information from Asa Green... who makes
>:|his assessment not on anything Washington said, but based on what
>:|Washington didn't say. This is called the fallacy ad ignorantium, not
>:|to mention triple hearsay.
>:|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEBRUARY 1, 1800
Doctor Rush tells me that he has it from Asa Green, that when the clergy
addressed General Washington on his departure from the government, it was
observed in their consultation, that he had never, on any occasion, said a
word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and
they thought they should so pen their address, as to force him at length to
declare publicly whether he was a Christian or not. They did so. However,
he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every
article of their address particularly except that, which he passed over
without notice. Rush observes, he never did say a word on the subject in
any of his public papers, except in his valedictory letter to the Governors
of the States, when he resigned his commission in the army, wherein he
speaks of "the benign influence of the Christian religion."
I know that Gouverneur Morris, who pretended to be in his secrets
and believed himself to be so, has often told me that General Washington
believed no more of that system than he himself did.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Entry by Thomas Jefferson in his Anas. February 1
1800, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Selected and Edited by Saul K.
Padover , The Easton press. (1967) pp 217-218)
=====================================================
Doctor Rush was quite orthodox. If anything the above comments would
probably have pained him.
We also toss in another, that being Gouvereur Morris, who backs up the
comments and stated he wasn't a believer in that system either.
>:|Ever heard of the old game "telephone"? Do you remember the point of
>:|it?
>:|
>:|> He [Madison] never became a member of the Episcopal Church,
>:|
>:|Doesn't Ketcham also indicate that Madison led in the celebration of
>:|the sacrament of Holy Communion at Montpelier?
LOL. Very lame attempt. Why did you even bother?
[Madison --- 5/18/02]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2293211412d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=jo4ceuscvq4regi
cu74ef8m9j04p5h9lu4%404ax.com
>:|> "Second, the contributions of religion, especially Protestantism,
>:|> to the shaping of American society must be put into clearer perspective. In
>:|> the generation that produced the Constitution, only about ten percent of
>:|> the population were church members,
>:|
>:|Two big errors here:
>:|
>:|1) religion is equated with church membership. Weird.
LOL, can be educational.
>:|2) the data is factually wrong.
It might be a tad bit low, other estimates say 17% as you already know.
>:|> In the last years of Washington's Presidency, Thomas Paine published The
>:|> Age of Reason, his extended attack on orthodox religious beliefs and on the
>:|> Bible. In doing so, he spoke for the most advanced liberal thinkers of his
>:|> day. Eight American editions of his book appeared the first year. Though
>:|> stating their opinions less bluntly, Franklin and Jefferson and perhaps a
>:|> majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence basically
>:|> agreed with Paine.
>:|
>:|That assertion flies in the face of the evidence:
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I see you deleted the scholar who said the above. How childish.
>:|Before Paine published his Age of Reason, he sent a manuscript copy to
>:|Benjamin Franklin, seeking his thoughts. Notice Franklin's strong and
>:|succinct reply:
>:|
>:|"burn this piece before it is seen by any other person"
>:|
>:|Benjamin Franklin, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, Ed.,
>:|(Boston: Tappan, Whittemore and Mason, 1840) X:281-282.
>:|
So? Does that show he was trying to "protect" Paine or that he disagreed?
Hummmmmmmm?
>:|Samuel Adams was not quite as cordial as Franklin:
Big deal, I already posted Paine's reply to him.
>:|
>:|Many other similar writings could be cited, but these are sufficient
>:|to show that Paine's views were strongly rejected even by the least
>:|religious Founders. In fact, Paine's views caused such vehement public
>:|opposition that -- as Franklin predicted -- he spent his last years in
>:|New York as "an outcast" in "social ostracism" and was buried in a
>:|farm field because no American cemetery would accept his remains.
I had already responded to this before, apparently you missed it.
All but a couple of the above names were names of men who were quite
religious and probably quite orthodox.
Nothing you have posted here alters the truth of the following, in fact it
helps prove it:
Some were orthodox Christians that were very into religion..
Some were orthodox Christians who were rather indifferent to religion
Some were Deist (Non-orthodox)
Some were Quakers (Non-orthodox)
Some were Catholic (Considered non-orthodox by most Protestant types who
were orthodox)
Some were Unitarian (Non-orthodox)
Some probably were closet atheists or "infidels"
Some began as one thing and later moved into other areas of thinking and
beliefs.
I might add that often times "ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS" meant a member of the
majority or established religion of a particular area or region. All
others were dissenters and, more often than not, not viewed as "orthodox
Christians."
Orthodox also meant the majority or established religion of a region or
area and of course further meant it was the one true religion. Dissenters
were considered to be infidels, heretics, worshipper of a false god
following bastardize and corrupted teachings.
Orthodox was usually defined by most or many of the following elements:
Some of "orthodox" beliefs were
* A belief in Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the World,
* A belief in the trinity
* A belief in the divinity of Jesus
* A belief in the resurrection
* A belief in the assention
* A belief in the miracles as recorded in the Bible.
* That there is one eternal God, and a future state of rewards and
punishments. (A Heaven and Hell)
* That God is publicly to be worshipped.
* That the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are of divine
inspiration, and are the rule of faith and practice.
* 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
*Athanasian creed
*Various Article of Faith
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anywhere from four to six of the first U S Presidents would disqualify as
"orthodox" Christians, as that term was understood then.
=======================================================
>:|
>:|The rest of your post, which appears to be the same exact stuff you
>:|post every day, was ignored.
Can't handle it, huh?
>:|
>:|Ambrose
jal...@cox.net
>:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<08ffeuolg7b4ennn7...@4ax.com>...
>:|
>:|> the contributions of religion, especially Protestantism,
>:|> to the shaping of American society must be put into clearer perspective. In
>:|> the generation that produced the Constitution, only about ten percent of
>:|> the population were church members, and "in 1800 there were fewer churches
>:|> relative to population than at any other time before or since.
>:|
>:|A myth entirely exploded by Patricia U. Bonomi and Peter R.
>:|Eisenstadt, "Church Adherence in the Eighteenth-Century British
>:|Colonies," WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY 39 (April 1982): 245-86.
Sorry to burst your bubble again.
The only myth being exploded is your claim that a myth is being exploded.
>:|
>:|> (2) Despite being the first Trinitarian to occupy the office,
>:|> [Andrew]Jackson
>:|> refused to issue fast-day proclamations or to view with any sympathy the
>:|> religiously inspired movement to stop Sunday mail delivery.
>:|
>:|Good.
>:|
>:|> (3) At the time of the Revolution most of the founding fathers had not put
>:|> much emotional stock in religion,
>:|
>:|But the founders sure did put a lot of stock in the importance of
>:|religion:
>:|
>:|"[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the
>:|principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation
>:|of a free constitution is pure virtue."
>:|
>:|(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the
>:|United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown,
>:|1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)
>:|
>:|"[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with
>:|human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our
>:|constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is
>:|wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
>:|
>:|(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the
>:|United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown,
>:|and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)
>:|
>:|"There are three points of doctrine the belief of which forms the
>:|foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of God; the
>:|second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future
>:|state of rewards and punishments. Suppose it possible for a man to
>:|disbelieve either of these three articles of faith and that man will
>:|have no conscience, he will have no other law than that of the tiger
>:|or the shark. The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to
>:|death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy."
>:|
>:|(Source: John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams to His Son on
>:|the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850), pp.
>:|22-23.)
>:|
>:|"They who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so
>:|sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal
>:|misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are
>:|undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the
>:|duration of free governments."
>:|
>:|Charles Carroll to James McHenry, November 4, 1800.
>:|
>:|"Is it probable that an empire can rise without his [God's] aid? We
>:|have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that 'except the Lord
>:|build the House, they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe
>:|this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall
>:|succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of
>:|Babel."
>:|
>:|(Source: James Madison, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787,
>:|Max Farrand, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. I,
>:|pp. 450-452, June 28, 1787.)
>:|
>:|"To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil
>:|freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys.
>:|. . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our
>:|present republican forms of government, and all blessings which flow
>:|from them, must fall with them."
>:|
>:|(Source: Jedediah Morse, Election Sermon given at Charleston, MA, on
>:|April 25, 1799.)
>:|
>:|"The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be
>:|laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without
>:|virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of
>:|all republican governments."
>:|
>:|(Source: Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical
>:|(Philadelphia: Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), p. 8.)
>:|
>:|"While just government protects all in their religious rights, true
>:|religion affords to government its surest support."
>:|
>:|(Source: George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C.
>:|Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
>:|Office, 1932), Vol. XXX, p. 432 n., from his address to the Synod of
>:|the Dutch Reformed Church in North America, October 9, 1789.)
>:|
>:|"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political
>:|prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain
>:|would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to
>:|subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of
>:|the duties of man and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the
>:|pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not
>:|trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it
>:|simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation,
>:|for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which
>:|are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?
>:|
>:|And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be
>:|maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence
>:|of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and
>:|experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail
>:|in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that
>:|virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The
>:|rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free
>:|government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with
>:|indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?"
>:|
>:|(Source: George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of
>:|the United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore:
>:|George and Henry S. Keatinge), pp. 22-23. In his Farewell Address to
>:|the United States in 1796.)
>:|
>:|"The most perfect maxims and examples for regulating your social
>:|conduct and domestic economy, as well as the best rules of morality
>:|and religion, are to be found in the Bible. . . . The moral principles
>:|and precepts found in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all
>:|our civil constitutions and laws."
>:|
>:|(Source: Noah Webster, History of the United States, "Advice to the
>:|Young" (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), pp. 338-340, par. 51, 53,
>:|56.)
>:|
>:|"Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters,
>:|friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into
>:|each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral
>:|sense, forms an essential part of both."
>:|
>:|(Source: James Wilson, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson
>:|(Philadelphia: Bronson and Chauncey, 1804), Vol. I, p. 106.)
>:|
>:|> As enlightened gentlemen, they abhorred "that gloomy superstition
>:|> disseminated by ignorant illiberal preachers" and looked forward to the day
>:|> when "the phantom of darkness will be dispelled by the rays of science, and
>:|> the bright charms of rising civilization."
>:|
>:|Try reading the quote in context. Those superstitions and darknesses
>:|were the Roman Catholic vestiges of the middle ages, not "religion"
>:|per se. You do the same thing as those who claim Madison's aversion
>:|for establishments equate to an aversion for religion, or like the
>:|claim you posted saying that because Kent hated the R.C. crucifix, he
>:|must have hated Christianity.
>:|
>:|> (4) At best, most
>:|
>:|I thought you said you weren't interested in percentages?
>:|
>:|> (5) Although few of them were outright deists, most like David Ramsay
>:|> described the Christian church as "the best temple of reason.
>:|
>:|Yes. Harvard was founded by Puritans in 1636 who believed, like
>:|Augustine, that reason and revelation were of the same province.
>:|
>:|> (6) Franklin and Jefferson and perhaps a majority of the signers of the
>:|> Declaration of Independence basically agreed with Paine.
>:|
>:|That assertion flies in the face of the primary source evidence:
>:|
>:|Before Paine published his Age of Reason, he sent a manuscript copy to
>:|Benjamin Franklin, seeking his thoughts. Notice Franklin's strong and
>:|succinct reply:
>:|
>:|"burn this piece before it is seen by any other person"
>:|
>:|Benjamin Franklin, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, Ed.,
>:|(Boston: Tappan, Whittemore and Mason, 1840) X:281-282.
>:|
>:|Samuel Adams was not quite as cordial as Franklin:
>:|
>:|> (10) By the end of the 18th century, Deism had become a dominant religious
>:|> attitude among intellectual and upper class Americans.
>:|
>:|Says who?
>:|
>:|> LOL, are you going to include your errors? No, I didn't think so.
>:|
>:|Point out one of my errors. Just one sentence. I'm waiting.
>:|
>:|Ambrose
jal...@cox.net
>:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<08ffeuolg7b4ennn7...@4ax.com>...
>:|
>:|> the contributions of religion, especially Protestantism,
>:|> to the shaping of American society must be put into clearer perspective. In
>:|> the generation that produced the Constitution, only about ten percent of
>:|> the population were church members, and "in 1800 there were fewer churches
>:|> relative to population than at any other time before or since.
>:|
>:|A myth entirely exploded by Patricia U. Bonomi and Peter R.
>:|Eisenstadt, "Church Adherence in the Eighteenth-Century British
>:|Colonies," WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY 39 (April 1982): 245-86.
Sorry to burst your bubble again.
The only myth being exploded is your claim that a myth is being exploded.
===========================================================
17% churching
alt.society.liberalism,soc.history.war.us-revolution,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.history.colonial,
alt.religion.deism,alt.religion.christian,alt.deism,alt.history.american.ap-exam
jalison
Re: New Book: Was America founded upon Christianity or Deism?
3-19-99
alt.society.liberalism,soc.history.war.us-revolution,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.history.colonial,
alt.religion.deism,alt.religion.christian,alt.deism,alt.history.american.ap-exam
Andrew C. Lannen
Re: New Book: Was America founded upon Christianity or Deism?
3-20-99
alt.society.liberalism,soc.history.war.us-revolution,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.history.colonial,
alt.religion.deism,alt.religion.christian,alt.deism,alt.history.american.ap-exam
jalison
Re: New Book: Was America founded upon Christianity or Deism?
3-21-99
alt.history.colonial
jalsion
Re: the role of religion in early america
3-29-99
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
jalson
Re: New Book: Was America founded upon Christianity or Deism?
4-12-99
=======================================================
There is one other post of mine in that series. It was after I went to ODU
and copied the W&M Q. Article mentioned above, and I pointed out to you why
it didn't apply.
I didn't have time to look for it today, but I will find it and include it
ambrose searle
> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>
> >:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<nbd7eukbqpupq4a6g...@4ax.com>...
> >:|> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
> >:|>
> >:|> >:|That said, granting the essence of your definitions of deism,
> >:|> >:|basically a naturalistic religion rejecting revelation, why do you
> >:|> >:|assert that Jefferson rejected revelation in his early years?
> >:|>
> >:|> I didn't define deism. I provided information from a variety of sources, at
> >:|> least one of which came from a so called modern day deist.
> >:|
> >:|Fair enough. Perhaps I should have said, "granting the essense of the
> >:|definitions of deism that you provided," rather than "granting the
> >:|essense of your definitions of deism." But let's face it, that is a
> >:|rather trifling difference.
> >:|
> >:|> Jefferson walked away from the Church of England either in his teen years
> >:|> or early 20s. You really are not aware of this?
> >:|
> >:|Frankly, no. I am not saying you aren't correct. I'm just saying that
> >:|it is my recollection that Jefferson maintained his pew in the Church
> >:|of England for most of his life. My recollection could be wrong. Help
> >:|me refresh it with some authoritative source.
>
> So what?
>
> He also attended church at various times, gave money to various churches,
> had ministers to his home for dinner, visits, etc.
>
> That doesn't alter the fact that he walked away from orthodox religion in
> his teen or early 20s.
But that isn't what you said (above). You asserted that he "walked
away from the Church of England." Your statement clearly implies that
he no longer wished to be a member of the C of E. I was simply asking
for some source to confirm your assertion. Now you do what you
frequently do, which is to change your initial claim to something very
different altogether, in order to save face, in order to prevent
yourself from ever saying, "whoops, I goofed."
Readers will indeed get a sense of your personal approach to things,
and it won't bode well for you.
> Why do you think so many of his contemporaries attacked him so often on his
> "perceived lack of religion" if he was as you are trying to make him?
What the heck are you talking about? What am I "trying to make him"??
> I am not impressed with your opinions or recollection.
At least when I make assertions, I will either give a source, or I
will admit an error. You don't seem to be able to do either in this
case.
> You can continue with your masquerade if you like. I suspect the more I
> recall your old posts that game will become more and more transparent to
> any who cares to read and see how alike your current wording, positions,
> etc are to that infamous nut case (Gardiner)
What does this rant have to do with historical inquiry? If you expect
readers to respect you, you need to stop bellyaching with ad hominems
and personal attacks, and own up to your own inconsistencies.
Ambrose
ambrose searle
> >:|matter at hand was "orthodoxy" and Thomas Jefferson. You stated:
> >:|
> >:|"Try reading the very first state constitutions. You will find that
> >:|which was acceptable. Orthodox simply means acceptable." (jalison)
> >:|
> >:|The state constitution which would determine "acceptability" and
> >:|"orthodox" in Jefferson's domain would be the state Constitution of
> >:|Virginia, not the constitution of Massachusetts or South Carolina.
How does what you have posted below, relate to what I have posted
above?
YOU were the one who defined "orthodoxy" above. Now, you seem to want
to renege on your definition, and make Story or Kent the definers of
"orthodoxy." Which is it Allison?
What does that have to do with your original contention that
"orthodoxy" is defined, not by election opponents, but by the state
constitution?
How many sites that you use as your evidence are atheist propaganda?
Let's see:
> Six Historic Americans George Washington
> http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_3.html
Infidels.org? Can't imagine the bias of that site.
> GEORGE WASHINGTON AND DEISM
> http://www.deism.com/washington.htm
A deists' commercial site, huh?
> George Washington's, Silent Lack of Piety
> http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/washington.htm
>
> What Was Washington's Belief? by Franklin Steiner
> http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/steiner0.htm#WASHINGTON
>
> http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9710.htm
PositiveAtheism.org? Sounds real neutral on the religion question.
> >:|Furthermore, Washington did get around to promoting the religion of
> >:|Jesus Christ in his correspondence.
>
> Take it up with the scholar who stated it. I see no reason to give any
> credence to your Ambrose/Gardinerisms over that scholar or any scholar.
Scholar who stated what? George Washington stated the above in his
address to the Delaware Chiefs, May 12, 1779.
On May 2, 1778, he stated that the label "Christian" is a better label
than the label "Patriot."
> Washington, like many of our founding fathers was a Deist, not a Christian.
Jefferson didn't seem to think the two had to be exclusive of each
other. Apparently you disagree with TJ on this score. Apparently you
think Bob Jones' definition of Christianty is more accurate than
Jefferson's.
Let's get past the speculation and look at the facts: Washington never
used the word Deist in referring to the religion he promoted. He did
use, however, the word "Christian" and "Christ" when referring to the
religion he wished to promote.
> 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.
Not so. Washington clearly suggested that Christ's ethics were to be
followed: See Washington's Letter to the Governors, June 8, 1783.
> Washington frequently alluded to Providence in his private correspondence.
> But the name of Christ, in any correspondence whatsoever, does not appear
Strike two. See Washington's letter of May 12, 1779, at the LOC
collection of Washington's papers.
> >:|Craftily stated. Although the word "Christ" doesn't show up in his
> >:|letters to "friends," the word "Christian" shows up routinely. And the
> >:|word "Christ" indeed does show up in his diplomatic correspondence.
>
> You have anything to offer other than ambrose/Gardinerisms?
Washington to Benedict Arnold, Sept. 14, 1775 (at that time, Arnold
was still a "friend")
Washington to Sir Edward Newenham, Oct 20, 1792
Washington to Lafayette, August 15, 1787
Washington, General Order, July 9, 1776
Washington, Speech, May 12, 1779
Washington to the Presbyterians, June 1789
Washington to the Episcopalians, August 19, 1789
Washington to the Roman Catholics, March 15, 1790
etc. etc.
Now I'm sure, given your record, that you will attempt to divert and
do gymnastics by the assertion from "Washington never used Christ or
Christian in his correspondence," to "the only thing that matters is
the context in which he used these terms." You'll do anything to avoid
having to admit to a factual error. But the record remains with
Google. You have made error after error after error. And now, it can
be expected of you to post the entirety of all of these letters that I
have cited above (which are available for anyone to see through the GW
papers at the LOC site), in order to attempt to divert the fact that
your assertion was simply factually wrong. Your behavior is sad to say
the least. But, have at it. If it makes you think that you haven't
blown it, play your game.
> >:|> FEBRUARY 1, 1800
> >:|>
> >:|> Doctor Rush tells me that he has it from Asa Green, that when the clergy
> >:|> addressed General Washington on his departure from the government, it was
> >:|> observed in their consultation, that he had never, on any occasion, said a
> >:|> word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion,
> >:|
> >:|Do you realize how much hearsay is involved in this assessment of
> >:|Washington?
>
> Sure.
> Having some official legal training, I sure do.
> However, this isn't a court of law. Now, is that your best shot?
> Have you disproved it?
Yes. The contention of this fourth hand report of the clergy, viz.,
that "he [Washington] never, on any occasion, said a word to the
public which showed a belief in the Christian religion," that is
easily refuted by a number of his addresses and speeches.
> >:|Before Paine published his Age of Reason, he sent a manuscript copy to
> >:|Benjamin Franklin, seeking his thoughts. Notice Franklin's strong and
> >:|succinct reply:
> >:|
> >:|"burn this piece before it is seen by any other person"
> >:|
> >:|Benjamin Franklin, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, Ed.,
> >:|(Boston: Tappan, Whittemore and Mason, 1840) X:281-282.
> >:|
>
> So? Does that show he was trying to "protect" Paine or that he disagreed?
> Hummmmmmmm?
Franklin was probably trying to protect Paine, because Franklin knew,
as you apparently do not know, that the majority of the founders would
not have countenanced deism. Franklin knew that Paine's anti-Christian
publication would not bode well for him among the majority of American
leaders. As is shown below.
> >:|Samuel Adams was not quite as cordial as Franklin:
>
> Big deal, I already posted Paine's reply to him.
Big deal. Regardless of what Paine replied, it doesn't change Adams'
disgust.
Some were old, some were young, some were big some were small, some
loved poetry, some hated Plato, some loved horses, some hated
Catholics, some were clergymen, some were probably gay.
"Some" is an extremely safe word, but it ultimately says very little
if anything about a GROUP of people.
By your continual posting of this list of "somes" you show how
meaningless and ambiguous your claims really are.
> I might add that often times "ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS" meant a member of the
> majority or established religion of a particular area or region. All
> others were dissenters and, more often than not, not viewed as "orthodox
> Christians."
Entirely incorrect.
Let me give a little lesson in ecclesiastical terminology in the 18th
century:
A local church building in the 18th century did not display a sign in
front advertising its denominational label so that everyone could
easily identify exactly what denomination of church it was. This
practice, which is the norm in present-day American society, is a
rather recent phenomenon. In the 18th century, distinctions between
denominations were cloudy at best. To the government, there were
essentially only three official classifications of Christian churches:
First, there was the "Roman" church, which, although tracing its
history to the apostles, was viewed by the British government and
other Protestants as wayward and corrupt. The common terms for the
Church of Rome used by English in the seventeenth and eighteenth
century were "the papacy," "prelacy," "popery," "the Romish church,"
and simply "Rome."
Next there was the "English" church known as the "Church of England,"
which was often identified by its episcopalian form of government.
This church, according to British law, was the legitimate, divinely
ordained, true heir and steward of the apostolic faith. As such, it
was recognized and established by law as the authentic church of Jesus
Christ.
Finally, there were groups who took issue with the authority of the
established Church of England. These groups were classified under the
general category of "dissenters." However, they included all sorts of
sects that held quite diverse doctrinal positions. Yet those in the
established church tended not to recognize the distinctions amongst
the dissenters, but preferred to lump them all under the banner of
"Presbyterians." Bartlett, the foremost scholar of famous quotations,
explained that "Presbyterian" was a classification "under which name
all dissenters were often included." This is mostly because the one
feature that dissenters did all share is that their ministers were
ordained by their elders (presbyters) rather than through any form of
apostolic succession, that is, through the mediation of an episcopate
(bishop). Dissenters rejected that form of ordination as tainted with
popery. As a result, even Congregationalists, Baptists, and
Independents were all firm advocates of the doctrine of "Presbyterian
Ordination." For this reason all dissenters were routinely labeled
Presbyterians, regardless of whether they were Presbyterian,
Congregationalist, Baptist, Independent or otherwise. Episcopalian
William Jones explained this central difference between the
Episcopalians and the Dissenters: "the dissenters have no ministry by
Succession... and think they are as well off as we are, because they
say, our right ordaining came down to us through the channel of
popery." Hence, Bishop Warburton referred to "the whole body of
dissenters in England and America" as "the "presbyterian faction."
> Orthodox also meant the majority or established religion of a region or
> area and of course further meant it was the one true religion.
You have provided no primary evidence showing how the word "orthodox"
was used.
> Dissenters
> were considered to be infidels, heretics, worshipper of a false god
> following bastardize and corrupted teachings.
Entirely erroneous. I have, above, explained the way "dissenter" was
used in the 18th century. I can provide dozens of examples more.
> Orthodox was usually defined by most or many of the following elements:
Source? No? None yet?
> >:|The rest of your post, which appears to be the same exact stuff you
> >:|post every day, was ignored.
>
> Can't handle it, huh?
It was nothing I hadn't already addressed. You seem to think that if
you post the same thing 100 different times, eventually it might
actually become relevant.
You are odious.
Ambrose
ambrose searle
> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>
> >:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<08ffeuolg7b4ennn7...@4ax.com>...
> >:|
> >:|> the contributions of religion, especially Protestantism,
> >:|> to the shaping of American society must be put into clearer perspective. In
> >:|> the generation that produced the Constitution, only about ten percent of
> >:|> the population were church members, and "in 1800 there were fewer churches
> >:|> relative to population than at any other time before or since.
> >:|
> >:|A myth entirely exploded by Patricia U. Bonomi and Peter R.
> >:|Eisenstadt, "Church Adherence in the Eighteenth-Century British
> >:|Colonies," WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY 39 (April 1982): 245-86.
>
> Sorry to burst your bubble again.
>
> The only myth being exploded is your claim that a myth is being exploded.
Wow, what a comeback! I guess you proved Dr. Bonomi and the William &
Mary Quarterly wrong with your entirely unsubstantiated blowing of hot
air.
Beat your chest more if you wish.
Ambrose
ambrose searle
> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>
> >:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<08ffeuolg7b4ennn7...@4ax.com>...
> >:|
> >:|> the contributions of religion, especially Protestantism,
> >:|> to the shaping of American society must be put into clearer perspective. In
> >:|> the generation that produced the Constitution, only about ten percent of
> >:|> the population were church members, and "in 1800 there were fewer churches
> >:|> relative to population than at any other time before or since.
> >:|
> >:|A myth entirely exploded by Patricia U. Bonomi and Peter R.
> >:|Eisenstadt, "Church Adherence in the Eighteenth-Century British
> >:|Colonies," WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY 39 (April 1982): 245-86.
>
> Sorry to burst your bubble again.
>
> The only myth being exploded is your claim that a myth is being exploded.
> ===========================================================
> alt.religion.deism,alt.religion.christian,alt.deism,alt.history.american.ap-exam
> Andrew C. Lannen
> Re: New Book: Was America founded upon Christianity or Deism?
> 3-20-99
Let's go ahead and look at that again:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=hl=en&lr=&selm=36f79838.23034413%40nntp.ix.netcom.com
From: Andrew C. Lannen (and...@ix.netcom.com)
Subject: Re: New Book: Was America founded upon Christianity or
Deism?
Newsgroups: alt.society.liberalism, soc.history.war.us-revolution,
alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.history.colonial,
alt.religion.deism,
alt.religion.christian, alt.deism, alt.history.american.ap-exam
Date: 1999/03/21
On Sat, 20 Mar 1999 17:24:06 GMT, jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>and...@ix.netcom.com (Andrew C. Lannen) wrote:
>
>You have any documentary evidence establishing what you are claiming?
If you want a specific citation, see Patricia U. Bonomi and
Peter B. Eisenstadt, "Church Adherence in the Eighteenth-Century
British American Colonies," William and Mary Quarterly 3d series, 39
(1982): 245-86. Their estimates are that about 69% of the white
population attended church regularly in 1765 and 59% in 1780 (not at
all surprising a drop given the turmoil of the war). On average, over
the 18th century this percentage of the churched population ranged
from 80% of whites in New England to 56% in the Chesapeake.
The William and Mary Quarterly, by the way, is the most
prestigious academic journal about early America published today.
>>:| Most colonial historians (even those hostile to religion)
will
>>:|tell you that the majority of people in early America attended
church.
>
>I presented information from two different sources.
>
>Source of information" THE CHURCHING OF AMERICA 1776-1990. Winners
and
>losers in our religions economy, by Roger Finke and Rodney Stark,
Rutgers
>University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey, (1994) Pages 25, 27,
29-30, 41
>In addition, Table 2.1 can also be found in CHURCH AND STATE IN THE
UNITED
>STATES, VOL. I Anson Phelps Stokes, D.D., LL.D. Harper & Brothers,
New
>York, (1950) page 273, with only a few minor variation in the numbers
as
>shown below:
>
>The two sources were published 54 years apart, and I bet you would
find
>used different sources. I have actually seen the figure 14% given in
other
>publications.
So you have one old source using numbers that are no longer
considered accurate, and a more recent source that repeated the
inaccurate numbers.
>The book is in paperback, so it doesn't cost that much if you had to
buy
>it. But I have seen it here in the Virginia Beach Public Library, so
I
>suspect it can be found in most fair sized public Libraries. Probably
in
>most college and university libraries as well.
>
>The book must have impressed some because it won "the Distinguished
Book
>Award for 1993" presented by the Society for the Scientific Study of
>religion.
Never heard of the award or the organization. You are aware
that any single person can start an organization and give out a book
award, right? I'd rather accept an article of high enough quality to
make it past the demanding editors and reviewers of the William and
Mary Quarterly, thanks.
------
Now, here is the substance of your profound rebuttal and "explosion"
of the what you call a "myth" being perpetrated by the William & Mary
Journal:
"I did, in fact go to ODU and obtained a copy of the article cited by
Lannen, Patricia U. Bonomi and Peter B. Eisenstadt, "Church Adherence
in the Eighteenth-Century British American Colonies," William and
Mary Quarterly 3d series, 39 (1982): 245-86.
It does not refute in any manner any of the evidence I presented. It
deals
mostly with time periods prior to the time period in question as given
in
the material I presented."
(http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=tklonsccvt8cdj77o710kog6o396hdh96o%404ax.com)
All you said is that the article deals mostly with time periods "prior
to the time in question."
Note what time periods the article refers to:
"Their estimates are that about 69% of the white population attended
church regularly in 1765 and 59% in 1780"
You were addressing, in your claims, the time period relevant "to the
shaping of American society" (what you posted). Are you saying that
President John Adams was all wet when he suggested that the years
between 1765 & 1776 were the years in which America was shaped?
More importantly, you never dealt with the fundamental contention of
Lannen, The William & Mary Quarterly, and me, which is that church
membership is not equivalent with religious belief.
That is a fallacy that you continue to perpetrate, demonstrating your
mishandling of history and of measuring the way people think and
behave. It is wrong to be so simplistic as to think that religion and
church membership are one and the same. Period.
Ambrose
jal...@cox.net
>:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<nr72fu8gh624oh7g7...@4ax.com>...
Actually that was sent before I was finished with it, but no problem
ambrose/gardiner
You totally blew your cover big time with this.
How many people do you honestly think, that would frequent these news these
news groups would be aware of that particular W&M Q article and would offer
that particular article in response to the above original comments?
You are either:
(1) Richard Gardiner, who has decided now that your schooling is probably
finished to return to the news groups, but to do so as another person, for
whatever reason
(2) Ambrose Searle (A Rev war person), who ran across the past exchanges
between R Gardiner and a host of other people in Google, studied them, then
decided for some insane unknown reason to adopt the persona of Gardiner. To
then appear in the newsgroups, taking his position, adopting his arguments,
even to the point of actually using his words in some cases.
Now, which really seems most likely?
It is stretching credibility beyond limits to think that neither of the
above is true, that you are simply some person who happened to appear here
and who just accidently is so Gardiner like, in position, in style, in
wording, and so on.
But, hey, go ahead, continue your little game.
==============================================================
Subject: Re: New Book: Was America founded upon
Christianity or Deism?
Newsgroups: alt.history.colonial, alt.religion.christian, alt.deism,
alt.religion.deism, soc.history.war.us-revolution,
alt.history.american.ap-exam,
alt.politics.usa.constitution
Date: 1999/03/14
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=370df852.2487168%40news.sig.net&rnum=92&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DGardiner%2540pitnet.net%26start%3D90%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26selm%3D370df852.2487168%2540news.sig.net%26rnum%3D92
------------------------------------------------------------------------
alt.society.liberalism,soc.history.war.us-revolution,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.history.colonial,
alt.religion.deism,alt.religion.christian,alt.deism,alt.history.american.ap-exam
R. Gardiner
Re: New Book: Was America founded upon Christianity or Deism?
3-19-99
[17% churched #1]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1915158611d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=36F16525.86C1F77F%40pitnet.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17% churching
alt.society.liberalism,soc.history.war.us-revolution,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.history.colonial,
alt.religion.deism,alt.religion.christian,alt.deism,alt.history.american.ap-exam
jalison
Re: New Book: Was America founded upon Christianity or Deism?
3-19-99
[17% churched #2]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1915158611d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=3702a96a.27748344%40news.pilot.infi.net
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
alt.society.liberalism,soc.history.war.us-revolution,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.history.colonial,
alt.religion.deism,alt.religion.christian,alt.deism,alt.history.american.ap-exam
Andrew C. Lannen
Re: New Book: Was America founded upon Christianity or Deism?
3-20-99
[ 17% churched #3]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3626370080d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=36f6ca17.12723584%40news.pilot.infi.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
alt.society.liberalism,soc.history.war.us-revolution,alt.politics.usa.constitution,
alt.history.colonial, alt.religion.deism, alt.religion.christian,
alt.deism, alt.history.american.ap-exam
Andrew C. Lannen
New Book: Was America founded upon Christianity or Deism?
Date: 1999/03/21
[17% Churched #4]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3626370080d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=36f79838.23034413%40nntp.ix.netcom.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
alt.society.liberalism,soc.history.war.us-revolution,alt.politics.usa.constitution,
alt.history.colonial, alt.religion.deism, alt.religion.christian,
alt.deism, alt.history.american.ap-exam
R. Gardiner
New Book: Was America founded upon Christianity or Deism?
Date: 1999/03/21
[17% churched # 5]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2764349343d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=36F4A147.46F60107%40pitnet.net
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jstor.org/journals/00435597.html
alt.society.liberalism,soc.history.war.us-revolution,alt.politics.usa.constitution,
alt.history.colonial, alt.religion.deism, alt.religion.christian,
alt.deism, alt.history.american.ap-exam
jalison
New Book: Was America founded upon Christianity or Deism?
Date: 1999/03/21
[17% Churched # 6]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3088339445d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=36f824aa.4092319%40news.pilot.infi.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=======================================================
There is one other post of mine in that series. It was after I went to ODU
and copied the W&M Q. article mentioned above, and I pointed out to you why
it didn't apply.
I didn't have time to look for it today, but I will find it and include it
But off the top of my head I recall the focus of the W&MQ article was prior
to the time period in question. Thus it was apples and oranges.
ambrose searle
Aren't you the same person who, a week or so ago was complaining about
former posters who "make it personal," who "go after the person"
rather than deal with the material?
Am I wrong about that? Did you ever complain about that kind of thing?
If I am not wrong about that, then your own behavior here has betrayed
everything you have ever written.
If all you want to do in a newsgroup is attempt to "guess" the
identity, name, address, and phone number of other posters, then you
really are the "nutcase" that you label others to be. You might want
to check out the general guidelines for usenet. Anonymity is
recommended. Furthermore, attempting to meddle into poster's identity
borders on a violation of privacy which is prohibited by most ISPs,
certainly Google.
So, in short, stop making it personal. If you want to share with the
world your name, address, phone number, PIN number, mother's maiden
name, etc., then, by all means, knock yourself out. If you want others
on the vast public sphere known as the internet to share private info
with you, then you need mental help.
If you want to keep playing your personal guessing games, have at it.
I've got better things to do.
Ambrose
jal...@cox.net
>:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<b644fugo1bte5vttn...@4ax.com>...
>:|> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
Nice try, but again no cigar.
I am not "going after" anyone.
BTW, I am dealing with the material. You just happen to make it very easy.
All this has been said before from approx March 4, 1999. to around the end
of September 2000.
Thus, you make it real easy just to re post those old arguments. Readers,
if there are any, can decide for themselves how much alike you are to the
infamous Gardiner.
>:|Am I wrong about that? Did you ever complain about that kind of thing?
>:|
>:|If I am not wrong about that, then your own behavior here has betrayed
>:|everything you have ever written.
>:|
>:|If all you want to do in a newsgroup is attempt to "guess" the
>:|identity, name, address, and phone number of other posters, then you
>:|really are the "nutcase" that you label others to be.
I could care less about your address, phone number. Don't even care about
your name. However, anyone familiar to Gardiner would quickly recognize how
alike your posts, your position, your choice of subject matter, your
"arguments, your examples, even in some cases your choice of phrases and
words are to the infamous Gardiner.
>:|You might want
>:|to check out the general guidelines for usenet. Anonymity is
>:|recommended. Furthermore, attempting to meddle into poster's identity
>:|borders on a violation of privacy which is prohibited by most ISPs,
>:|certainly Google.
Meddle? I don't think anything I have said qualifies as meddling.
>:|So, in short, stop making it personal. If you want to share with the
>:|world your name, address, phone number, PIN number, mother's maiden
>:|name, etc., then, by all means, knock yourself out. If you want others
>:|on the vast public sphere known as the internet to share private info
>:|with you, then you need mental help.
You don't need to share anything with me,
Your sharing with all by the mere fact of posting. You sharing by how alike
your posts, your position, your choice of subject matter, your "arguments,
your examples, even in some cases your choice of phrases and words are to
the infamous Gardiner.
People can compare for themselves by what you are saying now and what was
said in the various posts on the same topics in the 99-00 time frame, since
that is what I use to reply.
Why waste time typing in new replies when all that material lays there that
replied to the same points, same arguments, same positions, same examples
before?