Was Thomas Jefferson a Christian
Richard Weatherwax
mean that he accepted Christ as the "Son of God"? Or it he only mean that
he accepted the teachings of Jesus?
The best way to find out is from Jefferson himself.
I recommend the following Website:
http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/jeffbsyl.html#text
In it is a remarkable document called "The Jefferson Bible".
Other documents include "The Jefferson Syllabus" which was part of a letter
by Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803.
Also included on that page is Jefferson's letter to William Short, April 13,
1820
Below are excerpts from those documents:
From the letter to Benjamin Rush:
To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed,
but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a
Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to
be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to
all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence,
and believing he never claimed any other.
From the Syllabus:
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 Plato, 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.
* * * *
4. Hence the doctrines 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.
* * * *
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.
From Jefferson's letter to William Short:
But while this syllabus is meant to place the character
of Jesus in its true and high light, as no impostor Himself,
but a great Reformer of the Hebrew code of religion, it
is not to be understood that I am with Him in all His
doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of
Spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance
towards forgiveness of sin; I require counterpoise of
good works to redeem it,
* * * *
I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore
to Him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity
of some, and roguery of others of His disciples. Of this
band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great
Coryphaeus, and first corruptor of the doctrines of
Jesus.
--
Wax
Klark Kent
"Richard Weatherwax" <weath...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:TWCI8.1092$tq4.10...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
why?
Toodles
Klark
jal...@cox.net
>:|What did Thomas Jefferson mean when he said, "I am a Christian"? Did he
>:|mean that he accepted Christ as the "Son of God"? Or it he only mean that
>:|he accepted the teachings of Jesus?
>:|
>:|The best way to find out is from Jefferson himself.
>:|
>:|I recommend the following Website:
>:|
>:| http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/jeffbsyl.html#text
>:|
[Founders in general, long long post but most complete probably thus far
--- 5/19/02]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl783259543d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=9creeugfmesftrah
9m1epc0qac46rj0j8l%404ax.com
The American Historical Review Vol. 104 # 3 June 1999.
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/104.3/br_36.html
Allen Jayne. Jefferson's Declaration of Independence: Origins, Philosophy,
and Theology. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. 1998. Pp. xiii, 245.
$39.95.
This book is a clear, concise, and accurate account of the philosophical
and religious views that inspired Thomas Jefferson to compose the United
States' formative document. Allen Jayne leaves no doubt that the "Nature's
God" found in the Declaration of Independence, the deity who provides the
American colonists with their right to rebel against the British
government, is the rationalist God of deism, not the personal God of
Abraham.
[Mostly Jefferson, primary/secondary evidence, including old reply to
Gardiner---5/14/02]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3825310418d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=53i2eu0fuv023s
9r7r3itsg4839javqgiu%404ax.com
[Jefferson, primary/secondary material --- 5/16/02]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3825310418d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=27nceuor6e8g3d
ctnk6iqjt7d55brhavgv%404ax.com
[Mostly Jefferson --- 5/15/02]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3825310418d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=olj4eu8mi4g43qj
cq3g0fmck5atv7ojntg%404ax.com
**********************************************
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
**********************************************
pan
<weath...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
(snip)
>
>The best way to find out is from Jefferson himself.
>
(snip)
From,
"The Writings of Thomas Jefferson" , published by G. P. Putnam's Sons,
in 1894.:
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the
Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed
with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
"...If we could believe that he (Jesus) really countenanced the
follies, the falsehoods, and the charlatanisms which his biographers
(Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) father on him, and admit the
misconstructions, interpolations, and theorizations of the fathers of
the early, and the fanatics of the latter, ages, the conclusion would
be irresistible by every sound mind that he was an imposter."
Jefferson also wrote:
[When] the [Virginia] bill for establishing religious freedom ... was
finally passed, ... a singular proposition proved that its
protection of 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 a great majority, in proof
that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the
Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the
Hindoo and infidel of every denomination." --
Thomas Jefferson,
Autobiography, 1821.
pan
Dan Fake
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/extra/founding-fathers.html#jefferson
"In every country and every age, the priest has been
hostile to liberty.
He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have
perverted the purest religion ever preached to man
into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind,
and therefore the safer engine for their purpose."
- Thomas Jefferson, to Horatio Spafford,
March 17, 1814
- - -
"But a short time elapsed after the death of the great
reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles
were departed from by those who professed to be
his special servants, and perverted into an engine for
enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors
in Church and State."
- Thomas Jefferson to S. Kercheval, 1810
- - -
"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden
people maintaining a free civil government.
This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their
political as well as religious leaders will always avail them-
selves for their own purpose."
- Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813
- - -
"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
dross 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 imposture, which has resulted from artificial
systems, invented by ultra-Christian sects (The immac-
ulate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation
of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resur-
rection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence
in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement,
regeneration, election, orders of the Hierarchy, etc.)
is a most desirable object."
- Thomas Jefferson to W. Short, Oct. 31, 1819
- - -
"It is not to be understood that I am with him (Jesus
Christ) in all his doctrines.
I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he
preaches the efficacy of repentence toward forgiveness
of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem
it.
Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him
by his biographers, I find many passages of fine
imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely
benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance,
so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and
imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such
contradictions should have proceeded from the same
being.
I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore
him to the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity
of some, the roguery of others of his disciples.
Of this band of dupes and imposters, Paul was the
great Coryphaeus, and the first corruptor of the
doctrines of Jesus."
- Thomas Jefferson to W. Short, 1820
- - -
"The office of reformer of the superstitions of a
nation, is ever more dangerous.
Jesus had to work on the perilous confines of reason
and religion; and a step to the right or left might place
him within the grasp of the priests of the superstition,
a bloodthirsty race, as cruel and remorseless as the
being whom they represented as the family God of
Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, and the local God
of Israel.
That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind
as the son of God, physically speaking, I have been
convinced by the writings of men more learned than
myself in that lore."
- Thomas Jefferson to Story, Aug. 4, 1820
- - -
"The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to
the happiness of man. But compare with these the
demoralizing dogmas of Calvin.
1. That there are three Gods.
2. That good works, or the love of our neighbor,
is nothing.
3. That faith is every thing, and the more incompre-
hensible the proposition, the more merit the faith.
4. That reason in religion is of unlawful use.
5. That God, from the beginning, elected certain
individuals to be saved, and certain others to be
damned; and that no crimes of the former can
damn them; no virtues of the latter save."
- Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waterhouse,
Jun. 26, 1822
- - -
"Creeds have been the bane of the Christian church ...
made of Christendom a slaughter-house."
- Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waterhouse,
Jun. 26, 1822
- - -
"The truth is, that the greatest enemies of the doctrine
of Jesus are those, calling themselves the expositors
of them, who have perverted them to the structure of
a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and
without any foundation in his genuine words.
And the day will come, when the mystical generation
of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the
womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of
the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
- Thomas Jefferson to John Adams,
Apr. 11, 1823
- - -
\~=-\~=-\~=-\~=-\~=-\~=-\~=-\~=-\~=-\~=-\~=-\
Dan Fake, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://danfake.home.att.net
/~=-/~=-/~=-/~=-/~=-/~=-/~=-/~=-/~=-/~=-/~=-/
Richard Weatherwax
<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:q2o6fug6mdkk048ln...@4ax.com...
< CLIP >
>
>
> [Founders in general, long long post but most complete probably thus far
> --- 5/19/02]
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl783259543d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=9creeug
fmesftrah
> 9m1epc0qac46rj0j8l%404ax.com
>
>
> The American Historical Review Vol. 104 # 3 June 1999.
> http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/104.3/br_36.html
>
> Allen Jayne. Jefferson's Declaration of Independence: Origins, Philosophy,
> and Theology. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. 1998. Pp. xiii,
245.
> $39.95.
>
> This book is a clear, concise, and accurate account of the philosophical
> and religious views that inspired Thomas Jefferson to compose the United
> States' formative document. Allen Jayne leaves no doubt that
>the "Nature's God" found in the Declaration of Independence,
> the deity who provides the American colonists with their right
> to rebel against the British government, is the rationalist God
> of deism, not the personal God of Abraham.
You do not find those expressions in the Bible, but you do find similar
expressions in the writings of John Locke, a 17th century philosopher whom
Jefferson read.
> [Mostly Jefferson, primary/secondary evidence, including old reply to
> Gardiner---5/14/02]
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3825310418d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=53i2eu
0fuv023s
> 9r7r3itsg4839javqgiu%404ax.com
>
> [Jefferson, primary/secondary material --- 5/16/02]
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3825310418d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=27nceu
or6e8g3d
> ctnk6iqjt7d55brhavgv%404ax.com
>
> [Mostly Jefferson --- 5/15/02]
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3825310418d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=olj4eu
8mi4g43qj
> cq3g0fmck5atv7ojntg%404ax.com
>
>
> **********************************************
> THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
> SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
>
> "Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Careful. That could easily be read as: "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
> **********************************************
>
I like to go to the findlaw Supreme Court site:
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html
If you want to know about Freedom of Religion, just type it in and the site
will give you a list of Supreme Court decisions complete with the text of
the decisions.
Some good web sites. Thank you, I will keep this list.
--
Wax
Richard Weatherwax
"pan" <p...@psnwREMOVE.com> wrote in message
news:DC2228B857F92913.E006E559...@lp.airnews.net...
The heart of Jefferson's bill for establishing religious freedom is in
Section II
Section II.
We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no
man shall be compelled to frequent or support any
religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor
shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened
in his body or goods, or shall otherwise suffer, on
account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all
men shall be free to profess, and by argument to
maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that
the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect
their civil liberties.
The bill was passed in 1785. No Christian nation had ever quaranteed
freedom of religion. The governments of Europe were shocked and horified by
it. Yet within two years similar laws were passed by most stated. The
principle then became embeded into the Bill of Rights.
--
Wax
Job 13:7
Will you speak falsely for God,
and speak deceitfully for him?
jal...@cox.net
>:|> **********************************************
>:|> THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
>:|> SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
>:|>
>:|> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
>:|>
>:|> "Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
>:|
>:|Careful. That could easily be read as: "Dedicated to combatting history,
>:|by sound bite."
I'm not worried about it.
>:|
>:|>
>:|> 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
>:|> **********************************************
>:|>
>:|
>:|I like to go to the findlaw Supreme Court site:
>:| http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html
>:|
>:|If you want to know about Freedom of Religion, just type it in and the site
>:|will give you a list of Supreme Court decisions complete with the text of
>:|the decisions.
As much is offered at the site listed above, along with primary source
history.
>:|Some good web sites. Thank you, I will keep this list.
Richard Weatherwax
"Klark Kent" <klark...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
news:3cf3181c$0$3341$1dc6...@news.corecomm.net...
>
> "Richard Weatherwax" <weath...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> in message
> news:TWCI8.1092$tq4.10...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> > What did Thomas Jefferson mean when he said, "I am
> > a Christian"? Did he mean that he accepted Christ as the
> > "Son of God"? Or it he only mean that he accepted the
> > teachings of Jesus?
> >
> > The best way to find out is from Jefferson himself.
< CLIP >
> >
> >
> That's funny... I NEVER hear Rev Petey quote any of THIS stuff...
> I wonder why?
Many Christians believe that Jefferson was a Christian. More than one
person have quoted to me the passage where Jefferson says, "I am a
Christian." The person who gives me the quote appears to be totally unaware
that it is taken out of context. Usually they got the quote out of a book,
or from a religious web site. When challenged to come up with the full text
of the quote, they can't do it.
Numerous Christian leaders are spreading the false information that this
country was founded on Christian principles, although they cannot find these
principles in the Bible. Where does the Bible speak about "natural rights"?
Where does the Bible say, "All men are created equal"? Where does the Bible
speak about a democratic form of government?
On the contrary. While the Bible says that all governments are established
by God (Romans 13:1), the Constitution says that this government is
established by "We the People."
While the first Commandment demands the worship of one God. The first
amendment guarantees freedom of religion.
While the Bible says Jesus Christ is the son of God, the Constitution never
mentions Jesus Christ, God, or the Bible.
--
Wax
S of S: 5:1
Eat, friends, drink,
and be drunk with love.
stoney
<weath...@sbcglobal.net>, Message ID:
<UuWI8.4470$r%2.131...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
>
>"Klark Kent" <klark...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
>news:3cf3181c$0$3341$1dc6...@news.corecomm.net...
>>
>> "Richard Weatherwax" <weath...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
>> in message
>> news:TWCI8.1092$tq4.10...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>> > What did Thomas Jefferson mean when he said, "I am
>> > a Christian"? Did he mean that he accepted Christ as the
>> > "Son of God"? Or it he only mean that he accepted the
>> > teachings of Jesus?
>> >
>> > The best way to find out is from Jefferson himself.
>
> < CLIP >
>> >
>> >
>> That's funny... I NEVER hear Rev Petey quote any of THIS stuff...
>> I wonder why?
>
>Many Christians believe that Jefferson was a Christian. More than one
>person have quoted to me the passage where Jefferson says, "I am a
>Christian." The person who gives me the quote appears to be totally unaware
>that it is taken out of context. Usually they got the quote out of a book,
>or from a religious web site. When challenged to come up with the full text
>of the quote, they can't do it.
>
>Numerous Christian leaders are spreading the false information that this
>country was founded on Christian principles, although they cannot find these
>principles in the Bible.
Several times I let the statement go and list those principles:
theft
genocide
rapine
greed
lust
cultural genocide
bearing false witness
other
Either they fall silent or turn purple with rage.... :(eyes twinkle)
(snip)
--
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!
Mark Lloyd
wrote:
raping?
>greed
>lust
>cultural genocide
>bearing false witness
>other
>
slavery?
>Either they fall silent or turn purple with rage.... :(eyes twinkle)
>
>(snip)
--
Mark Lloyd
Atheist #1524
http://go.to/notstupid
"I don't believe in an afterlife, so I don't have to spend my whole life fearing hell,
or fearing heaven even more. For whatever the tortures of hell, I think the boredom of
heaven would be even worse." -- Isaac Asimov
hypa...@comcast.net
"stoney" <sto...@stoneynet.net> wrote in message
news:d6safugfj83sgucg6...@4ax.com...
--
Michelle Malkin (Mickey)
http://questioner.www2.50megs.com
stoney
ID: <r3jJ8.57125$%y.64...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
Heeheheheh....
ambrose searle
> "Klark Kent" <klark...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
> news:3cf3181c$0$3341$1dc6...@news.corecomm.net...
> >
> > "Richard Weatherwax" <weath...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> > in message
> > news:TWCI8.1092$tq4.10...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> country was founded on Christian principles,
Actually, there are scholars who "spread" a similar thesis.
Barry Alan Shain, The Protestant Origins of American Political Thought
(Princeton University Press, 1995)
James H. Hutson, ed., Religion and the New Republic: Faith in the
Founding of America (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,
2000).
Alan Heimert, Religion and the American Mind (Harvard University
Press, 1966).
Page Smith, The Religious Origins of the American Revolution
(Missoula, Scholars Press, 1976)
Daniel Dreisbach, Religion and Politics in the Early Republic
(Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1996).
William Warren Sweet, Religion In The Development Of American Culture,
1765-1840 (New York: Scribner, 1952).
Kevin Phillips, The Cousin's Wars (New York: Best Books, 1998).
Alice Baldwin, The New England Clergy And The American Revolution
(Durham: Duke University Press, 1928).
Patricia U. Bonomi, Under the Cope of Heaven: Religion, Society, and
Politics in Colonial America (New York: Oxford University Press,
1986).
Carl Bridenbaugh, Mitre and Sceptre (New York: Oxford, 1962).
etc., etc.
There certainly were U.S. founders who suggested a similar thesis:
"The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence,
were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young
Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by
them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these
general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity"
Source: John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 28th, 1813, from Quincy.
The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The Complete Correspondence Between
Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams, edited by Lester J.
Cappon, 1988, the University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC,
pp. 338-340.
> although they cannot find these
> principles in the Bible. Where does the Bible speak about "natural rights"?
Romans chapter 2.
This is what Thomas Jefferson learned from his Law School Textbook
(Sir Edward Coke), who wrote:
"The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the
nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and
direction; and this is lex æterna the moral law, called also the law
of nature... And by the law, written with the finger of God in the
heart of man, were the people of God a long time governed, before the
law was written by Moses, who was the first reporter or writer of law
in the world. The Apostle, in the Second Chapter to the Romans saith,
Cum enim gentes quae legem non habent naturaliter ea quae legis sunt
faciant [While the gentiles who do not have the law do naturally the
things of the law]... This law of nature, which indeed is the eternal
law of the creator, infused into the heart of the creature at the time
of his creation, was two thousand years before any laws written, and
before any judicial or municipal laws."
Coke's Reports, Trin. 6 Jac. 1.7, 1.
> Where does the Bible say, "All men are created equal"?
Galatians 3:28, among others. Most scholars feel that Jesus' frequent
exhortations concerning the dignity of Samaritans, Lepers, Romans, and
Prostitutes clearly suggests the idea that all persons, regardless of
race, gender, illness, or vocation, are to be regarded alike.
> Where does the Bible
> speak about a democratic form of government?
I don't think it does. But I also don't think that you will find many
of the U.S. founders using that term in a positive way as well. Most
of them detested the idea of democracy.
> On the contrary. While the Bible says that all governments are established
> by God (Romans 13:1), the Constitution says that this government is
> established by "We the People."
If you were a little deeper, you would know that in the founding era
there was a very famous phrase: vox populi vox dei est (the voice of
the people is the voice of God); thus, in the founders' view, there
was not a disjunction between Romans 13 and the preamble. See, for
example Franklin's speech:
"Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I
see of this truth- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a
sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable
that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in
the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the House they labour
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"
Franklin at Independence Hall during the Constitutional Convention,
June 28, 1787
> While the first Commandment demands the worship of one God. The first
> amendment guarantees freedom of religion.
The first amendment arose from the conviction that Jesus demanded a
voluntary rather than a coerced faith.
> While the Bible says Jesus Christ is the son of God, the Constitution never
> mentions Jesus Christ, God, or the Bible.
So. The book of Esther in the Bible never mentions God, Jesus Christ,
or the Bible. What will you conclude about that book from that fact?
Ambrose
jal...@cox.net
>:|"Richard Weatherwax" <weath...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<UuWI8.4470$r%2.131...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>...
>:|
=====================================================
The American Historical Review Vol. 104 # 3 June 1999.
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/104.3/br_36.html
Allen Jayne. Jefferson's Declaration of Independence: Origins, Philosophy,
and Theology.
Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. 1998. Pp. xiii, 245. $39.95.
This book is a clear, concise, and accurate account of the philosophical
and religious views that inspired Thomas Jefferson to compose the United
States' formative document. Allen Jayne leaves no doubt that the "Nature's
God" found in the Declaration of Independence, the deity who provides the
American colonists with their right to rebel against the British
government, is the rationalist God of deism, not the personal God of
Abraham.
1
==============================================================
[THREAD - MARCH 4, 1999 TO MARCH 12, 1999]
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: 1999/03/04
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=clw-1403991757080001%40i48-22-27.pd
x.du.teleport.com&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DGardiner%2540pitnet.net%26start%3D90%26hl%3D
en%26lr%3D%26selm%3D370df852.2487168%2540news.sig.net%26rnum%3D92&as_drrb=b&
as_maxd=14&as_maxm=3&as_maxy=1999&as_mind=29&as_minm=3&as_miny=1995
[THREAD - MARCH 14, 1999 TO APRIL 6, 1999]
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=370df852.2487168%40news.sig.net&rnu
m=92&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DGardiner%2540pitnet.net%26start%3D90%26hl%3Den%26lr%3
D%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?
3-18-99
[17% churched #1]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1915158611d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=36F16525.86C1
F77F%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.27748
344%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=36f6ca17.12723
584%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=36f79838.23034
413%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=36F4A147.46F6
0107%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.40923
19%40news.pilot.infi.net
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
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
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Deism
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=fh268s876e24332jk28uhadbvspv85v7la%
404ax.com&rnum=10&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26q%3Dbuckeye%2540exis.net
%2Balt.history.colonial%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch%26meta%3D
[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
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
US Founders and Atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=c0gfeuomp6m9epmstbu4tfdga9l6v5l1sq%
404ax.com&rnum=5&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Djalison%2540cox.net-alt.atheism%26hl%3Den%2
6btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch
[Madison --- 5/18/02]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2293211412d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=jo4ceuscvq4regi
cu74ef8m9j04p5h9lu4%404ax.com
[Washington-Bean, --- 5/16/20]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl206590337d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=lsh8eucp8ttc9smn
dpcqdnne9d4um7c1dm%404ax.com
[Founders in general, long long post but most complete probably thus far
--- 5/19/02]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl783259543d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=9creeugfmesftrah
9m1epc0qac46rj0j8l%404ax.com
[Moral intregity, sep c&s, --- 5/16/02]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2625133586d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=2th8euo0hqpbv5
lt5603a3cl07emm3r42s%404ax.com
[Madison, very general, reply to his reply to my long Madison --- 5/19/02]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2293211412d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=q0jfeu8qhogq06
b0liaanlshdh6kfjggg9%404ax.com
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Crosspost: In God We Trust
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=hin9eu86hf9i9t4dtdv2apnqccqm6f8m03%
404ax.com&rnum=8&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Djalison%2540cox.net-alt.atheism%26hl%3Den%2
6btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch
[Mostly Jefferson, primary/secondary evidence, including old reply to
Gardiner---5/14/02]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3825310418d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=53i2eu0fuv023s
9r7r3itsg4839javqgiu%404ax.com
[Jefferson, primary/secondary material --- 5/16/02]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3825310418d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=27nceuor6e8g3d
ctnk6iqjt7d55brhavgv%404ax.com
[Mostly Jefferson --- 5/15/02]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3825310418d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=olj4eu8mi4g43qj
cq3g0fmck5atv7ojntg%404ax.com
[Deism definitions from others --- 5/15/02]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl671253268d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=p0k4eucgchct6dg
f9lm19hovts9t687ivn%404ax.com
[Thomas Paine --- 5/17/02]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2727323779d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=hin9eu86hf9i9t4
dtdv2apnqccqm6f8m03%404ax.com
[George Washington --- 5/17/02]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2727323779d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=q0p9eu0qfsbcir7
sj5ikeuo0mtuk7c5rh6%404ax.com
[Orthodox and addressign other so called errors of mine --- 5/19/02]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2727323779d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=08ffeuolg7b4enn
n70oign8m3mhmg9dcu7%404ax.com
[Jefferson, more of the correting so called erros of my, more attempts by
postr to creat mountian out of a spec --- 5/20/02]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl146791123d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=vbtheuc3vacrqkh9
4pt41drcgjhldag3gf%404ax.com
[Constitution-Charter-Grant, --- 5/20/02]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl146791123d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=ddtheuc184uorjhg
2kaf72o0jd4hiq2uvm%404ax.com
[Very short founders in general, James Kent --- 5/14/02]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2588822828d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=dsm1eugg233r5
efcr61lpf0ahlai9rm5kp%404ax.com
[Founders in general, long --- 5/16/02]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1890475978d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=pgd7eu4qt7i4a8
kuaak2b6abmmt2g3u0b6%404ax.com
[Kent, URLs to web site for comments of other founders, etc --- 5/14/02
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1890475978d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=o7n1eug0rcng1n
5p7jd2kjhstb6o4dan6e%404ax.com
ambrose searle
> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
There's quite a contrast between the nature of the sources listed
here, viz., Princeton, Harvard, Oxford, Duke University, etc.,
presses...
and the sources posted further below by jalison, viz. "infidels.org"
"positiveatheism.org" "deism.com" in addition to a couple of dozen
GOOGLE posts that he made himself.
Melody Blaiser
>=====================================================
>The American Historical Review Vol. 104 # 3 June 1999.
>http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/104.3/br_36.html
>
>Allen Jayne. Jefferson's Declaration of Independence: Origins, Philosophy,
>and Theology.
>Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. 1998. Pp. xiii, 245. $39.95.
>
>This book is a clear, concise, and accurate account of the philosophical
>and religious views that inspired Thomas Jefferson to compose the United
>States' formative document. Allen Jayne leaves no doubt that the "Nature's
>God" found in the Declaration of Independence, the deity who provides the
>American colonists with their right to rebel against the British
>government, is the rationalist God of deism, not the personal God of
>Abraham.
This gives me a great sense of deja vu!
Melody Blaiser
Melody Blaiser
I found some old posts with this Gardiner and why not put them here to
rid myself of this feeling of reading the same claims over and over.
Gardiner is usually in after the ">"
> He did not. The Declaration of Independence and other
>pieces of his writings were fillied with ideas taken out of the Calvinist
>tradition. The same can be said for Madison.
Filled with ideas. Such as?
>So, in a nutshell, the evidence that Calvinistic political theory had
>significant influence upon the founders is abundant. If one turns that into a
>challenge to prove that Jefferson went directly to Calvin and cited him, then
>forget it. I can't do that any more than I can prove with a cite from
>Jefferson that he wrote with Roman letters. But I assure you that Jefferson
>did write with Roman letters although he never said so...
This is a diversion.
Here's some past statements from me:
>Yes, which illustrates the point even more clearly. Calvin, Sydney, and Locke
>were perceived by the colonists to all be sources used as Weapons against the
>Divine Right of Kings.
Yup, those were some. Then we have Bolingbroke. I have a book called
_The Philosophy of Thomas Jefferson_. No Calvin in the index. No
mention of Calvin. His library contained:
[Homer] Blackwell, Thomas: An Enquiry Into The Life And Writings Of
Homer 1735.
Bolingbroke, Lord (Henry St. John) THE WORKS OF LORD BOLINGBROKE Carey
& Hart Philadelphia 1841 (He had the 5 vol edition.)
Bolingbroke, Henry St. John A letter to Sir William Windham. II. Some
reflections on the present state of the nation. III. A letter to Mr.
Pope. London A. Millar 1753.
Burlamaqui, J.J. The Principles of Politic Law: Being a Sequel to the
Principles of Natural Law Printed for J. Nourse, opposite Katherine
Street in the Strand London 1752
Cabanis, P[ierre] J[ean] G[eorges] Rapports du physique et du moral de
l'homme Paris Crapart 1802. fine. Paris: Crapart, Caille et Ravier,
Libraires, 1802. 2 volumes.
Condillac, Etienne de. La logique / Logic.
De Tracy, Antoine Louis Claude Destutt A Commentary and Review of
Montesquieu's Spirit of Laws
Destutt de Tracy. A Treatise on Political Economy. Book I. English
Translation by Thomas Jefferson. With a Foreward by John M. Dorsey.
Detroit: [1973],. d/j, v.g.,.
Charron, Pierre. OF WISDOME, Three Bookes Written in French by Peter
Charron. Translated by Samson Lennard. London: Printed (by R.B.) for
Edward Blount & Will Aspley. (1640) .
Condorcet, M. de Outlines of an Historical View of the Progress of the
Human Mind, translated from the French. Dublin John Chambers 1796 VG,
3/4 leather with new leather label condition. 302pp. Published first
in French in 1795. Published first in English in London, New York and
Dublin.
DORSEY, JOHN M. & TRACY, DESTUTT DE Psychology of Political Science.
With Special Consideration for the Political Acumen of Destutt de
Tracy.
de Nemours, Du Pont National Education in the United States of America
Translated from the Second French Edition of 1812 and with an Intro...
GASSENDI, Petrus Opera Omnia, Lugdunum (Lyon). GASSENDI, Petrus. Opera
Omnia, Lugdunum (Lyon). 1658. Mit einer Einleitung von Tullio Gregory.
Godwin,William Enquiry Concerning Political Justice, and Its Influence
on Morals and Happiness Toronto Univ. of Toronto Press 1969. Fine.
Binding is 3 volumes. (This is on the internet)
Godwin, Wiliam; edited by Priestley, F.E.L., who also provides a
critical introduction and notes, with variant readings Enquiry
Concerning Political Justice and its Influence on Morals and
Happiness, in three volumes
Grotius, Hugo The Rights of War and Peace - Including the Law of
Nature and of Nations
HELVETIUS (Claude Adrien): A Treatise on Man; his Intellectual
Faculties and his Education. Translated from the French, with
Additional Notes, By. W. Hooper, M. D. A New and Improved Edition.
[London], Albion Press: Printed for James Cundee...and Vernor, hood,
and Sharpe..., 1810. 2 volumes. 8vo, pp. xviii, 395 [396 blank]; xii,
498,
Helvetius, Claude Adrien (Ouvrage Posthume) De L'Homme De Ses
Facultes, Et De Sun Education A. Liege, Chez Bassumpierre Pere & Fils
1784 2 vols.
Helvetius, Claude. [Translated from the French, with additional notes
by W. Hooper]. A Treatise on Man; His Intellectual Faculties and His
Education. 2 Volumes. New York: Burt Franklin, 1969 ( reprint of the
1810 edition). 395p., 498p.
Hutcheson, Francis Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty
and Virtue; in Two Treatises. I. Concerning Beauty, Order, Harmony,
Design. II. London Darby 1726. Good only. London: Printed for J. Darby
[et al.], 1726. 2nd Revised & enlarged Edition. [First published
1725]. [xxviii]+304pp.
Hutcheson, Francis (Bernard Peach, editor) Illustrations on the Moral
Sense
KAMES (Henry Home), Lord: Essays upon Several Subjects concerning
British Antiquities; viz. I. Introduction of the Feudal Law into
Scotland. II. Constitution of Parliament. III. Honour. Dignity. IV.
Succession or Descent. With an Appendix upon Hereditary and
Indefeasible Right. Composed anno M.DCC.XLV. The Second Edition.
London: Printed for M. Cooper..., 1749. 8vo, pp. [iv], 217 [218 blank,
219 - 220 Note]
Kames, Lord Henry; Boyd, Prof. James R. (Editor) Elements of
Criticism.
Lancaster, J: Improvements in Education as it respects the industrious
classes of the community.
Priestly, Joseph Jesus and Socrates Compared Kessinger Publishing
Contents: Introduction; Of the Polytheism and Idolatry of Socrates;
The Sentiments of Socrates concerning the Gods and their Providence;
Of the excellent moral character of Socrates; The Imperfection of
Socrates's Ideas concerning Piety and Virtue in general; Socrates's
Belief in a future State; The Daemon of Socrates; The Character and
teaching of Socrates compared with those of Jesus; The Different
Objects of the Instructions of Socrates and of Jesus; Inferences to be
drawn from the Comparison of Socrates and Jesus.
Priestly, Joseph Disquisitions Relating to Matter and Spirit (1777)
Priestly,Joseph. An History Of Early Opinions Concerning Jesus Christ.
lon. 1786.Three Volume Set,xxxv,402pp. & 450pp. & 444pp.Foldouts Three
Volume
Say, Jean-Baptiste A TREATISE ON POLITICAL ECONOMY, OR THE PRODUCTION,
DISTRIBUTIOON AND CONSUMPTION OF WEALTH. translated from the French by
Prinsep, 3rd Amer. ed. Trans. of the intro. by Biddle. Phila; 1827
(Baskerville, J. printed by.) Shaftesbury, Anthony Ashley, Earl of.
CHARACTERISTICKS OF MEN, MANNERS, OPINIONS, TIMES. 3 vols. By the
Right Honorable Anthony, etc. Birmingham: Printed by John Baskerville,
1773. 5th ed. Engraved frontispiece portrait of the Earl. Tall 8vo.,
[4], iv, 364 pp. + 443 pp. + [4], 410 pp. + 50 pp. index with errata.
Sidney, Algernon Discourses Concerning Government.
Stewart, Dugald ELEMENTS OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN MIND, 2 VOLS.
IN ONE; ELEMENTS OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN MIND, 2 VOLS. IN ONE
Boston Wells And Lilly 1818.
STEWART, Dugald Outlines of Moral Philosophy,
He must have used the Institutes from another library?
>> And from what I've read of Calvin, he wouldn't have approved of the
>> Revolution. It's been some time but certain things do stick in my
>> mind. You might even know what they are.
>
>You might be right, but that is an anachronistic speculation.
It's not a speculation. Pull out your copy of Miller's Orthodoxy in
Massachusetts, and open it to page 6. For those who do not have a
copy:
"Obedience to the magistrate, taught Calvin, should be profound,
sincere, and voluntary, 'because the obedience which is rendered to
princes and magistrates is rendered to God, from whom they have
received their authority.' 'It is impossible,' he continued, 'to
resist the magistrate without, at the same time, resisting God
himself.' Indeed, resistance was wrong even if the ruler were heathen
or tyrannical. 'Those who rule in an unjust and tyrannical manner are
raised up by Him to punish the iniquity of the people.' "
Perry Miller wrote about Puritans in The New England Mind (page 89-90:
"Being a Protestant, he had the vast literature of Protestantism to
supply the main outlines of his system; yet because he lived a century
after Luther and Calvin he could view the first reformers in
perspective, go beyond them or dissent from them when he had reason or
Scripture to warrant him."
So you write of Luther and I prefer Winthrop or John Cotton, or even
Cotton Mather. After all it was their country and their period and not
Luther's. Miller writes on page 93 that for the puritans to admit
"themselves derived their ideas from these 'worthy ministers.' that
light streamed from the men and not from heaven, the Puritans would
have indignantly denied." Calvin, if I recall, thought Luther's church
too open. New England Puritans also revised Calvin so that Miller has
some trouble calling them Calvanists.
Calling them Calvinists doesn't make them Calvinists. Even Perry
Miller argues that the Puritans were not really true Calvinists! They
might be Calvinistic or have remnants of Calvinism in their religion
but the Churches were even initially formed Calvinistically. People
like these could never come together in some kind of religious pact
because many of them didn't agree with oath taking and had differing
ideas of what the bindings should be. The constitution couldn't be a
religious pact and it wasn't.
Heck, there's probably more Calvinism in the Catholic church of today
than the Baptists of today have Calvinism. The argument your making
ought to be that the whole group ought to be papists because they all
came from the Catholic church! Why not claim that they are permeated
with Catholicism. If I recall my readings properly the degrees of
difference weren't really all that great between the Church of england
and the Roman Church. We could actually look critically at Luther and
see what he changed exactly. So why not go further and say the
Churches were permeated with Catholicism! I'd be right using your kind
of argumentation.
The first book I pulled down was Paul K. Conklin's _The
Uneasy Center: Reformed Christianity in Antebellum America_, Chapel
Hill, 1995. I'm going to read this book even though I am busy at the
moment with two other historical projects. Reformed Protestantism
includes Prysbeterians. He defines this group as those who traced
their origins to the reforms not of Luther but of Zwingli, Calvin,
Bucer, Knox, Cranmer, "and dozens of other architects of national
churches on the European continent and in Britain." He goes on to say
this about the Westminster and the Puritans:
"What do I mean by 'the reformed tradition'? In the heady days of
Luther's reforms in Germany, those who identified themselves as
Reformed did so to distinguish themselves on a few key doctrines and
practices from Lutherans and, even more emphatically, from several
emerging and radical sects. they recognized a commonality of
doctrines, doctrines that in time many would identify with John
Calvin, largely because of the influence of his church in Geneva and
because of his writings, particularly his *Institutes*. . . . Except
in France, these reformed Christians developed national
confessions(Heidelberg, Belgic, Dort, the Thirty-Nine Articles,
Westminster) and eventually gained state support. But as indicated
earlier, in America I incl;ude the reformed camp not only those
immigrants who still adhered to one of the national confessions but
also those who dissented from some details of these confessions or of
established practices but who remained in the same doctrinal
tradition. For early america, this meant migrating English Puritans,
who in New England adopted a congregational polity without any formal
confession (they adhered doctrinally to Westminster), Particular
Baptists or other Calvinist Baptists who accepted Westminster except
for its permission of infant baptism, and finally the disciples of
John Wesley, who nominally remained in the English Church until his
death and who, in america, accepted a revised confession based on the
Thirty-Nine Articles."
Considering who he is including he can write: "By 1865 the churches in
the Reformed tradition had steadily declined from near 90 percent of
all Christians in 1776 to no more than 60 percent."
He also states that [i]n the American Colonies, and in the first
century of national independence, these Reformed confessions made up,
by far, the largest and most influential segment of Christianity in
America."
I can agree with him in that. What is more important is not that the
country was obviously settled by Christians but in what their
influence really was.
>You see, the problem is that if, in addressing Mr. Alison's claim that
>Calvinists did not have a significant impact outside of New England, I had
>brought in the Methodists, he would have been loudly complaining that I am not
>being honest. Methodists don't belong in this issue.
Calvinists came in all kinds of shapes and sizes. Puritan New England
didn't like parts of Westminster. Baptists didn't like other parts of
Westminster. Baptist and Puritans were both Calvinistic but they
didn't much care for each other. Backus screamed for separation of
Church and State because of the Congregationalists. So my point stands
that your claiming that sects are Calvinists isn't really saying much.
They disagreed on religious laws but could agree on secular law.
>> Exactly why the Constitution was structured outside of religion. the
>> document mentions religion very little. Compromise was difficult
>> enough without bringing in religion.
>
>I totally agree.
Then why didn't you say so before. This is how we went down this road,
which you call a tangent, about influence and Calvinism. I spoke to
differences that were so great among them on religious issues that it
made far easier to develop a secular constitution. The Constitution
was very unlike the Articles they were originally sent to amend.
>On the contrary, I believe it is the agenda of the establishment which is
>antagonistic to Christianity to somehow cover up or overlook the influence of
>Christianity in America.
Get a grip. No one is trying to cover up anything. they are trying to
put matters in their proper place with the proper emphasis. I realize
you see this as a conspiracy against religion but then holocaust
deniers see the holocaust as a fabricated Jewish event. They see Jews
manufacturing history and distorting history to hide what really
happened or didn't really happen to them for financial gain. You seem
to be making the same argument on another subject. You think the evil
religious haters are covering up the true influence a western religion
on its culture. You are right and they are wrong. You have all the
insight and everyone else are stupid for arguing against you.
>Your point changes from post to post. I have no clue what your point is this time.
Maybe I'll d this for the 80th time so you can get it. I'll spell it
out to you. We are permeated with ALL the facets of our Western
heritage. We are permeated with the travels of Marco Polo. We are
permeated with Julius Caesar. Greece. Saxons. King Arthur. Chivalry.
We have classical education and Alexander the Great. We have a lousy
idea of who Cleopatra was and the new movie coming out won't improve
that. Emperor Julian. Fights with Gnostics. Inquisitions against
practically everybody. Intercene battles among protestants. Political
wars. Religious wars. We inherited much from our European heritage. It
al;l came with us and we are permeated with all of it even though most
of us are unaware of it. That's the point. We don't ooze Calvin.
Jefferson didn't ooze Calvin and he even wrote a couple of scathing
letters concerning Calvin. He didn't even give him credit for his
thinking in the declaration.
Then we have you to speak for him about what he didn't write about. We
have you to infer and suggest a lot of stuff that is interesting but
with out much merit. I bought Kevin Phillip's book after reading a
couple of reviews that were so-so. They say that he'll get caught in
blunders by specialists because his scope is so large. He doesn't do
very well with the English Civil War, best with the Revolution and
middling with the Civil War. His source material isn't very good. *I*
noted that he tends to list page sources for the revolution but lists
complete works without specific notation in the other chapters. But
they both say his book shouldn't be passed by. So I'll read it.
CONVERSATION, n.
A fair to the display of the minor mental commodities, each exhibitor
being too intent upon the arrangement of his own wares to observe
those of his neighbor.
Melody Blaiser
Melody Blaiser
"It is thus partly the intellectual resources, as well as the
conventional pieties, of English Constitutionalism which enable Locke
to combine his theological individualism with an articulated and
differentiated theory of the right of resistance, and make this a
theory of the restoration of an existing degree of legality rather
than a conceptually primitive doctrine of tryanniside, that
emotionally injured corollary of the 'Mirror for Princes" vision of
politics. The tension between the individualism, a logical
precondition for individual obligation, and the constitutionalism
provides, too, a less flaccid and superstitious account than either
that of Calvin himself or that developed by later and more radical
Calvinistic theorists of resistance." [page 182 of _The Political
Thought of John Locke: An Historical Account of the Argument of the
'Two Treatises of Government'_, by John Dunn, Cambridge University
Press, 1969]
What's my point? What it always has been. The ingredients of any man's
thoughts are made up of those who came before him. They are a part of
his being. The important part comes when he has thoughts of his own
and in the manner he projects them. Is Calvinistic Resistance Theory
an ingredient in Locke? Seems so. But it also seems as though Locke
has changed the recipe even there. Once was once Calvinistic is
Lockean. New. No longer Calvin.
The same is true for the philosophy behind the declaration. The
Hutcheson/Ferguson material I was mentioning was totally ignored.
>Can you give an example? Not consent of the governed. Not natural rights. Not
>a critique of slavery. Not the state of nature theory. Not the right to alter
>or abolish the government.
Maybe when I have copious free time I can go over this with you. I
told you the title of the book. It is a book about the history of
Locke's ideas. Kind of, as Mr. Allison says, kewl. I could give you an
example from the book, but I'd much rather read the whole thing first
because this is not a simplistic book.
>These were the ideas which Jefferson borrowed from Locke.
And others, it would seem that Hutcheson and Ferguson are figuring
into the "bands" that unite business. You ignored that, conveniently
in another thread.
> Unfortunately, these
>ideas were not among the ideas which you claim to be "new ideas" of Locke.
I'm not doing the claiming. The author, a specialist in the field is
doing this claiming. I've paraphrased his words. They seem to be
snipped out and gone so lets put them back in:
"It is thus partly the intellectual resources, as well as the
conventional pieties, of English Constitutionalism which enable Locke
to combine his theological individualism with an articulated and
differentiated theory of the right of resistance, and make this a
theory of the restoration of an existing degree of legality rather
than a conceptually primitive doctrine of tryanniside, that
emotionally injured corollary of the 'Mirror for Princes" vision of
politics. The tension between the individualism, a logical
precondition for individual obligation, and the constitutionalism
provides, too, a less flaccid and superstitious account than either
that of Calvin himself or that developed by later and more radical
Calvinistic theorists of resistance." [page 182 of _The Political
Thought of John Locke: An Historical Account of the Argument of the
'Two Treatises of Government'_, by John Dunn, Cambridge University
Press, 1969]
The sentence beginning with "The tension . . ." tells you what? What
is Mr. Dunn saying? He is saying that Locke's account is quite
different from Calvin and it also sounds like Locke's point isn't
Calvinistic anymore. Locke's point is, well, LOCKE'S point. It is no
longer Calvin's because it is "less flaccid and superstitious" and is
also different from those developed later by more "radical Calvinistic
theorists of resistance." How much would you wager that you might
ought to read this monograph to find out how the author provides
evidence for this? Usenet is not the place for me to violate copyright
laws by printing the whole chapter. At some point one must go to a
library and read things that they might find disrupts their world
view.
Now, having said that, I'll anticipate your next salvo by saying that
I'd read your book but I find that you have offered nothing new that
would cause me to spend $22 to purchase. I'll read it someday because
of our "discussions" here but it'll have to drop into my lap somehow.
I sell rare and used books as a side job so, who knows. I'd be
interested in Amos' book on the Declaration but after what I've read
about his thesis the same may have to happen with that one. There is a
reason I'm not ready to express yet until I verify a thought.
>They were old ideas which Locke expressed in his own words. Locke was a
>conduit for Rutherford, et al (a very eloquent one, nonetheless).
Well, here it is. Yet I find not mention of Rutherford in any book
I've got about the Revolution. About 20 of my own and I lost count of
what I have for sale. I went through them all. I went through the fine
book on Jefferson's philosophy and no Rutherford. Nothing. I've got
several volumes of Jefferson's letters and no Rutherford just yet.
Maybe Jefferson wasn't aware of his being a conduit. And in the
history of Locke's ideas, there's no Rutherford in the index. So, I'm
a little suspicious.
>Apparently you have not understood the reason why I gave this analogy. It's
>not to prove that the Wright Bros. invented the plane, but if you want to
>divert by arguing that point, I'm not surprised. Are you sure you don't want
>to say something about my webpage at this point?
I'm correcting the fault in your analogy. Ideas do not stand out there
all by themselves. Using someone is more articulate than another
decides to publish their thoughts. Or that someone isn't very
articulate and can afford to have his thoughts published. However it
is done other folks read these thoughts and then write agreements or
disagreements. Usually they are counters or a rework of the original
idea. Sometime the rework is above and beyond the original idea. Locke
was commenting on Filmer, I understand. So was Algernon Sydney. I
think they both said so. So historically that is documented evidence
of their intent. That's a far as my general knowledge goes for the
moment. Yet, when they themselves do not mention Rutherford, as
Jefferson does not, then your conduit claim becomes a bit suspect.
>I have to apologize to you for my cousin's inability to grasp the significance
>of your citation. Although most people with a modicum of historical erudition
>understand that Jefferson's use of the concept of the "consent of the
>governed" is rooted in 16th and 17th century Puritan and Whig political theory
>(e.g., Rutherford, Sydney, Locke), my cousin (Mr. Curtis) is unfamiliar with
>the literature in this regard. His approach works like this: if Jefferson
>didn't footnote Calvin, then there is no evidence that the theory was Calvinistic.
>
>I know. It's an assanine approach. I just wanted to give you the heads up so
>you know how to proceed.
Dear Mr. Gardiner,
Hint: The discussion of the first phrase would come down to the
following names Hutcheson, Ferguson on the top with Hume and Locke
following behind. at least as far as Jefferson seems to be concerned.
Having presented these names I realize you will probably attach Calvin
to every one of those folks. I realize that even I, though not a
Christian, sometime in the future could be called or associated with
Calvin or Luther because the dominate religion in the town I could
call home was Christianity. So my thinking becomes Calvinistic. The
blood in my veins becomes the blood of Christianity and so in order to
score points someone get to belittle independent thought and attach a
label on it. How sad.
I, for one, think it is much more interesting to understand what
Jefferson used and why he used it by using Jefferson himself.
Especially his letters and also his commonplace book.
Could it be that Jefferson was using political bands in the same sense
as Ferguson used "the bands of political union?" Gary Wills applies
this to bands of affection in the moral sense terminology?
Is it fair that because influential philosophers came out of Scotland
and England and happen to be protestants mean that every thought they
had was religiously based? At what point to they get to think for
themselves with people like yourself attributing their minds to
something else?
At what point to those who discuss matters with you and disagree with
you get to put matters in their own terms without you redefining what
they say to suite your particular needs?
>Mr. Curtis, bless his heart, really is a pretty good chap though. He can be a
>bit cantankerous, but deep down he has a good bit to offer. Thanks for bearing
>with him.
>I fear that's what this may lead to. For instance, you'll probably dismiss
>Amos' Book, DEFENDING THE DECLARATION in contrast to Becker. For
>historiagraphical reasons, I think that's a mistake.
>
Gary Wills has pointed out in his book UNDER GOD - RELIGION AND
AMERICAN POLITICS that Jefferson's words are put to uses quite often
in the Church-State arguments. "We know more about his personal views
on religion than we know about any other person's at the origin of our
state. But our knowledge is drawn from sources denied to his
contemporaries, who speculated widely about his 'atheism' or made
unfounded charges about his hostility to organized religion of all
kinds. Echoes of these charges have haunted his reputation, even to
this day. Fundamentalists have denounced his deism--or, with
compensatory zeal, have co-opted him in the cause of a 'Christian
nation.' A faculty member at Pat Robertson's CBN University even made
Jefferson a conduit of the Christian views of Samuel Rutherford, the
myth of whose influence is derived from Francis Schaeffer."
We find in his footnote to this that the faculty member discussed in
Gary T. Amos the author of the above book Mr. Gardiner mentions. Gary
Wills points out that the book was endorsed by the National Review in
its April 30, 1990 issue. the review writes: "Happily for us, as Mr.
Amos proves in his small book, all the embarrassing old [religious]
junk that liberals are furiously stuffing into the historical trunks
was coveted and used by Jefferson himself." Mr Wills then writes: "The
extent of Jefferson's religious writings does not protect him from
distortion even after their publication in scholarly editions--which
Amos does not consult."
Wills points out that 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 the footnote after that
letter to Benjamin Rush is quoted Wills footnotes: "Gary Amos, in the
book cited above, weirdly claims (on p. 195) that Jefferson published
his version of the Gospels in 1816. That compendium was not published
till 1902. Cf. _Jefferson's Extracts from the Gospels_, edited by
Dickinson W. Adams (Princeton, 1983), pp 125-26. The 'Syllabus' was
published anonymously (not by Jefferson) in 1816 and received no
public notice."
>2) following the Reformed position of Luther, Milton, and Locke, they believed
>that civil and ecclesiastical governments governed "two different kingdoms"
>and what they were forming was civil government, not ecclesiastical.
This is all debatable. You say on you web site that you are dedicated
to the reformed tradition so I see you goal here to make everything
fit into that box. It's this tunnel you place these people into that I
object to. So maybe we ought to disagree. I read the philosophy of the
18th century differently from you. I see these Americans reading a lot
more than Locke. In fact Milton doesn't even get much press. Luther
doesn't get much press. the list I gave you for Jefferson is what he
owned and read. His commonplace book was filled with quotes by
Bolingbrook and the classics. Even Newton was trying to find God's
ordered universe. Cotton Mather, when confronted with Newton, said
that is the way God meant it to be.
Where you and I part in this is the history of heresies and battles
among Christian sects that forced governments to allow Churches to
fight out the religious issues while government put it's place totally
in the secular. What is left as time passed from 1776 to 1787 to 1791
to 1859 to 1877 to 1900 to 1920 to now is what this discussion ought
to be about. It was a far different country in 1787 than the one we
had in 1776. How was it different. what made them go to Philadelphia
and make the "Godless" document they did?
Had you read Allisons cut and paste you would have read some of those
complaints. I find it interesting that you failed to even address some
of those discussions or even consider their meaning.
##
Visitors from the North saw the mid-18th century south as " remarkably
easy going and even frivolous. In Williamsburg and Annapolis, the two
tiny capitals, cards, racing, and the theater were normal pursuits of
the legislative season. Parson seldom opposed these pursuits and
sometimes took cordial part in them. In correspondence of young men of
the dominant class, a light tone was conventional, with much sighing
over the cruelty of the fair Belinda or Phyllis and a complete absence
of religious references. As young men grow older, the lightness
usually vanishes, giving place to irritable complaints about the
unreliability of weather, prices, neighbors, and slaves, not without
occasional reflections of the unsatisfactoriness of human nature
itself. Good manners might require an appearance of ease and
geniality, but what really counted were such virtues as prudence,
caution, and hard work. Planters were seldom interested in theological
dispute or mystical contemplation. what they wanted was a decent,
orderly religion which would remind everybody of his position, his
duties, and his limitations." (Page 69 of _The Enlightenment in
America_ by Henry F. May, Oxford, 1976)
>The Constitution and the Declaration are both products of a christian
>socio-cultural context;
You are inferring this onto a piece of work based on the society that
developed it. That's a very minor cog in the works. It's like an
osmosis thing to you isn't it? It doesn't matter what Jefferson read
or said about writing the document but all that matters to you is his
environment. It doesn't matter what the philosophers were actually
saying but the culture and environment they lived in. Hume, I'm
reading in an introduction to his religious thinking, pushed aside his
Calvinist heritage. Hume had that Heritage he must have not liked what
it taught or didn't agree with it. But Calvin was in his world so he
was permeated with Calvin despite his rejection of it. Jefferson
rejected Calvin and doesn't appear to have taken much of his religious
philosophy to heart. Sure he was aware of Calvin and the Institutes in
ways that I'm aware of Harold Robbins. I read some and long ago it
was. I don't even consider that author at all to be worth my time. I
am familiar with his early bestsellers. I won't recommend him to any
one.
Melody Blaiser
Melody Blaiser
>jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<o18ffu05hsk0k9nu5...@4ax.com>...
>> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>
>There's quite a contrast between the nature of the sources listed
>here, viz., Princeton, Harvard, Oxford, Duke University, etc.,
>presses...
>
>and the sources posted further below by jalison, viz. "infidels.org"
>"positiveatheism.org" "deism.com" in addition to a couple of dozen
>GOOGLE posts that he made himself.
>
Continuing:
Using 4.20.32Ducan B. Forester explains in his article about Calvin
contained in _History of Political Philosophy_ page 339-340:
"We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). The question of
when we may , or must, disobey the "higher powers" is and important
one, since disobedience to the constituted authority is no light
matter, as we have seen. the decision cannot be left to the whimsey or
selfish judgement of the individual. Injustice, tyranny, and
oppression are in themselves no excuse for disobedience. Nor are we
entitled to disobey because obedience will cause suffering fro us.
Nevertheless, "we are subject to the men who rule over us, *but only
in the Lord.* If they command anything against *Him* let us not pay
the least regard to it." We are not justified in breaking the clear
command of God in order to be obedient men.
[ . . .]
But while disobedience is allowable, and indeed obligatory, in such
situations, violent *resistance* never is. . . . Commands of the
temporal ruler which clearly contravene the word of God are in
themselves illegitimate, but not even a concatenation of such acts
destroys the authority of the government as such and justifies
rebellion, or even the threat of force, as Calvin consistently and
categorically pointed out in his letters to the persecuted French
Protestants. Disobedience refers to particular commands; resistance is
aimed at the overthrow of authority.
[What's a good Christian to do?] . . . if disobedience involves great
suffering, it may be possible to fly to another, less tyrannical
state. [If this isn't possible] one must simply suffer. [Lastly Luther
and Calvin left a loophole] which seems to provide a conditional
justification of resistance in certain clearly defined circumstances.
************************************
This all gets into their concept of church and state. And the state is
pretty much supplying support and funding for a central church. One
had washes the other despite a claim of separation they make wish is
really muddy when analysed.
Jefferson was the author of the third and final Declaration of
Independence. In a letter to John Adams of April 11, 1823 Jefferson
has this to say about John Calvin:
The wishes expressed in your last favor, that I continue in life and
health until I become a Calvinist, at least in his exclamation of 'mon
Dieu! jusque a quand'! would make me immortal. I can never join
Calvin in addressing *his god.* He was indeed an Atheist, which I can
never be; or rather his religion was Demonism. If ever man worshipped
a false god, he did. The being described in his 5. points is not the
God whom you and I acknolege and adore, the Creator and benevolent
governor of the world; but a demon of malignant spirit. It would be
more pardonable to believe in no god at all, then to blaspheme him by
the atrocious attributes of Calvin. Indeed I think that every
Christian sect gives a great handle to Atheism by their general dogma
that, without a revelation, there would not be sufficient proof of the
being of a god. Now one sixth of mankind only are supposed to be
Christians: the other five sixths then, who do not believe in the
Jewish and Christian revelation, are without knolege of the existence
of god! [. . .]
He goes on and on giving his view of Calvin and the religion of
Christianity in general. He disposes of Calvin's religious views. So
what might he have taken with him into that room in 1776 when he sat
down to compose the Declaration?
>There is evidence for it. Jefferson's letter to Henry Lee mentions "the common
>sentiments of the American Mind" and then goes on to cite Locke and Sydney as
>sources. Sydney is explicitly replete with Calvinist Resistance (he was a
>Puritan soldier in the English Civil war and his work was explicitly
>religious); Locke was not as much a Puritan as Sydney, but the fact that he
>was an articulator of Calvinist political theory is readily shown. In sum,
>Jefferson was intimately familiar with Calvinist resistance theory and he
>explicitly borrowed from it.
With you, no one is allowed to have their own mind. Look Gardiner,
this fight, though interesting is futile unles you want to have a bit
of thoughtful consideration with me. Everything, and I mean everything
can lead back to Greece and Rome. I can tunnel myself directly in
those directions. But then no real understanding of history is to had.
Sydney argued against the Divine right of Kings while Calvin was all
for it. Even from officials who were elected by voters who were
qualified to vote because of church membership had their offices
sanctioned by God. So President Clinton would, in those days, be
sanctioned by God.
I can't even admit certain things to you without you twisting it all
out of shape to fit your bias and needs. I'm also aware that Milton
was against the divine right of Kings. I recall that he was a puritan
calvinist. Harrington was also against this sort of claim. He was more
than likely protestants. I having a heck of a time finding his work.
It must be an establishment conspiracy that Sidney and Harrington are
so darn hard to find, eh? People borrow from each other all the time.
Borrowing from others doesn't make them something else. You rejected
the claim by Allison that the association with your co-author should
mean nothing. Yet you want to make borrowings and relationships of
historical figures into the same meanings that Allison applies to your
associations.
>> I haven't found Jefferson commenting on Calvin's political ideas yet.
>
>Not directly anyway. I never have.
Good. so this tells me that Calvin's influence would be on a
subconscious level that allowed Jefferson to think of the work of
others first and foremost than Locke.
By the way Locke's ideas could be found in other works found in
America. Sidney's Discourses Concerning Government were found. Cato's
Letters. Th Independent Whig, Bolingbroke, Francis Hutchenson, and
even Puffendorf's De Offivio hominis et civis, and then the first
volume of Blackstone have been found. None of these go to my
specialization and I haven't read them. But Rahe suggests that they
contain Lockean principles.
> Has any body argued that the
>common law was exclusively Christian.
"exclusively" you have not. But you use words like permeated which we
discussed when you brought up the bucket of water and the cyanide. You
never did respond to my last on that one. You like to use words like
"permeated" or "part of" because you can weasel around with them.
There is no sense of degree. Once you are pushed then you start
playing with the degrees. You are like nailing jello to the wall.
#############
Of course you do. you've found someone to slap you on the back. Let's
make something clear.
I believe there is religion in behavioral/criminal law. I'm not sure
of the amount because of the nature of common law. I brought up
Justinian Law for you to deal with. All you said was that you never
said that the Justinian law wasn't a part of the common law. That's
all you said. Well, Mr. Gardiner, you are correct. but what you could
have said was that Justinian Code or Law was continental. Even today
the laws of Europe are mostly Roman Law. One example is that people
suspected of crimes can be thrown in jail while the evidence is
gathered. This could be quite a time in jail. English Common law has
Roman law in it along with other stuff that is particular to the
culture of England. Trials by juries by one's peers is one of those
things and the number 12, other than being thought of as a lucky
number, was the number of apostles. So they felt that what was good
for Jesus was good for them. The development of a Grand Jury was
particular to Henry II time, I think. For those lawyers out there all
this is off the top of my head so apologies in advance.
So the number 12 is an example of a Christian thing. They would call
out 12 people to remember, for example, who's property belonged to
whom and up to what point. Juries would be called to remember who it
was that chose the last priest to the parish church. Who had the
right of advowson and appoint the next priest. So, yes there is
involvement of the culture of religion in the common law of England
along with laws concerning taxation, properties and other stuff. So
when I wrote that article about Plymouth I wrote to show what was
different about what they took with them and what they left behind.
One of those new things was the constant recording of financial
transaction to limit disputes over properties and other transaction
involving money. They then appointed people to appoint people for them
which was a form of representation (which is made complex in
Massachusetts because of the Calvinistic thinking about
representation) so that juries would need to "remember." The cost of
bring civil suits under Roman law could be quite expensive. It could
amount to $1000+ of our dollars. A knight's fee was about $500,000 and
those would go to Westminster. So the practice was to test such
expensive disputes in lower courts to see which way the jury would
remember before taking it to the higher more expensive court. The
colonists changed a lot of this to make the courts more available for
disputes and also laws were formed to make some disputes unnecessary.
Another aspect of Roman Law was that women had more rights. As I
pointed out to you in my article, the colonists gave more inheritance
rights to women. they probably saw that the Netherlands offered more
legal rights to women. A feature of common law is the lack of legal
rights afforded to women and was a feature, still prevalent today in
some aspects, up until the early 20th century in the United States.
So the history that I would write is a mixture of religion and that
which is not. Each aspect has their place. My battle with you is a
matter of emphasis. This emphasis is a constant one with you and you
made it quite clear when you said that you wrote your book (with Amos)
to counter the "establishment's" anti-religious history. So I think
you reasoning is the making of bad history even if what you claim
about the "establishment" is true. That's partially where we differ. I
also tire of my arguments being rewritten into something they are not.
My discussion with Bob Johnson, which was one sided since he didn't
return to answer what I thought were easy questions, was distorted by
you. It should have pointed out to you that the history I write is an
attempt to do what you and the "establishment", you suggest, fail to
do. That is to write an honest history that shows the religious and
its features within this nation, along with its struggles, and the
political non-religious aspects of the history. I also want people to
be aware of the cultural differences from colony to colony. Coming
together to fight a revolution was no cake-walk.
Melody Blaiser
Christopher A. Lee
searle) wrote:
>"Richard Weatherwax" <weath...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<UuWI8.4470$r%2.131...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>...
>> "Klark Kent" <klark...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
>> news:3cf3181c$0$3341$1dc6...@news.corecomm.net...
>> >
>> > "Richard Weatherwax" <weath...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
>> > in message
>> > news:TWCI8.1092$tq4.10...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> Numerous Christian leaders are spreading the false information that this
>> country was founded on Christian principles,
>
>Actually, there are scholars who "spread" a similar thesis.
You meant "scholars" who spread it.
I think Jim Allison is right. It's the same ignorance, the same
arguments from authority that he doesn't understand enough to address,
the same strawmen, the same nastiness. It has to be the same Gardiner
who went into meltdown when his hero Liebnitz's first cause arguments
were refuted and he couldn't respond.
ambrose searle
> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>
> I found some old posts with this Gardiner and why not put them here to
> rid myself of this feeling of reading the same claims over and over.
>
> Gardiner is usually in after the ">"
>
> >He did not. The Declaration of Independence and other
> >pieces of his writings were fillied with ideas taken out of the Calvinist
> >tradition. The same can be said for Madison.
>
> Filled with ideas. Such as?
Not sure why you have interpolated this line of argument into this
thread, but, hey, sounds interesting to me.
So, to answer your question:
"Jefferson and other secular-minded Americans subscribed to certain
propositions about law and authority that had their roots in the
Protestant Reformation. It is a scholarly commonplace to point out how
much Jefferson (and his fellow delegates to the Continental Congress)
were influenced by Locke. Without disputing this we would simply add
that an older and deeper influence 末 John Calvin 末 was of more
profound importance (or that Locke's consciousness, like Jefferson's,
was a consequence in large part of the Reformation).
The American Revolution might thus be said to have started, in a
sense, when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the church door at
Wittenburg. It received a substantial part of its theological and
philosophical underpinnings from John Calvin's Institutes of the
Christian Religion and much of its social theory from the Puritan
Revolution of 1640-1660, and, perhaps less obviously, from the
Glorious Revolution of 1689. Put another way, the American Revolution
is inconceivable in the absence of the context of ideas which have
constituted Christianity. The leaders of the Revolution in every
colony were imbued with the precepts of the Reformed faith."
末鳳age Smith, Professor of American History, UCLA
The Religious Roots of the American Revolution
"The idea that a people suffering under a tyrant had the right to
resist him through their legally constituted representatives was
traditional Calvinism. It was in fact rooted in certain views of John
Calvin himself. Calvinism had coupled with that conviction two others,
namely, that there is no lawful government without a mutual compact
freely entered into by king and people, and that government must be
based upon fundamental written law... This scheme of thought had been
further developed by many thinkers before Locke gave to it the form
that played so great a part in the thinking of the American Whigs.
When, therefore, Jefferson wove these ideas into the Declaration of
Independence, Presbyterians recognized at once their Calvinistic
theology and their Whig political theory... As in the Declaration of
Independence, so in the Constitution, Calvinistic political theory had
influenced all political thought of the day."
末豊eonard Trinterud, The Forming of an American Tradition
"Presbyterians supported the cause of independence; and indeed the
American revolution was but the application of the principles of the
Reformation to civil government."
末萌eorge Bancroft, History of the United States of America from the
Discovery of the Continent, vol. VI, p.271.
ambrose searle
> On 30 May 2002 21:35:31 -0700, ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose
> searle) wrote:
>
> >"Richard Weatherwax" <weath...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<UuWI8.4470$r%2.131...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>...
> >> "Klark Kent" <klark...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
> >> news:3cf3181c$0$3341$1dc6...@news.corecomm.net...
> >> >
> >> > "Richard Weatherwax" <weath...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> >> > in message
> >> > news:TWCI8.1092$tq4.10...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> >>
> >> Numerous Christian leaders are spreading the false information that this
> >> country was founded on Christian principles,
> >
> >Actually, there are scholars who "spread" a similar thesis.
>
> You meant "scholars" who spread it.
Yeah, I guess you're right. Oxford, Harvard, Princeton, and Duke
University Presses tend not to be very discriminatory about the
academic authors they publish, right?
I alert their editorial boards that Christopher A. Lee thinks they
have sense of scholarship.
You also show that you have never really studied an elementary
textbook to find out what the fallacy of authority is; try Irving M.
Copi, an INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC:
Note that Copi doesn't call the Argumentum ad Verecundiam and "appeal
to authority," but an "appeal to false authority."
Which of the authors that I cited in the post you referred to as
fallacious was a false authority?
Ambrose
Melody Blaiser
>Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<jr2gfus39gqabkllj...@4ax.com>...
>> On 30 May 2002 21:35:31 -0700, ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose
>> searle) wrote:
>>
>> >"Richard Weatherwax" <weath...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<UuWI8.4470$r%2.131...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>...
>> >> "Klark Kent" <klark...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:3cf3181c$0$3341$1dc6...@news.corecomm.net...
>> >> >
>> >> > "Richard Weatherwax" <weath...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
>> >> > in message
>> >> > news:TWCI8.1092$tq4.10...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>> >>
>> >> Numerous Christian leaders are spreading the false information that this
>> >> country was founded on Christian principles,
>> >
>> >Actually, there are scholars who "spread" a similar thesis.
>>
>> You meant "scholars" who spread it.
>
>Yeah, I guess you're right. Oxford, Harvard, Princeton, and Duke
>University Presses tend not to be very discriminatory about the
>academic authors they publish, right?
It is called the freedom of ideas and also how topical the product is.
>I alert their editorial boards that Christopher A. Lee thinks they
>have sense of scholarship.
The editorial boards probably do have a sense of scholarship as you
point out. This does not mean they would endorse every position they
publish.
Melody Blaiser
Melody Blaiser
>Melody Blaiser <mbla...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:<jj1gfu0s3dqv2qlol...@4ax.com>...
>> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>>
>> I found some old posts with this Gardiner and why not put them here to
>> rid myself of this feeling of reading the same claims over and over.
>>
>> Gardiner is usually in after the ">"
>>
>> >He did not. The Declaration of Independence and other
>> >pieces of his writings were fillied with ideas taken out of the Calvinist
>> >tradition. The same can be said for Madison.
>>
>> Filled with ideas. Such as?
>
>Not sure why you have interpolated this line of argument into this
>thread, but, hey, sounds interesting to me.
>
>So, to answer your question:
>
>"Jefferson and other secular-minded Americans subscribed to certain
>propositions about law and authority that had their roots in the
>Protestant Reformation. It is a scholarly commonplace to point out how
>much Jefferson (and his fellow delegates to the Continental Congress)
>were influenced by Locke. Without disputing this we would simply add
>that an older and deeper influence 末 John Calvin 末 was of more
>profound importance (or that Locke's consciousness, like Jefferson's,
>was a consequence in large part of the Reformation).
>
>The American Revolution might thus be said to have started, in a
"Might thus be said" is editorializing on the part of the author. Many
things might be so or they might not be so and I must note the lack of
supporting sources from these quotations which is quite different from
the three longer posts I presented to you.
>sense, when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the church door at
>Wittenburg. It received a substantial part of its theological and
>philosophical underpinnings from John Calvin's Institutes of the
>Christian Religion and much of its social theory from the Puritan
>Revolution of 1640-1660, and, perhaps less obviously, from the
>Glorious Revolution of 1689. Put another way, the American Revolution
>is inconceivable in the absence of the context of ideas which have
>constituted Christianity. The leaders of the Revolution in every
>colony were imbued with the precepts of the Reformed faith."
So what? They were Europeans and the reformation has swept Europe
prior to the Enlightenment which presents a vastly different context
to the new world at that time. It is also known that Locke was not
generally read by most Americans in the 18th-Century. I know you
insist on tunneling your historical assumptions but it is dishonest to
do so when there is so much contrary data you should deal with.
>末鳳age Smith, Professor of American History, UCLA
>The Religious Roots of the American Revolution
>
>"The idea that a people suffering under a tyrant had the right to
>resist him through their legally constituted representatives was
>traditional Calvinism. It was in fact rooted in certain views of John
>Calvin himself. Calvinism had coupled with that conviction two others,
>namely, that there is no lawful government without a mutual compact
>freely entered into by king and people, and that government must be
>based upon fundamental written law... This scheme of thought had been
>further developed by many thinkers before Locke gave to it the form
>that played so great a part in the thinking of the American Whigs.
>When, therefore, Jefferson wove these ideas into the Declaration of
>Independence, Presbyterians recognized at once their Calvinistic
>theology and their Whig political theory... As in the Declaration of
>Independence, so in the Constitution, Calvinistic political theory had
>influenced all political thought of the day."
Had you read the following post:
"It is thus partly the intellectual resources, as well as the
conventional pieties, of English Constitutionalism which enable Locke
to combine his theological individualism with an articulated and
differentiated theory of the right of resistance, and make this a
theory of the restoration of an existing degree of legality rather
than a conceptually primitive doctrine of tryanniside, that
emotionally injured corollary of the 'Mirror for Princes" vision of
politics. The tension between the individualism, a logical
precondition for individual obligation, and the constitutionalism
provides, too, a less flaccid and superstitious account than either
that of Calvin himself or that developed by later and more radical
Calvinistic theorists of resistance." [page 182 of _The Political
Thought of John Locke: An Historical Account of the Argument of the
'Two Treatises of Government'_, by John Dunn, Cambridge University
Press, 1969]
What's my point? What it always has been. The ingredients of any man's
thoughts are made up of those who came before him. They are a part of
his being. The important part comes when he has thoughts of his own
and in the manner he projects them. Is Calvinistic Resistance Theory
an ingredient in Locke? Seems so. But it also seems as though Locke
has changed the recipe even there. Once was once Calvinistic is
Lockean. New. No longer Calvin.
The same is true for the philosophy behind the declaration. The
Hutcheson/Ferguson material I was mentioning was totally ignored.
There is more on Calvin in that post and it addresses this very
material.
Melody Blaiser
jal...@cox.net
>:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<o18ffu05hsk0k9nu5...@4ax.com>...
>:|> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>:|
>:|There's quite a contrast between the nature of the sources listed
>:|here, viz., Princeton, Harvard, Oxford, Duke University, etc.,
>:|presses...
>:|
>:|and the sources posted further below by jalison, viz. "infidels.org"
>:|"positiveatheism.org" "deism.com" in addition to a couple of dozen
>:|GOOGLE posts that he made himself.
LOL, man is this ever lame.
But, I guess that is about the best ambrose/gardiner can do.
The same Gardiner tactics as before. Look with a fine tooth comb for some
something that he can then use to create straw man smoke screens, divert
and over all try to control the direction of the discussion keeping it on
nothings and away from the substances that he get trashed on over and over
again.
===================================================
Of my sources:
Gee, look at this. ambrose/gardiner left these out. Wonder why,
heheheheheh:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Historical Review Vol. 104 # 3 June 1999.
>:|> http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/104.3/br_36.html
Allen Jayne. Jefferson's Declaration of Independence: Origins, Philosophy,
and Theology. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. 1998. Pp. xiii,
245. $39.95.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.virginiaplaces.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: James Madison, A Biography by Ralph Ketcham.
University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville and London, (1990) pp 46.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(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 181)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
*Madison to Wilson Cary Nichols, Washington, November 26, 1814, Hunt VIII,
p. 319.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Letter from Madison to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Letter from Madfison to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Madison's Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Letter from Madison to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Letter from Madison to Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
==============================================================
The only President in American History to veto acts of Congress because
they violated the establishment clause of the U S Constitution.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VETO MESSAGES.
FEBRUARY 21, 1811.
JAMES MADISON.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: A COMPILATION OF THE MESSAGES AND PAPERS OF THE
PRESIDENTS, VOL. II, BUREAU OF NATIONAL LITERATURE, N Y, PP 474-475)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VETO MESSAGE
February 28, 1811.
JAMES MADISON.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: A COMPILATION OF THE MESSAGES AND PAPERS OF THE
PRESIDENTS, VOL. II, BUREAU OF NATIONAL LITERATURE, N Y, PP 474-475)
=====================================================================
His disgust at the idea that a group of land speculators tried to get the
Government support religion in the Western Territories:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAY 29, 1785
TO JAMES MONROE.
James Madison
====================================================================
Madison's Arguments Against Special Religious Sanction of American
Government (1792)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madlib.htm
James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance (June,1785)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/memorial.htm
Excerpts from James Madison's Detached Memoranda (written after 1817)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/detach.htm
Madison on church and state
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qmadison.htm
Two Views: James Madison's and Joseph Story's
Rev. Jasper Adams, Supreme Court Associate Justice Joseph Story and James
Madison
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/joestor2.htm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DECEMBER 3, 1821
TO F. L. SCHAEFFER
MONTPELLIER, Dec. 3rd ,
1821
*NOTE: Madison is replying to the receipt of a sermon sent by Schaeffer, a
New York clergyman.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: To F. L. Schaeffer from Madison, December 3, 1821.
Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in Four Volumes, Published by
Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott & Co. Philadelphia, (1865),
pp 242-243. *James Madison on Religious Liberty, Robert S.Alley, Prometheus
Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion, Dallas: Southern Methodist
University Press, 1963, pp. 74-75.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Barry Schwartz, George Washington: The Making of an American Symbol, New
York: The Free Press, 1987, pp. 174-175.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation. Edwin
S. Gaustad, Harper & Row, (1987) pp 71 - 85 has some good material
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- The Rise of American Civilization,"
by Charles A. and Mary R. Beard. (Vol. I., p. 449.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(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)
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Paine, the greatest exile, by David powell, St.
Martin's Press N.Y. (1985) pp 75-76)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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/
===============================================
I could go on for ever, listing all the sources I use in my posting,
gathering, studies, etc.
It's enough to say that I can match ambrose/gardiner with regards to
sources anytime, within the blundaries of what I post about, etc.
He knows that.
This is just another of the games.
Now, don't exept ambrose/gardiner to let this go, this is the meat of the
types of horses he loves to ride for weeks if people will play along with
him.
Some things are so predictable. LOL
>:|> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>:|> 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
>:|> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>:|>
>:|> [ 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
>:|>
>:|> &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
>:|> US Founders and Atheism
>:|>
>:|> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=c0gfeuomp6m9epmstbu4tfdga9l6v5l1sq%
>:|> 404ax.com&rnum=5&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Djalison%2540cox.net-alt.atheism%26hl%3Den%2
>:|> 6btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch
>:|>
>:|> [Madison --- 5/18/02]
>:|> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2293211412d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=jo4ceuscvq4regicu74ef8m9j04p5h9lu4%404ax.com
>:|>
>:|> [Washington-Bean, --- 5/16/20]
**********************************************
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
jal...@cox.net
>:|Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<jr2gfus39gqabkllj...@4ax.com>...
>:|> On 30 May 2002 21:35:31 -0700, ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose
>:|> searle) wrote:
>:|>
>:|> You meant "scholars" who spread it.
>:|
>:|Yeah, I guess you're right. Oxford, Harvard, Princeton, and Duke
>:|University Presses tend not to be very discriminatory about the
>:|academic authors they publish, right?
>:|
>:|I alert their editorial boards that Christopher A. Lee thinks they
>:|have sense of scholarship.
>:|
>:|You also show that you have never really studied an elementary
>:|textbook to find out what the fallacy of authority is; try Irving M.
>:|Copi, an INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC:
Suggesting one should read a book on logic, what next one should read
Washington's points on discussions?
"an elementary textbook"
Wow!!!!! now there is pure Gardiner from March 1999 thur September 2000
LOL
jal...@cox.net
>:|Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<jr2gfus39gqabkllj...@4ax.com>...
>:|> On 30 May 2002 21:35:31 -0700, ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose
>:|> searle) wrote:
>:|>
>:|> You meant "scholars" who spread it.
>:|
>:|Yeah, I guess you're right. Oxford, Harvard, Princeton, and Duke
>:|University Presses tend not to be very discriminatory about the
>:|academic authors they publish, right?
>:|
>:|I alert their editorial boards that Christopher A. Lee thinks they
>:|have sense of scholarship.
>:|
>:|You also show that you have never really studied an elementary
>:|textbook to find out what the fallacy of authority is; try Irving M.
>:|Copi, an INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC:
Suggesting one should read a book on logic, what next one should rwad
jal...@cox.net
>:|On 30 May 2002 21:35:31 -0700, ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose
>:|
Notice how ambrose/gardiner carefully steered the topic away from the above
and spot lighted only this:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle)
Newsgroups:
alt.bible,alt.christnet.philosophy,alt.christnet.theology,alt.religion.christian,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Was Thomas Jefferson a Christian
Date: 1 Jun 2002 07:53:04 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:<jr2gfus39gqabkllj...@4ax.com>...
> On 30 May 2002 21:35:31 -0700, ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose
> searle) wrote:
>
> >"Richard Weatherwax" <weath...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<UuWI8.4470$r%2.131...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>...
> >> "Klark Kent" <klark...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
> >> news:3cf3181c$0$3341$1dc6...@news.corecomm.net...
> >> >
> >> > "Richard Weatherwax" <weath...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> >> > in message
> >> > news:TWCI8.1092$tq4.10...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> >>
> >> Numerous Christian leaders are spreading the false information that this
> >> country was founded on Christian principles,
> >
> >Actually, there are scholars who "spread" a similar thesis.
>
> You meant "scholars" who spread it.
Yeah, I guess you're right. Oxford, Harvard, Princeton, and Duke
University Presses tend not to be very discriminatory about the
academic authors they publish, right?
I alert their editorial boards that Christopher A. Lee thinks they
have sense of scholarship.
You also show that you have never really studied an elementary
textbook to find out what the fallacy of authority is; try Irving M.
Copi, an INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC:
Note that Copi doesn't call the Argumentum ad Verecundiam and "appeal
to authority," but an "appeal to false authority."
Which of the authors that I cited in the post you referred to as
fallacious was a false authority?
Ambrose
===========================================
Truly classical Gardiner.
ambrose searle
> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>
> >Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<jr2gfus39gqabkllj...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 30 May 2002 21:35:31 -0700, ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose
> >> searle) wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Richard Weatherwax" <weath...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<UuWI8.4470$r%2.131...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>...
> >> >> "Klark Kent" <klark...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
> >> >> news:3cf3181c$0$3341$1dc6...@news.corecomm.net...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Richard Weatherwax" <weath...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> >> >> > in message
> >> >> > news:TWCI8.1092$tq4.10...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> >> >>
> >> >> Numerous Christian leaders are spreading the false information that this
> >> >> country was founded on Christian principles,
> >> >
> >> >Actually, there are scholars who "spread" a similar thesis.
> >>
> >> You meant "scholars" who spread it.
> >
> >Yeah, I guess you're right. Oxford, Harvard, Princeton, and Duke
> >University Presses tend not to be very discriminatory about the
> >academic authors they publish, right?
>
> It is called the freedom of ideas
Academic presses don't print any point of view just because some yahoo
claims it. They have scholarly standards. Try getting something
published by an academic press; you'll find out that "freedom of
ideas" takes a big back seat to scholarship.
> >I alert their editorial boards that Christopher A. Lee thinks they
> >have sense of scholarship.
>
> The editorial boards probably do have a sense of scholarship
Yes, thank you for your support. Mr. Lee (above) was suggesting that
these presses weren't printing REAL scholars, but only "scholars."
Your concurence with my point is appreciated.
Searle
ambrose searle
> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>
> >:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<o18ffu05hsk0k9nu5...@4ax.com>...
> >:|> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
> >:|
> >:|There's quite a contrast between the nature of the sources listed
> >:|here, viz., Princeton, Harvard, Oxford, Duke University, etc.,
> >:|presses...
> >:|
> >:|and the sources posted further below by jalison, viz. "infidels.org"
> >:|"positiveatheism.org" "deism.com" in addition to a couple of dozen
> >:|GOOGLE posts that he made himself.
>
> LOL, man is this ever lame.
>
> But, I guess that is about the best ambrose/gardiner can do.
>
> The same Gardiner tactics as before.
It's factual. Your posts constantly cite agenda-ridden sources such as
"infidels.org" "positiveatheism.org" and "deism.com"
It's there for all to see.
It's also factual that you want to make this personal. I invite anyone
doubts me to check the recent post history for "jalison" and see how
much he is preoccupied with my personal identity.
Face it, you can't get off the personal thing. As you once said:
"that's what people do when they know their material is weak, they
make it personal."
Right you were.
Searle
ambrose searle
> arguments from authority that he doesn't understand enough to address,
> the same strawmen, the same nastiness. It has to be the same Gardiner
Jim Allison, when he said the following, was definitely right on:
"I see you have all the time in the world to bitch and belly ache
about me, the person but no time to try and actually dispute, point by
point the data I provide. Why am I not surprised? Why am I not
surprised that you have elected to take the same road so many before
you have taken...
they could't effectively refute the data so they elected to make it
personal, attack me, or focus on me, etc."
--Jim Allison
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=tsh8euki675a2kjl1l9eabn6vrp34nps9h%404ax.com
ambrose searle
> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>
> >Melody Blaiser <mbla...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:<jj1gfu0s3dqv2qlol...@4ax.com>...
> >> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
> >>
> >> I found some old posts with this Gardiner and why not put them here to
> >> rid myself of this feeling of reading the same claims over and over.
> >>
> >> Gardiner is usually in after the ">"
> >>
> >> >He did not. The Declaration of Independence and other
> >> >pieces of his writings were fillied with ideas taken out of the Calvinist
> >> >tradition. The same can be said for Madison.
> >>
> >> Filled with ideas. Such as?
> >
> >Not sure why you have interpolated this line of argument into this
> >thread, but, hey, sounds interesting to me.
> >
> >So, to answer your question:
> >
> >"Jefferson and other secular-minded Americans subscribed to certain
> >propositions about law and authority that had their roots in the
> >Protestant Reformation. It is a scholarly commonplace to point out how
> >much Jefferson (and his fellow delegates to the Continental Congress)
> >were influenced by Locke. Without disputing this we would simply add
> >that an older and deeper influence 末 John Calvin 末 was of more
> >profound importance (or that Locke's consciousness, like Jefferson's,
> >was a consequence in large part of the Reformation).
> >
> >The American Revolution might thus be said to have started, in a
>
> "Might thus be said" is editorializing on the part of the author.
You're playing word games. You know good and well what Dr. Page Smith,
in context is suggesting
> Many
> things might be so or they might not be so and I must note the lack of
> supporting sources
Read Page Smith's book, THE RELIGIOUS ORIGINS OF THE AMERICAN
REVOLUTION. I can't post the whole thing here. It is full of primary
material which illustrates his points.
> >sense, when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the church door at
> >Wittenburg. It received a substantial part of its theological and
> >philosophical underpinnings from John Calvin's Institutes of the
> >Christian Religion and much of its social theory from the Puritan
> >Revolution of 1640-1660, and, perhaps less obviously, from the
> >Glorious Revolution of 1689. Put another way, the American Revolution
> >is inconceivable in the absence of the context of ideas which have
> >constituted Christianity. The leaders of the Revolution in every
> >colony were imbued with the precepts of the Reformed faith."
>
> So what? They were Europeans and the reformation has swept Europe
> prior to the Enlightenment which presents a vastly different context
> to the new world at that time. It is also known that Locke was not
> generally read by most Americans in the 18th-Century.
It is well known that Locke was WIDELY read by the founding fathers.
Are you contesting that? Who cares whether Homer Smith in the
backwoods of Kentucky read Locke in 1749? What matters is whether
Madison, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Sherman, Wilson, et al, read
Locke. They did. Period.
> I know you
> insist on tunneling your historical assumptions but it is dishonest to
> do so when there is so much contrary data you should deal with.
What contrary evidence can you give that the founders did not read
Locke?
>
> >末鳳age Smith, Professor of American History, UCLA
> >The Religious Roots of the American Revolution
> >
> >"The idea that a people suffering under a tyrant had the right to
> >resist him through their legally constituted representatives was
> >traditional Calvinism. It was in fact rooted in certain views of John
> >Calvin himself. Calvinism had coupled with that conviction two others,
> >namely, that there is no lawful government without a mutual compact
> >freely entered into by king and people, and that government must be
> >based upon fundamental written law... This scheme of thought had been
> >further developed by many thinkers before Locke gave to it the form
> >that played so great a part in the thinking of the American Whigs.
> >When, therefore, Jefferson wove these ideas into the Declaration of
> >Independence, Presbyterians recognized at once their Calvinistic
> >theology and their Whig political theory... As in the Declaration of
> >Independence, so in the Constitution, Calvinistic political theory had
> >influenced all political thought of the day."
>
> Had you read the following post:
I did read that post. The writer agrees that Locke used Calvinist
resistance theory, and then added his own unique elements. I have no
disagreement with that.
Searle
maff
> Melody Blaiser <mbla...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:<nhphfug8adj3ir784...@4ax.com>...
> > ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
> >
> > >Melody Blaiser <mbla...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:<jj1gfu0s3dqv2qlol...@4ax.com>...
> > >> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I found some old posts with this Gardiner and why not put them here to
> > >> rid myself of this feeling of reading the same claims over and over.
> > >>
> > >> Gardiner is usually in after the ">"
> > >>
> > >> >He did not. The Declaration of Independence and other
> > >> >pieces of his writings were fillied with ideas taken out of the Calvinist
> > >> >tradition. The same can be said for Madison.
> > >>
> > >> Filled with ideas. Such as?
> > >
> > >Not sure why you have interpolated this line of argument into this
> > >thread, but, hey, sounds interesting to me.
> > >
> > >So, to answer your question:
> > >
> > >"Jefferson and other secular-minded Americans subscribed to certain
> > >propositions about law and authority that had their roots in the
> > >Protestant Reformation. It is a scholarly commonplace to point out how
> > >much Jefferson (and his fellow delegates to the Continental Congress)
> > >were influenced by Locke. Without disputing this we would simply add
> > >profound importance (or that Locke's consciousness, like Jefferson's,
> > >was a consequence in large part of the Reformation).
> > >
> > >The American Revolution might thus be said to have started, in a
> >
> > "Might thus be said" is editorializing on the part of the author.
>
> You're playing word games. You know good and well what Dr. Page Smith,
> in context is suggesting
>
> > Many
> > things might be so or they might not be so and I must note the lack of
> > supporting sources
>
> Read Page Smith's book, THE RELIGIOUS ORIGINS OF THE AMERICAN
> REVOLUTION. I can't post the whole thing here. It is full of primary
> material which illustrates his points.
>
Crap. Where are the primary sources?
Separation of State and Church
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/tnpidx.htm
Church & State
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/state/index.shtml
America's Real Religion
http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/index.html
Maryland Catholics On The Frontier
http://www.win.net/ehayden/mcf/maryland.htm
Some Consequences of the Revolution for America's Churches
http://www.wfu.edu:/~matthetl/perspectives/six.html
Colonial America
http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities/History/U_S__History/Colonial_America/
jal...@cox.net
>:|Separation of State and Church
>:|http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html
>:|http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
>:|http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/tnpidx.htm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>:|Church & State
>:|http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/state/index.shtml
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>:|America's Real Religion
>:|http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/index.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>:|Maryland Catholics On The Frontier
>:|http://www.win.net/ehayden/mcf/maryland.htm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>:|Some Consequences of the Revolution for America's Churches
>:|http://www.wfu.edu:/~matthetl/perspectives/six.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Do you have a new URL for the one below, that one doesn't work.
>:|Colonial America
>:|http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities/History/U_S__History/Colonial_America/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here is a new one you can add
Was formerly known as:
Church--State Academic papers; The Establishment Clause, ... Political
Science Papers Dealing with the Relationship of Church and State, and
Religious Liberty. There are critical issues of RELIGIOUS ...
Description: Political science papers dealing with the relationship of
church and state, and religious liberty.
Category: Society > Issues > Church-State Relations
http://members.aol.com/larrypahl/poli-sci.htm
Is now:
Liberty Point Institute
In defense of Religious Liberty Church and State...
Is there a crisis ahead?
crisis.net
http://crisis.net/
Especially note:
http://crisis.net/church-state/liberty.htm
Because this is the old Church--State Academic papers; The Establishment
Clause, site basically.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Some info of interest:
This is a resume of Larry Pahl
About Larry Pahl. Just returned from the mission
field. http://jesusforallnations.org. ...
http://members.aol.com/larrypahl/larry.htm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
jal...@cox.net
>:|Melody Blaiser <mbla...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:<nhphfug8adj3ir784...@4ax.com>...
=============================================================
For any readers/lurkers, now or in the future (thanks to the former
Deja.com, now Google and other such sites) who has an interest in this they
can find the above type discussions in their original form. They took
place between March 3, 1999 and September 29, 2000.
Usually in the some or all of the following 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,
alt.atheism,
You will be able to spend a good couple of days reading the various
discussions that took place between quite a few people, but the bulk taking
place between, on the one hand:
Gard...@pitnet.net & rgar...@my-deja.com
with some input from time to time from:
RichardAS...@att.net
ic...@best.com
(and a few others I don't remember now)
and usually on the other hand one or several of the following (in the order
they appeared on the scene):
b...@deism.com
jal...@pilot.infi.net & buc...@exis.net
mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam & mscu...@my-deja.com
wat...@email.msn.com
timothy...@mindspring.com
jeffrey...@my-deja.com
scot...@maine.edu
mod...@my-deja.com
and a few others from time to time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The titles of the threads so that the readers can look them up if they wish
can be found at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=5locfu0nr38bl4sl5u2evlsuit1370knfi%404ax.com&output=gplain
============================================================================
Readers can decide for themselves if they think that Ambrose is Gardiner
returned or if Ambrose is a Gardiner clone who has spent time studying
Gardiner so as to imitate him. More importantly, they can see how well
others countered the arguments that the current Ambrose is trying to give
now. I say that because Gardiner gave them all and then some back then.
Actually, all of the threads throughout that entire run (March 3, 1999, to
September 29, 2000) is very educational for anyone interested in American
history from the colonial period to the late 1800s.
There is a good amount of European history prior to 1800 toss in as well as
Gardiner liked to keep dragging in European history.
The bulk of the discussions did center around the time period of approx
1760 to 1820 I would guess.
There was a tremendous amount of primary source historical data provided,
by most, involved in the discussions, and even more cites of web sites,
publications, etc.
I personally think that it would be a worthwhile effort one day to collect
them all put them together in chronological order, remove the insults, name
calling baiting, etc and publish what remains.
One would end up with a very good publication of some solid pro and con
viewpoints back by solid historical data in most cases.
ambrose searle
Try http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html
It's a little more reputable of a source than your "infidels.org"
citation.
Or are you are one of those wackos who think that the curators of the
Library of Congress are in a right-wing conspiracy with Bob Jones and
Benny Hinn?
Ambrose
jal...@cox.net
>:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<j40ifu8e0eaqsfo6p...@4ax.com>...
>:|> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<o18ffu05hsk0k9nu5...@4ax.com>...
>:|> >:|> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|There's quite a contrast between the nature of the sources listed
>:|> >:|here, viz., Princeton, Harvard, Oxford, Duke University, etc.,
>:|> >:|presses...
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|and the sources posted further below by jalison, viz. "infidels.org"
>:|> >:|"positiveatheism.org" "deism.com" in addition to a couple of dozen
>:|> >:|GOOGLE posts that he made himself.
>:|>
>:|> LOL, man is this ever lame.
>:|>
>:|> But, I guess that is about the best ambrose/gardiner can do.
>:|>
>:|> The same Gardiner tactics as before.
>:|
>:|It's factual. Your posts constantly cite agenda-ridden sources such as
>:| "infidels.org" "positiveatheism.org" and "deism.com"
>:|
>:|It's there for all to see.
>:|
LOL,
What agenda does the following indicate (which of course you are careful
not to mention):
The American Historical Review Vol. 104 # 3 June 1999.
>:|> http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/104.3/br_36.html
Allen Jayne. Jefferson's Declaration of Independence: Origins, Philosophy,
and Theology. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. 1998. Pp. xiii,
245. $39.95.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: James Madison, A Biography by Ralph Ketcham.
University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville and London, (1990) pp 46.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(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 181)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
*Madison to Wilson Cary Nichols, Washington, November 26, 1814, Hunt VIII,
p. 319.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Letter from Madison to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Letter from Madfison to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Madison's Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Letter from Madison to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Letter from Madison to Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).
==============================================================
The only President in American History to veto acts of Congress because
they violated the establishment clause of the U S Constitution.
VETO MESSAGES.
FEBRUARY 21, 1811.
JAMES MADISON.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: A COMPILATION OF THE MESSAGES AND PAPERS OF THE
PRESIDENTS, VOL. II, BUREAU OF NATIONAL LITERATURE, N Y, PP 474-475)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VETO MESSAGE
February 28, 1811.
JAMES MADISON.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: A COMPILATION OF THE MESSAGES AND PAPERS OF THE
PRESIDENTS, VOL. II, BUREAU OF NATIONAL LITERATURE, N Y, PP 474-475)
=====================================================================
His disgust at the idea that a group of land speculators tried to get the
Government support religion in the Western Territories:
MAY 29, 1785
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson, by Charles B. Sanford.
University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, (1984 --third paperback
printing, 1992)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Paine, the greatest exile, by David powell, St.
Martin's Press N.Y. (1985) pp 75-76)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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/
===============================================
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
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
AND ALL THE VARIOUS CITES CONTAINED IN THE FOLLOWING:
THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH FOLLOWING:.
**It's factual. Your posts constantly cite agenda-ridden sources such as
"infidels.org" "positiveatheism.org" and "deism.com"**
LOL, but then honestly and truth has never been a Gardiner staple. That's
factual.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Deism
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=fh268s876e24332jk28uhadbvspv85v7la%
404ax.com&rnum=10&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26q%3Dbuckeye%2540exis.net
%2Balt.history.colonial%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch%26meta%3D
[Nellie #1 --- 8-27-00]
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=hin9eu86hf9i9t4dtdv2apnqccqm6f8m03%
post to creat mountian out of a spec --- 5/20/02]
>:|It's also factual that you want to make this personal. I invite anyone
jal...@cox.net
>:|maf...@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.02060...@posting.google.com>...
===========================================================
Library of Congress, yes very good, glad you mentioned that again:
Newsgroups:
soc.history.war.us-revolution,alt.history.colonial,alt.atheism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,alt.deism,
alt.atheism,alt.religion.deism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.history
Subject: L.O.C. EXHIBIT (update)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:14:18 -0400
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=d11tqs02s7dubb5jkbu3r1su3plnfaoq3c%404ax.com&output=gplain
maff
So why are you evading the question? Where are the primary sources?
>
> Or are you are one of those wackos who think that the curators of the
> Library of Congress are in a right-wing conspiracy with Bob Jones and
> Benny Hinn?
Even Bob Jones seems to think to be called fundamentalist is worse
than called a racist. You must be a kook.
Bob Jones no longer fundamentalist!
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=HDwk8.11693%24tP2.992698%40bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
>
> Ambrose
jal...@cox.net
>:|> > Read Page Smith's book, THE RELIGIOUS ORIGINS OF THE AMERICAN
>:|> > REVOLUTION. I can't post the whole thing here. It is full of primary
>:|> > material which illustrates his points.
So is most of the things I post.
Here is a example:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The index of that project, as of the end of November 2000, took up 72
pages. There is a URL that will allow you to download that index if you
care to see how in depth it is
To actually read the index you will need to download a free Doc reader if
you don't already have one on your computer.
Doc = Palm Doc
MS Reader - LIT (you already have that) - use Reader to view LIT's
Doc - DocReader for WIndows OS - Use DocReader to view Palm files ON your
Windows desktop
TR - TomeRaider (www.tomeraider.com) Use the TomeRaider Windows app to view
Palm files ON your Windows desktop
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go to:
http://www.memoware.com/Category=History_ResultSet=6.htm
Then scroll down the page till you find the index to the following:
[Readers will not, it is approx 95% primary material documents and the
index runs approx 72 pages long.]
'The Documentary History of The Constitutional Principle of
Separation of Church and State in The United States Of America, 1770-1947'
by Jim Allison and Susan Batte 01/22/2001 History Doc 55K
Then click on doc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOME ADDITIONS TO THE ORIGINAL LIST AS OUTLINED ABOVE:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOLUME I
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1770-1773, NOTES ON COMMENTARY ON THE BIBLE--J Madison
OCTOBER 13, 1772 Excerpt of letter from Wm Bradford to Madison
NOVEMBER 9, 1772 Excerpt of letter from Madison to Bradford
AUGUST 12, 1773 Excerpt of letter from Bradford to Madison
SEPTEMBER 25, 1773 letter from James Madison to William Bradford
NOVEMBER 5, 1773 Excerpt of letter from Bradford to James Madison
December 1774 A Plea Before the Massachusetts Legislature. Issac Backus
MARCH 4, 1774 Excerpt of letter from Bradford to James Madison
APRIL 1, 1774 James Madison to William Bradford
JUNE 24, 1775 PLAN OF ACCOMMODATION WITH GREAT BRITAIN
JULY 28, 1775 Excerpt of letter from Madison to Bradford
SEPTEMBER 1775 Isaac Backus: Civil Government and Religious Taxes
MAY-JUNE 1776 Evolution of Declaration of Rights on Religion
1776 Epistle to the Quakers, Tom Paine
JULY 4, 1776 Patrick Henry's speech before the Cont Congress
OCTOBER 24, 1776 DISSENTERS' PETITION
April 25, 1777 RELIGIOUS LEGISLATION SUBVERSIVE OF LIBERTY
September 19, 1778 Government and Liberty Described By Issac Backus
APRIL 6, 1780 An Appeal to the People, Issac Backus
1784 Commentary Background and Overview for Northwest Ordinance
NOVEMBER 12, 1784 Principles of Religious Liberty, Memorial of the
Presbytery of Hanover to the General Assembly of Virginia, November 12,
1884
1785 THOMAS JEFFERSON: An American Education for American Youth
1785 Of Liberty of Conscience and Civil Establishment of Religion
FEBRUARY 27, 1785 On the Selection of a Roman Catholic Bishop in America,
John Carroll
1785 EFFECTS OF RELIGIOUS LEGISLATION
NOVEMBER 3, 1785 REASONS FOR REMONSTRATION
1786 A PETITION RELATING TO CHURCH ESTABLISHMENT. J Madison
1786 Considerations on the ACT of the LEGISLATURE of VIRGINIA ENTITLED
AN ACT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. BY A CITIZEN or
PHILADELPHIA.
MAY 25, 1786 BENJAMIN RUSH: On the Need for General Education
1786 BENJAMIN RUSH: A Plan for the Establishment of Public Schools
JULY 28, 1787 Benjamin Rush: Thoughts on Female Education.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOLUME II
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OCTOBER 29, 1788 Plan of a Federal University, Benjamin Rush
1789 The Influence of the Revolution on the Minds and Morals of the
Citizens. David Ramsay
August 8, 1789 Address of the Committee of the United Baptist Churches of
Virginia, assembled in the city of Richmond, 8th August, 1789, to the
President of the United States of America. [Drafted by Elder John Leland]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOLUME III
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1790. The Education of the Youth of America, Noah Webster,
1790 The Virginia Chronicle John Leland
1790 On Dissenting from the Episcopal Church John Leland
AUGUST 17, 1790 Moses Seixas to George Washington
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOLUME IV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMER 1796 The Objects Proper to Liberal Education by Samuel Harrison
Smith.
December 7, 1796 George Washington: A National University.
1802 John Leland The Connecticut Dissenters' Strong Box: No. 1 New
London, 1802
The high-flying Churchman stript of his legal robe, &c.
1793 CIRCULAR LETTER OF THE SHAFTSBURY ASSOCIATION, John Leland
MAY 8, 1794 The Necessity of the Belief of Christianity
1794 YANKEE SPY Calculated for the Religious Meridian of MASSACHUSETTS, but
will answer for NEW HAMPSHIRE, CONNECTICUT, and VERMONT without any
material Alterations. By JACK NIPS [EDITORS NOTE: Jack Nips was a name The
Rev. John Leland used in some of his writings]
JULY 4, 1798 The Duty of Americans at the Present Crisis by Rev. Timothy
Dwight,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOLUME IV
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1800 [Not sure of exact publication date in the year] THE VOICE OF WARNING
TO
CHRISTIANS, ON THE ENSUING ELECTION OF A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
John Mitchell Mason
1800 A Solemn Address to the Christians & Patriots upon the Approaching
Election of a President of the United States in Answer to a Pamphlet
Entitled :Serious Considerations," &c. Timoleon
JANUARY 31, 1800 Jefferson to Bishop James Madison
APRIL 8, 1801 A Blow at the Root, by John Leland. The Writings of John
Leland,
JULY 5, 1802 July 4th Oration by John Leland The Writings of John Leland
1804 The Government of Christ a Christocracy, by John Leland,
July 4, 1805 An Elective Judiciary, by John Leland,
1809 Jacob Henry On Religion and Elective Office.
1811 A Speech delivered in the House of Representatives of Massachusetts on
the Subject of Religious Freedom, by John Leland.
1810-1815 Miscellaneous Essays in Prose and Verse. The Writings of John
Leland
1815 On Sabbatical Laws by John Leland.
1815 Catechism, By John Leland.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOLUME VI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1818 Thomas Clarke:--History of Intolerance (1818)
1819 Observations on the United States, by Giovanni Antonio Grassi,
1820 Short Essays on Govt. And the Proposed Revision of the Constitution of
Govt. For the Commonwealth of Mass. By John Leland.
1820-1824-exact year not known Which has done the most mischief in the
world, the Kings-evil or Priest-craft, John Leland,
OCTOBER 7, 1822 Report to the President and Directors of the Literary Fund
(extract),
October 7, 1822.From the Minutes of the Board of Visitors, University of
Virginia, 1822 - 1825,
JULY 4, 1824 A Address delivered at the request of the republican
committee, John Leland,.
1826 Part of a speech delivered on the first Jubilee of the United States
by John Leland,
January 8, 1830 Extract of letter from John Leland to Col. R.M. Johnson on
the subject of Sunday mail,
1830 Transportation of the mail, by John Leland,
March 20, 1830 Extract of letter from John Leland to Hon. R.M. Johnson
July 5, 1830 Short Sayings on Times, Men, Measures and Religion, John
Leland
1830 Oaths, by John Leland
January 8, 1831 An Address delivered by John Leland,
1831 Letter from John Leland to O. B. Brown
1831 John Wesley:".Advice to the People Called Methodists,"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOLUME VII
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 28, 1834 An Address by John Leland at a Democratic meeting
1834 A letter by John Leland
1835 Religious Sects and Religious Freedom in America, by Gustave De
Beaumont
1836 Free Thoughts on Times and Things by John Leland
JULY 23, 1836 Garrison and Religious Liberty, The Liberator
August 1837 & June 1838 Sabbath Examined by John Leland,
Discovered after 1841 Oaths, by John Leland. Discovered after his death,
exact date of writing unknown
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOLUME VIII
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1848 12th Annual Report, Horace Mann (Religious education)
1849 Preston W. Sellers v. George Dugan Supreme Court of Ohio
1850 Excerpt from Shover v The State, Supreme Court of Arkansas, January
Term 1850.
DECEMBER 1853 Excerpt from Hiram Bloom v. Cornelius Richards, Supreme
Court of Ohio, December Term, 1853.
1854 Excerpt from The State, Respondent, v. Ambs, Appellant, Supreme Court
of Missouri, October Term, 1854
1858 Ex Parte Newman, Supreme Court of California, April Term 1858.
1868 The oath of Office, Edited by Harold M. Hyman
1868 Alexander Campbell on Sunday Enforcement
February 23-27, 1873 Excerpts of a speech by Jonathan Edwards, D. D., at
the 9th annual convention of the National Reform Association (NRA) in New
York
FEBRUARY 18, 1874 U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 43rd CONGRESS, 1st SESSION
February 18, 1874 REPORT No. 143: ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF GOD AND THE CHRISTIAN
RELIGION IN THE CONSTITUTION
JULY 4, 1876 Robert Ingersoll: Centennial Oration One hundred years ago,
our fathers retired the gods from politics.
MAY 21, 1885 Spirit of Intolerance Animates National Reform Movement
FEBRUARY 10, 1887 Speech of Senator Crockett on the Working of Sunday Laws,
In the Senate of the State of Arkansas, Weekly Arkansas Gazette
AUGUST 1887 Dr. David McAllister, in National Reform Convention at
Lakeside, Ohio,
DECEMBER 14, 1887 Rev. W. T. McConnel, in "open letter" to editors of the
American Sentinel, in Christian Nation
1888 George Bancroft on the Constitution, , "History of the United States"
(1888),
1888 Philip Schaff -Church and State in the United States (1888)
1888 Speech in British Parliament, in 1827, quoted in Philip Schaff,
Church and State in the United States (1888),
1888 Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography (1888 edition) -Vol. 4,
p. 165. American state Papers (1949) p. 122
MAY 21, 1888 Excerpts from National Sunday-Rest Bill of 1888
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOLUME IX
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JANUARY 6, 1890 District Sunday-Rest Bill
JULY 3, 1890 Rev. W. F. Crafts, in Christian Statesman, July 3, 1890
JANUARY 27, 1891 Testimony of Judge Thomas Barlow, Rome, N. Y., Daily
Sentinel,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOLUME X
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOVEMBER 12, 1894 TEACHERS' WEARING RELIGIOUS GARB IN PUBLIC SCHOOL '
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
June 16, 1903 Written for "American State Papers" by the late
distinguished jurist, Thomas M. Cooley, author of "Constitutional
Limitations,
APRIL 17, 1906 TEACHERS' WEARING RELIGIOUS GARB IN PUBLIC SCHOOL
he Court of Appeals of the State of New York
JANUARY 21, 1908 Excerpt from Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia,
Maryland Sunday Law of 1723 Not in Force in the District.
January 29, 1908 A Memorial to Congress against Sunday Legislation
FEBRUARY 26, 1908 Justice Harlan of the U S Supreme Court At a mass meeting
held in the New York Avenue Presbyterian church in Washington, D. C.,
February 26, 1908.
March 3, 1908 A Memorial to Congress against Sunday Legislation,.
JULY 6, 1909 Excerpt of speech, in the Washington Post, July 6, 1909, by
President Taft delivered at Norwich, Connecticut, July 5, 1909
JULY 7, 1909 Excerpt of speech, in the Washington Times, July 7, 1909, by
President Taft at Cliff Haven, New York, addressing the students of the
Catholic summer school of America July 7, 1909.
MARCH 8, 1910 A. T. Jones, speech before House District Committee, March 8,
1910.
JULY 1, 1910 TEACHERS WEARING RELIGIOUS GARB IN PUBLIC SCHOOL The Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania
NOVEMBER 5, 1910 An editorial, under the caption, "Church and State," in
the Wichita, Kansas, Catholic Advance,.
1923 Summation Meyer v. State of Nebraska
FEBRUARY 7, 1926--Bible Reading in Virginia Public Schools-Richmond
Times-Dispatch,
MARCH 12, 1932 Excerpt from Joshua Levering, Reverend William A. Davis, et
al., v. Robert B. Ennis, et al. Superior Court of Baltimore City.
(Christianity not part of the Common Law)
JULY 1933 Religion in Indiana Public Schools
APRIL 2, 1936 TEACHERS' WEARING RELIGIOUS GARB IN PUBLIC SCHOOL
The Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota
MARCH 28, 1938 Excerpts from Alma Lovell, Appellant, v.. The City of
Griffin U.S.S.C. Unlicensed Distribution of Religious Literature
1943 Genealogy of Sunday Laws
JUNE 11, 1943 Excerpts from The West Virginia State Board of Education,
etc., et al., Appellants, Walter Barnette, Paul k;ull and Lucy McClure.
Supreme Court of the United States. Compulsory Saluting of the National
Flag.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
jal...@cox.net
>:|
>:|Read Page Smith's book, THE RELIGIOUS ORIGINS OF THE AMERICAN
>:|REVOLUTION. I can't post the whole thing here. It is full of primary
>:|material which illustrates his points.
After readers finish that they can read the following and get some other
opinions:
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
> > > > REVOLUTION. I can't post the whole thing here. It is full of primary
> > > > material which illustrates his points.
> > > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > Crap. Where are the primary sources?
> >
> > Try http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html
> >
> > It's a little more reputable of a source than your "infidels.org"
> > citation.
>
> So why are you evading the question? Where are the primary sources?
Apparently you haven't taken History 101. Museum displays, especially
those on display at the LOC (again:
http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html), are indeed PRIMARY
SOURCES.
The Library of Congress tends to have some of the very best primary
sources available to historians. No, those displays aren't even
"reproductions."
> > Or are you are one of those wackos who think that the curators of the
> > Library of Congress are in a right-wing conspiracy with Bob Jones and
> > Benny Hinn?
>
> Even Bob Jones seems to think to be called fundamentalist is worse
> than called a racist. You must be a kook.
Who said anything above about fundamentalists? I said Bob Jones is a
"right-winger."
Do you disagree?
Searle
ambrose searle
> > > > REVOLUTION. I can't post the whole thing here. It is full of primary
> > > > material which illustrates his points.
> > > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > Crap. Where are the primary sources?
> >
> > Try http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html
> >
> > It's a little more reputable of a source than your "infidels.org"
> > citation.
>
> So why are you evading the question? Where are the primary sources?
Apparently you haven't taken History 101. Museum displays, especially
those on display at the LOC (again:
http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html), are indeed PRIMARY
SOURCES.
The Library of Congress tends to have some of the very best primary
sources available to historians. No, those displays aren't even
"reproductions."
> > Or are you are one of those wackos who think that the curators of the
> > Library of Congress are in a right-wing conspiracy with Bob Jones and
> > Benny Hinn?
>
> Even Bob Jones seems to think to be called fundamentalist is worse
> than called a racist. You must be a kook.
Who said anything above about fundamentalists? I said Bob Jones is a
ambrose searle
> >:|
> >:|Try http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html
> >:|
> >:|It's a little more reputable of a source than your "infidels.org"
> >:|citation.
> >:|
> >:|Or are you are one of those wackos who think that the curators of the
> >:|Library of Congress are in a right-wing conspiracy with Bob Jones and
> >:|Benny Hinn?
> >:|
> >:|Ambrose
> ===========================================================
>
> Library of Congress, yes very good, glad you mentioned that again
I read the old posts you cited, and, as was to be suspected, you make
the fanatical claim that the U.S. Federal Government's Library of
Congress, and its curator, Dr. J. Hutson, is "agenda-driven,"
"biased," and does nothing more than pander to "an interest group
(like everyone else in Washington)"
You can keep finding right-wing conspiracies among reputable scholars
and academics; perhaps their even hiding underneath your bed at night,
but most of the sane world believes that the information posted at
http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html is solid, scholarly,
academic, history. You don't become Librarian of Congress, like
Boorstin or Hutson, unless you have a few credentials to back you up.
Searle
ambrose searle
> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>
> >:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<j40ifu8e0eaqsfo6p...@4ax.com>...
> >:|> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
> >:|>
> >:|> >:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<o18ffu05hsk0k9nu5...@4ax.com>...
> >:|> >:|> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
> >:|> >:|
> >:|> >:|There's quite a contrast between the nature of the sources listed
> >:|> >:|here, viz., Princeton, Harvard, Oxford, Duke University, etc.,
> >:|> >:|presses...
> >:|> >:|
> >:|> >:|and the sources posted further below by jalison, viz. "infidels.org"
> >:|> >:|"positiveatheism.org" "deism.com" in addition to a couple of dozen
> >:|> >:|GOOGLE posts that he made himself.
> >:|>
> >:|> LOL, man is this ever lame.
> >:|>
> >:|> But, I guess that is about the best ambrose/gardiner can do.
> >:|>
> >:|> The same Gardiner tactics as before.
> >:|
> >:|It's factual. Your posts constantly cite agenda-ridden sources such as
> >:| "infidels.org" "positiveatheism.org" and "deism.com"
> >:|
> >:|It's there for all to see.
> >:|
>
> LOL,
> What agenda does the following indicate (which of course you are careful
> not to mention):
>
> The American Historical Review Vol. 104 # 3 June 1999.
> >:|> http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/104.3/br_36.html
I clicked the link and got a forbidden entrance page.
Amb.
Melody Blaiser
I had no problem.
"Allen Jayne. Jefferson's Declaration of Independence: Origins,
Philosophy, and Theology. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
1998. Pp. xiii, 245. $39.95.
This book is a clear, concise, and accurate account of the
philosophical and religious views that inspired Thomas Jefferson to
compose the United States' formative document. Allen Jayne leaves no
doubt that the "Nature's God" found in the Declaration of
Independence, the deity who provides the American colonists with their
right to rebel against the British government, is the rationalist God
of deism, not the personal God of Abraham. 1
However, several criticisms are in order. First, Jayne limits his
discussion of Jefferson's intellectual sources to a few modern
authors. There is no mention of the Stoics, whom Jefferson read and
copied at an early age. It was the Stoics who originated the complex
theory of knowledge, involving both reason and intuition, which
Jefferson adopted and which Jayne attributes exclusively to the
Scottish commonsense philosophers. Jefferson was also heavily
influenced by Epicureanism, as were the modern deists whom Jefferson
read. Jayne also ignores the significant areas in which both Jefferson
and the British authors he perused were indebted to Christianity.
Jefferson believed in a Resurrection at the end of time, followed by
divine judgment and an afterlife of rewards and punishments. His
ethics were largely Christian; he considered Jesus the greatest
ethical philosopher who ever lived. "
Melody Blaiser
Richard Weatherwax
<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:h92pfusv0reg8c4bu...@4ax.com...
> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
< CLIP >
> >:|Try http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html
> >:|
> >:|It's a little more reputable of a source than your "infidels.org"
> >:|citation.
> >:|
> >:|Or are you are one of those wackos who think that the curators
> >: of the Library of Congress are in a right-wing conspiracy with
> >: Bob Jones and Benny Hinn?
> >:|
> >:|Ambrose
> ===========================================================
>
> Library of Congress, yes very good, glad you mentioned that again:
>
> Newsgroups:
>
soc.history.war.us-revolution,alt.history.colonial,alt.atheism,alt.politics.
usa.constitution,soc.history,alt.deism,
> alt.atheism,alt.religion.deism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.history
> Subject: L.O.C. EXHIBIT (update)
> Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:14:18 -0400
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=d11tqs02s7dubb5jkbu3r1su3plnfaoq3c%404a
x.com&output=gplain
>
One good thing which can be said about that Library of Congress exhibit:
It doesn't make a pretence of being impartial, or of giving an overall view.
The title of the exhibit is: "Religion and the Founding of the American
Republic" With a name like that, you know that it's going to be slanted.
I imagine that somebody could create an exhibit called "Religion and the
Founding fathers of the Soviet Union" I'm sure religion did play some role
in it. Some Christians even point to a scriptual basis for communism:
Acts 2:44-45
All who believed were together and held everything in
common, and they began selling their property and
possessions and distributing the proceeds96 to everyone,
as anyone had need.
NET Bible
--
Wax
S of S: 5:1
Eat, friends, drink,
and be drunk with love.
ambrose searle
>
> One good thing which can be said about that Library of Congress exhibit:
> It doesn't make a pretence of being impartial, or of giving an overall view.
> The title of the exhibit is: "Religion and the Founding of the American
> Republic" With a name like that, you know that it's going to be slanted.
Huh? Why so?
ambrose searle
Melody,
Thanks for showing me what the page said. The review is highly
informative. It shows that the author, Jayne, "ignored the significant
areas in which both Jefferson and the British authors he perused were
indebted to Christianity."
Did you know that "rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God" was
Jefferson's motto?
Do you know where he claimed he took that phrase from?
Hint: it wasn't deists.
Searle
maff
> > > > > REVOLUTION. I can't post the whole thing here. It is full of primary
> > > > > material which illustrates his points.
> > > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > Crap. Where are the primary sources?
> > >
> > > Try http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html
> > >
> > > It's a little more reputable of a source than your "infidels.org"
> > > citation.
> >
> > So why are you evading the question? Where are the primary sources?
>
> Apparently you haven't taken History 101. Museum displays, especially
> those on display at the LOC (again:
> http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html), are indeed PRIMARY
> SOURCES.
It doesn't say anything about the Constitution or the founding
fathers. All founding fathers detested organized religion.
>
> The Library of Congress tends to have some of the very best primary
> sources available to historians. No, those displays aren't even
> "reproductions."
All papers which are in the Library of Congress show that the founding
fathers were not establishing a Christian nation. Most Christian
denominations and sects were at each others throat.
>
> > > Or are you are one of those wackos who think that the curators of the
> > > Library of Congress are in a right-wing conspiracy with Bob Jones and
> > > Benny Hinn?
> >
> > Even Bob Jones seems to think to be called fundamentalist is worse
> > than called a racist. You must be a kook.
>
> Who said anything above about fundamentalists? I said Bob Jones is a
> "right-winger."
>
> Do you disagree?
It depends.
Here are some Goldwater nuggets. All would be considered extremist
left-wing today.
"When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking
ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to
take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a
religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics
goodbye."
"Religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless
the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no
place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known
without trying to make their views the only alternatives."
"Nixon was the most dishonest individual I have ever met in my life.
He lied to his wife, his family, his friends, his colleagues in the
Congress, lifetime members of his own political party, the American
people and the world."
"On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no
position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs.
There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus
Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being.
But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf
should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing
throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom.
They are trying to force government leaders into following their
position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a
particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss
of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political
preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want
to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C, and D. Just who do
they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right
to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a
legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who
thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll
call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every
step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all
Americans in the name of 'conservatism.' "
"The rights that we have under the Constitution covers anything we
want to do, as long as its not harmful. I can't see any way in the
world that being a gay can cause damage to somebody else."
"You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to
be able to shoot straight."
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired,
signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are
not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is
not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers,
The genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children....Under the
cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of
iron."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
>
> Searle
jal...@cox.net
>:|"Richard Weatherwax" <weath...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<yFeL8.16405$JY2.29...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>...
Hmmmmmm, maybe this will explain it, huh?
Newsgroups:
soc.history.war.us-revolution,alt.history.colonial,alt.atheism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,alt.deism,alt.atheism,alt.religion.deism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.history
Subject: L.O.C. EXHIBIT (update)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:14:18 -0400
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=d11tqs02s7dubb5jkbu3r1su3plnfaoq3c%404ax.com&output=gplain
Do pay particular attention to the following:
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, Copyright William Edelen
http://www.evolvefish.com/freewrite/edelin-lib-congrs.html
and
Tearing Down Jefferson's Oath, John Patrick Michael Murphy
Copyright 1998
http://www.evolvefish.com/freewrite/murphy-jeffersons-oath.html
First Amendment Scholars Challenge Library of Congress
Claims on Jefferson Letter Regarding "Wall"
http://www.infidels.org/wire/stories/loc_jeffWall.html
(The above URL also has the letter the scholars wrote to the LOC, and the
list of scholars who signed off on it---Buckeye)
==========================
Religion and the Founding of the American Republic
http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/public.html
Public Programs on
Religion and the Founding of the American Republic
The exhibition and related programs are made possible by generous grants
from The Pew Charitable Trusts, Mr. and Mrs. Henry J. (Bud) Smith, and the
Lilly Endowment Inc.
------ ------- ------- ------ ---------
The Pew Charitable Trusts,
Religion and the Public Square: Religious Grantmaking at The Pew Charitable
Trusts
http://www.pewtrusts.com/Frame.cfm?Framesource=programs/philly.cfm
One of the three Exhibit sponsors has a primary aim in the field of
religion, "...to deepen and enrich the religious lives of American
Christians..." (Not exactly the most unifying aim in a pluralistic,
democratic, republic containing numerous non-Christian religions and many
with no religious faith beliefs at all.)
-------- -------- ------- --------
Mr. and Mrs. Henry J. (Bud) Smith,
http://www.ncpa.org/about/bsmith.html
The second of the three sponsors is also the founder and board
member of an organization "that helps leaders engage the key issues of
their personal and public lives in the context of faith." (It does not say
what that faith must be. Hardly non-discriminatory.) Additionally, this
nonprofit, nontaxed, organization "fosters strategic programs and
publications that further its mission: to contribute to the transformation
and renewal of society through the transformation and renewal of national
leaders." (But apparently only leaders of faith. And whose faith belief
might that be?) It was interesting to note that this same individual is
also a Member of the James Madison National Council-LOC
-------------------------------------------------
the Lilly Endowment Inc.
http://www.indepsec.org/pathfinder/resources/foundations/lil_end.html
***********************************************************************
jal...@cox.net
>:|> > > > Read Page Smith's book, THE RELIGIOUS ORIGINS OF THE AMERICAN
>:|> > > > REVOLUTION. I can't post the whole thing here. It is full of primary
>:|> > > > material which illustrates his points.
>:|> > > >
>:|> > > [...]
>:|> > >
>:|> > > Crap. Where are the primary sources?
>:|> >
>:|> > Try http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html
>:|> >
>:|> > It's a little more reputable of a source than your "infidels.org"
>:|> > citation.
>:|>
>:|> So why are you evading the question? Where are the primary sources?
>:|
>:|Apparently you haven't taken History 101.
Ahhhh, the typical ambrose/gardiner insult
>:|Museum displays, especially
>:|those on display at the LOC (again:
>:|http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html), are indeed PRIMARY
>:|SOURCES.
>:|
>:|The Library of Congress tends to have some of the very best primary
>:|sources available to historians. No, those displays aren't even
>:|"reproductions."
>:|
Notice the shift in subject matter:
From this
>:|> > > > Read Page Smith's book, THE RELIGIOUS ORIGINS OF THE AMERICAN
>:|> > > > REVOLUTION. I can't post the whole thing here. It is full of primary
>:|> > > > material which illustrates his points.
to this
>:|> > Try http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html
>:|> > Or are you are one of those wackos who think that the curators of the
>:|> > Library of Congress are in a right-wing conspiracy with Bob Jones and
>:|> > Benny Hinn?
See:
jal...@cox.net
>:|Melody Blaiser <mbla...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:<1irqfu8lk6t3i1kgp...@4ax.com>...
Hint: Christianity didn't flow through Jefferson's veins.
Hint: Jefferson wasn't a orthodox Christian.
[Founders in general, long long post but most complete probably thus far
--- 5/19/02]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl783259543d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=9creeugfmesftrah
9m1epc0qac46rj0j8l%404ax.com
[Mostly Jefferson, primary/secondary evidence, including old reply to
Gardiner---5/14/02]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3825310418d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=53i2eu0fuv023s
9r7r3itsg4839javqgiu%404ax.com
[Jefferson, primary/secondary material --- 5/16/02]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3825310418d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=27nceuor6e8g3d
ctnk6iqjt7d55brhavgv%404ax.com
[Mostly Jefferson --- 5/15/02]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3825310418d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=olj4eu8mi4g43qj
cq3g0fmck5atv7ojntg%404ax.com
[Jefferson, more of the correting so called erros of my, more attempts by
postr to creat mountian out of a spec --- 5/20/02]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl146791123d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=vbtheuc3vacrqkh9
4pt41drcgjhldag3gf%404ax.com
jal...@cox.net
>:|> >:|> Crap. Where are the primary sources?
Dear Ambrose/gardiner:
ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>:|"Richard Weatherwax" <weath...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<yFeL8.16405$JY2.29...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>...
>:|>
>:|> One good thing which can be said about that Library of Congress exhibit:
>:|> It doesn't make a pretence of being impartial, or of giving an overall view.
>:|> The title of the exhibit is: "Religion and the Founding of the American
>:|> Republic" With a name like that, you know that it's going to be slanted.
>:|
>:|Huh? Why so?
Hmmmmmm, maybe this will explain it, huh?
Newsgroups:
soc.history.war.us-revolution,alt.history.colonial,alt.atheism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,alt.deism,alt.atheism,alt.religion.deism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.history
Subject: L.O.C. EXHIBIT (update)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:14:18 -0400
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=d11tqs02s7dubb5jkbu3r1su3plnfaoq3c%404ax.com&output=gplain
Do pay particular attention to the following:
and
The Pew Charitable Trusts,
**********************************************
jal...@cox.net
>:|jal...@cox.net wrote in message news:<6e1pfus3sqrl79skv...@4ax.com>...
It works for me
ambrose searle
> >:|> and the British authors he perused were indebted to Christianity.
> >:|> Jefferson believed in a Resurrection at the end of time, followed by
> >:|> divine judgment and an afterlife of rewards and punishments. His
> >:|> ethics were largely Christian; he considered Jesus the greatest
> >:|> ethical philosopher who ever lived. "
> >:|
> >:|Melody,
> >:|
> >:|Thanks for showing me what the page said. The review is highly
> >:|informative. It shows that the author, Jayne, "ignored the significant
> >:|areas in which both Jefferson and the British authors he perused were
> >:|indebted to Christianity."
> >:|
> >:|Did you know that "rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God" was
> >:|Jefferson's motto?
> >:|
> >:|Do you know where he claimed he took that phrase from?
> >:|
> >:|Hint: it wasn't deists.
>
> Hint: Christianity didn't flow through Jefferson's veins.
"It is a scholarly commonplace to point out how much Jefferson (and
his fellow delegates to the Continental Congress)were influenced by
Locke. Without disputing this we would simply add that an older and
deeper influence ?? John Calvin ?? was of more profound importance"
Dr. Page Smith, Professor of History, UCLA
Now if you would post a succinct counterpoint to this claim, I think a
fruitful discussion that would be helpful not only to you and me, but
to all who might be lurking now or in the future; but if you simply
cut and paste reams and reams of old discussions that are haphazard,
off-topic, tangential, and filled with insults, then the discussion is
over and you are back to your monologue, which is what you said you
liked best.
So, I guess I should just expect your typical cop out response.
> Hint: Jefferson wasn't a orthodox Christian.
According to YOUR definition of "orthodox" you would have to say he
was. Your definition is, however, flawed. Jefferson did not fit into
any "camp." Jefferson was a member of a sect of one. He considered
himself a "real Christian," but in saying that he was implying that
most people are not Christians. As a matter of fact he said that
Calvin was an atheist.
Why are you so resistent to dealing with my posts point by point? Do
you think you score any points with readers by avoiding a
point-by-point debate, skirting around the details, by name-calling
people who you argued with in 1999? Then by emptying as much of the
contents of your hard drive onto usenet as you can?
You are right when you say that I cannot force you to debate the
issues systematically or point by point. You have your style and
that's that. But I find it hard to believe that you really think your
approach is winning favor for your cause long-term.
Searle
ambrose searle
> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote:
>
> >:|> > > > Read Page Smith's book, THE RELIGIOUS ORIGINS OF THE AMERICAN
> >:|> > > > REVOLUTION. I can't post the whole thing here. It is full of primary
> >:|> > > > material which illustrates his points.
> >:|> > > >
> >:|> > > [...]
> >:|> > >
>:|> > > Crap. Where are the primary sources?
> >:|> >
> >:|> > Try http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html
> >:|> >
> >:|> > It's a little more reputable of a source than your "infidels.org"
> >:|> > citation.
> >:|>
> >:|> So why are you evading the question? Where are the primary sources?
> >:|
> >:|Apparently you haven't taken History 101.
> >:|Museum displays, especially
> >:|those on display at the LOC (again:
> >:|http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html), are indeed PRIMARY
> >:|SOURCES.
> >:|
> >:|The Library of Congress tends to have some of the very best primary
> >:|sources available to historians. No, those displays aren't even
> >:|"reproductions."
> >:|
>
> Notice the shift in subject matter:
> From this
>
> >:|> > > > Read Page Smith's book, THE RELIGIOUS ORIGINS OF THE AMERICAN
> >:|> > > > REVOLUTION. I can't post the whole thing here. It is full of primary
> >:|> > > > material which illustrates his points.
>
> to this
>
> >:|> > Try http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html
Apparently you aren't aware of the subject matter of Page Smith and
James Hutson. They are, in many ways, identical.
Ambrose Searle
ambrose searle
> >:|> Republic" With a name like that, you know that it's going to be slanted.
> >:|
> >:|Huh? Why so?
>
>
> Hmmmmmm, maybe this will explain it, huh?
You are comical: you're alleging that the Library of Congress is
agenda-driven by special interest groups, but all of the citations
you give to prove this come from URLS like: "evolvefish.com" and
"infidels.org."
It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Richard Weatherwax
"ambrose searle" <ambros...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fe9a0c54.02060...@posting.google.com...
Are you that dumb?
If the exhibit was named Prussian Beer Makers and the Founding of the
American Republic, would you expect it to give useful and accurate
information? Or would you expect it to be slanted towards beer makers from
Prussia?
And if the exhibit was sponsored by beer makers from Prussia, would you have
confidence in what it said?
--
Wax
Job 13:7
Will you speak falsely for God,
and speak deceitfully for him?
Fletis Humplebacker
> One good thing which can be said about that Library of Congress exhibit:
> It doesn't make a pretence of being impartial, or of giving an overall view.
> The title of the exhibit is: "Religion and the Founding of the American
> Republic" With a name like that, you know that it's going to be slanted.
This shows your bias. The exhibit does give an overall view, devoting much
of it to deists, but obviously not enough to suit you. You can't ignore
religion if you are talking about the past anymore than you could today.
Get your noggin out of the sand Richard.
> I imagine that somebody could create an exhibit called "Religion and the
> Founding fathers of the Soviet Union" I'm sure religion did play some role
> in it. Some Christians even point to a scriptual basis for communism:
> Acts 2:44-45
> All who believed were together and held everything in
> common, and they began selling their property and
> possessions and distributing the proceeds96 to everyone,
> as anyone had need.
> NET Bible
> Wax
Yes, if we were all Christians we could. Whattya say ?
fletis
Richard Weatherwax
< CLIP >
>
> Apparently you haven't taken History 101. Museum displays,
> especially those on display at the LOC (again:
> http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html), are
> indeed PRIMARY SOURCES.
>
> The Library of Congress tends to have some of the very best primary
> sources available to historians. No, those displays aren't even
> "reproductions."
< Clip >
The Library of Congress may have excellent primary sources, but those
sources are not available through this site. The site show some good
photographs of primary documents. It gives short quotes from some of those
documents, but that's all. Primarily the site is mere commentary and
opinions.
For example, in section III, under the subheading, "Revolution Justified by
God" it has a photo of a pamphlet written by Abraham Ketaltas. The
exhibitors claim "Many Revolutionary War clergy argued that the war against
Britain was approved by God," and then quotes a short paragraph from the
pamphlet. But there is no way of finding out what is inside.
When we enlarge the photo, are we able make out that the contents is from a
sermon "PREACHED OCTOBER 5TH, 1777." That was more than a year after the
Declaration of independence had been signed. Therefore we have no way of
telling what that particular minister believed before the Revolutionary War
began.
Seeing as churches traditionally support their countries wars, the pamphlet
as exhibited is meaningless.
--
Wax
Everything should be made as simple as
possible, but not simpler.
Albert Einstein
Richard Weatherwax
"Fletis Humplebacker" <fl...@snip.net> wrote in message
news:3cfe...@news.turbotek.net...
> "Richard Weatherwax"
>
> > One good thing which can be said about that Library of
> > Congress exhibit: It doesn't make a pretence of being
> > impartial, or of giving an overall view. The title of the
> > exhibit is: "Religion and the Founding of the American
> > Republic" With a name like that, you know that it's going
> > to be slanted.
>
>
> This shows your bias. The exhibit does give an overall view,
> devoting much of it to deists, but obviously not enough to suit
> you. You can't ignore religion if you are talking about the past
> anymore than you could today.
> Get your noggin out of the sand Richard.
I am biased because I state that an exhibit about religion which is
sponsored by Christians is slanted towards Christianity?
It does mention Deism, but what does it say? It calls Deism "a minority
within a minority."
Richard Weatherwax
"ambrose searle" <ambros...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fe9a0c54.02060...@posting.google.com...
< CLIP >
> Jefferson's motto?
>
> Do you know where he claimed he took that phrase from?
>
> Hint: it wasn't deists.
>
Do you know who he was calling "tyrants"?
It wasn't the British.
In fact, it was several years after the Revolutionary War, and he was
referring to a group of religous leaders.
Richard Weatherwax
>
> "It is a scholarly commonplace to point out how much Jefferson (and
> his fellow delegates to the Continental Congress)were influenced by
> Locke. Without disputing this we would simply add that an older and
> deeper influence ?? John Calvin ?? was of more profound
> importance"
>
> Dr. Page Smith, Professor of History, UCLA
There are significant differences between Locke and Calvin. Locke's verws
were secular, whereas Calvin were religious. While Locke said that a people
had the right to overthrow a tyranical government, Calvin approved of
resistence to a government only if the government forces the people to act
against the "word of God."
How does this affect American History? If you read the Declaration of
Independence and other relavent decuments, you will find that the revolution
was fought over issue such as the imposition of taxes, desolving local
legislatures, and stationing armed troops. None of the complaints were
religious in nature.
ambrose searle
> "ambrose searle" <ambros...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fe9a0c54.02060...@posting.google.com...
> > "Richard Weatherwax" <weath...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:<yFeL8.16405$JY2.29...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>...
> > >
> > > One good thing which can be said about that Library of
> > > Congress exhibit: It doesn't make a pretence of being
> > > impartial, or of giving an overall view. The title of the exhibit
> > > is: "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic"
> > > With a name like that, you know that it's going to be slanted.
> >
> > Huh? Why so?
>
> Are you that dumb?
>
> If the exhibit was named Prussian Beer Makers and the Founding of the
> American Republic, would you expect it to give useful and accurate
> information? Or would you expect it to be slanted towards beer makers from
> Prussia?
Your logic is absurd. In your view, since the Federal Government has a
famous exhibit all about the Nazi's Holocaust, we must presume that
the exhibit is slanted in favor of the Holocaust.
Good museum curators try to present reality: good, bad, or
indifferent. The Library of Congress has an impeccable reputation as
having good curators.
Searle
Richard Weatherwax
"ambrose searle" <ambros...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fe9a0c54.02060...@posting.google.com...
> "Richard Weatherwax" <weath...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:<Y0uL8.16764$ov7.31...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>...
> > "ambrose searle" <ambros...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:fe9a0c54.02060...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Richard Weatherwax" <weath...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:<yFeL8.16405$JY2.29...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>...
> > > >
> > > > One good thing which can be said about that Library of
> > > > Congress exhibit: It doesn't make a pretence of being
> > > > impartial, or of giving an overall view. The title of the exhibit
> > > > is: "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic"
> > > > With a name like that, you know that it's going to be slanted.
> > >
> > > Huh? Why so?
> >
> > Are you that dumb?
> >
> > If the exhibit was named Prussian Beer Makers and the
> > Founding of the American Republic, would you expect it to
> > give useful and accurate information? Or would you expect
> > it to be slanted towards beer makers from Prussia?
>
> Your logic is absurd. In your view, since the Federal
> Government has a famous exhibit all about the Nazi's
> Holocaust, we must presume that the exhibit is slanted in favor
> of the Holocaust.
By God, you are that dumb!
ambrose searle
>
> All founding fathers detested organized religion.
That's ignorant. Unfortunately, some like jalison are liable to come
to your rescue when you make absurd assertions like this.
Since when did the Rev. John Witherspoon begin to detest organized
religion?
What of Roger Sherman, a deacon in his church? Benjamin Rush, founder
of the Philadelphia Bible Society?
If Jefferson, Franklin, and Washington detested church so much, why
did all of them offer so much voluntary financial support? Why did
Jefferson go to the trouble to organize a Calvinist church?
If John Adams destested church, why did he describe himself as a
"church-going animal all of my life"?
> All papers which are in the Library of Congress show that the founding
> fathers were not establishing a Christian nation.
Your use of the word "all" is reckless.
> Most Christian denominations and sects were at each others throat.
Yes.
Ambrose
jal...@cox.net
>:|"Richard Weatherwax"
>:|
>:|> One good thing which can be said about that Library of Congress exhibit:
>:|> It doesn't make a pretence of being impartial, or of giving an overall view.
>:|> The title of the exhibit is: "Religion and the Founding of the American
>:|> Republic" With a name like that, you know that it's going to be slanted.
>:|
>:|
>:|This shows your bias. The exhibit does give an overall view, devoting much
>:|of it to deists, but obviously not enough to suit you. You can't ignore
>:|religion if you are talking about the past anymore than you could today.
>:|Get your noggin out of the sand Richard.
>:|
Not everyone agrees with you.
See:
Newsgroups:
soc.history.war.us-revolution,alt.history.colonial,alt.atheism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,alt.deism,alt.atheism,alt.religion.deism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.history
Subject: L.O.C. EXHIBIT (update)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:14:18 -0400
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=d11tqs02s7dubb5jkbu3r1su3plnfaoq3c%404ax.com&output=gplain
jal...@cox.net
>:|
>:|By God, you are that dumb!
Naaaaaa, he is just being Gardiner. It's this silly one up man ship game he
is compelled to play all the time and apparently thinks he wins at.
==================================================
Here is something that someone put together and sent me. It shows one
month, March 1999. Gives a good example of Gardiner's tactics and style.
Unfortunately, the dela.com hasn't been translated into Google at this
point in time yet.
=====================================================
Table of Contents
Slanderous Statements/Misrepresentation of Opponents
Misuse of Sources
Snipping/Doctoring Quotes
Pseudo-History
Undue Prominence/Influence Given to Historical Figures
Undue Influence of Christianity
Undue Influence Given Historical Documents
Undue Influence Given to Teachers/Nominal Religious Affiliation
Lies
Threats
Insults
Religious Right Ideology
Support for Establishment
Founders as Orthodox Christian
Basis For Citizenship
Religious Right Associations
Use of Typical Religious Right Quotes/Pseudo-History
Background
Selling Book
Slanderous Statements/Misrepresentation of Opponents
http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=454885255 (3/14/1999)
Also: http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=454893473
Mr. Leahy,
Thank you for your level-headed response regarding definitions. Be careful,
however, Mr. Alison is sure to call you a Christian fundamentalist for
saying that the men involved in the American Revolution were not founders.
You may be interested to know, from Mr. Alison, that the public schools
have it all wrong: when they teach that this nation was birthed in 1776,
they are deceiving the children. According to Mr. Alison, the nation
conceived in 1776 was not a "real nation:"
2. http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=454890652 (3/14/1999)
Mr. Leahy,
I apologize for my typo; I meant to say that Mr. Alison will call you a
Christian fundamentalist for saying that those who participated in the
American Revolution WERE founders.
As I see it the conflict is this: Mr. Alison maintains that our nation was
founded in 1787:
> The period of independence or the period of
> founding this nation under its present system?
While you (with the rest of us) believe the nation was founded in 1776, and
has evolved in a number of directions in the 223 years since:
Harold Leahy wrote:
> I am glad you posted your
> definitions, since they are not the standard ones used by historians or the
> general public. The United States was not founded by the Constitution. It
> was declared to exist and founded in the Declaration of Independence. The
> people that brought that document about and fought the war are the Founders
> of this country.
If we always attach the words "its present system" to the founding of this
nation, then we would have to say that the nation was founded anew every
time a new amendment to the constitution was added. Theoretically the
entire constitution could be amended in 1999, under the provisions of
Article 5. If that were the case, would we say that the U.S. was founded in
1999?
Again, I just really appreciate your sensibilities about this matter. I was
worried, for a moment, that perhaps I was misled by my belief that July 4,
1776 really meant something to the nation as we know it.
3. http://x34.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=453978623 (3/11/1999 - Also Founders as
Orthodox Christian, Insults, Basis for Citizenship [Atheist Bashing], Undue
Influence of Christianity, Undue Prominence/Influence Given to Historical
Figures)
> It was in response to this list of yours that I posted the quoting
> information. Probably half of the men on the list above did not play a
> role or a role of any importance in framing the Constitution, BOR's etc.
That does not mean that they were not founders. Jim, you so often speak
from both sides of your mouth. I am totally in agreement with you. Those
who were not at the constitutional convention should not be used as
"framers." That rule seems to only apply to my list, however. You seem to
insist upon arguing that Paine and Jefferson belong in the list of
"framers." Notice that I headed the list above with the word "founders" not
"framers." I am perplexed by your unwillingness to concede the fact that
you only want to apply your rule where and when you want to apply it.
Jefferson was not a framer. He was a founder, though. The men above mostly
fit in that same category. Now look at how you defend Paine as a founder--
> Most historians consider Paine having played an important role in the
> struggle for independence [he even had a minor position in the government
> briefly] but to me Paine is not a major subject of this discussion.
Now let's examine my list in the same way. Jefferson said that Patrick
Henry was the force which impelled Virginians to join the New Englanders in
the Revolution, without which there would have been no united states.
Thomas Jefferson wrote that Sam Adams was "the fountainhead" in the
struggle for independence. Roger Sherman joined Adams, Franklin, RH Lee,
and Jefferson on the committee to draft the Declaration. Otis was the voice
which sparked the Stamp Act crisis, without which there would have been no
Lexington & Concord, 2nd Continental Cong., etc. Madison needs no argument.
George III considered Hancock and Sam Adams the two who single-handedly
incited the rebellion. I trust that you acknowledge the importance of the
2nd Continental Congress, and by implication, it's officers. Wythe's
importance was heralded, again, by Thomas Jefferson, who would never cease
to credit Wythe with being the most significant influence upon his
political development. Witherspoon's role at Princeton and at the Second
Continental Congress is hard to overestimate. His speech just prior to the
vote upon the Declaration has been acknowledged by several founders to have
been pivotal. His mentoring of Madison has been shown to be crucial in the
formation of the constitution. Pickney was a framer.
The men on my list were not just "famous men." They were founders. That is
the received view. Arguing otherwise simply exposes an apparent desire to
distort and manipulate facts to suit your agenda.
[…..]
Did you read that, Jim? Jefferson nowhere includes atheists! True,
non-christians were considered "infidels" which I suppose etymologically
refers to those who do no believe, but in context the word infidel does not
mean atheist, it means one who does not believe in Christianity. It was the
observation of the founders that all people who have their reason cannot
escape acknowledging a deity of one sort or another.
> Truth of the matter is, some of the founders were as biased narrow minded
> as some people of today are. Facts are that Catholics Unitarians, Deists,
> Jews, Quakers were viewed by many as non believers, Dissenting groups such
> as the Baptist and others were viewed by some in the same manner.
Again, "non-believer"="non-believer...in Christianity" not Atheist.
> Creator does not automatically translate into the Christian God as taught
> about in the various doctrines and dogmas of existing organized Christian
> sects and denominations of the 18th century.
Absolutely I agree!
[…..]
> Washington and Adams were politicians. Good political speeches, etc contain
> a nugget for everyone. How strong this so called belief that religion was
> so necessary for public morality is a bit hard to calculate in this day and
> age.
Again when you make these "they-were-just-kidding" sort of claims, you open
yourself, in all fairness, to the accusation that when Jefferson criticized
Calvin, etc., "he was just providing a nugget" for the "free-will"
contingent in Virginia. I won't allege that, because I believe Jefferson
meant what he said; but I also believe that Washington meant what he said
and was not simply hoodwinking the masses when he alleged that religion is
necessary for the success of the republic.
[…..]
> Patrick Henry played a very small role in the founding of this nation. He
> played a rather large role in the founding of the nation of Virginia. But
> he played next to no role in the founding of the United States of America.
I wish they would tell that to all the public school history teachers. I
see that you indeed are interested in promoting a relatively radical
revisionism.
> >To quote you, "So, what's your point?" Is this response supposed to nullify
> >that the Puritan influence was not present during the founding?
>
> It was of minor or no importance outside of the New England region.
New England was half of the nation!!
4. http://x34.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=458393722 (3/24/1999)
> >> No. The soil was populated by natives. Bradford and Winthrop saw it as
> >> the land of the devil.
> >
> >Oh, now I get it, the founders of the United States of America were Iroquios.
> >They were disquised as Protestants in wigs at the Second Continental Congress
> >and the Constitutional Convention.
>
> I see, your game is to not answer the points addressed. You prefer to
> run away by mischaracterizing the point of the person you are in
> discussion with. It's quite possible your book needs to be ignored.
The hypocrisy is glaring.
I asked whether the United States of America (a political institution)
flowered from Christian Soil. The sense of the question is "what was the
socio-cultural context of the founding?" Did the metaphor puzzle you?
Perhaps by using metaphor I expected too much from you... I figured you had
some conception about what a metaphor is.
5. http://x34.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=458423627 (3/24/1999)
> >Your "gamish" answer was that the United States of America flowered from the
> >Native Americans!
>
> That's not what I said. I told you that they were here first and had
> their own religion and culture.
You really are oblivious to reality.
MY QUESTION: Did the United States of America flower from primarily
Christian soil?
YOUR ANSWER: No. The soil was populated by natives.
One of three things must be true:
1) you misunderstood the metaphor. My question was not about the actual
"ground" but the socio-cultural context. (which you implied later that you
understood)
2) you were being demeaning by implying that I had never heard of the
native americans, which is a very "gamish" and demeaning response... the
kind of thing you accuse me of doing.
3) you didn't want to answer the question with honesty, but you wanted to
run away with a smart-aleck answer.
Just use some integrity and we might be able to have a meaningful
conversation, and maybe others may actually get something out of reading
these posts.
6. http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=456235725 (3/18/1999 - [Of Jefferson
and Franklin] Also Use of Typical Religious Right Quotes/Pseudo-History)
> It may be the case that character flaws in both Franklin and Jefferson
> are related to their deism.
That is a very interesting point. I've never heard that alleged before. I
find it a little hard to believe insofar as the religious principles
Franklin embraced included a sense of "do-gooding" and a fear of eternal
rewards and punishments (See Autobiography).
> Nevertheless, it was quickly realized by both the founding generation
> and its immediate successors that religious toleration is essential,
Founders such as Madison were clear that they were not promoting religious
"toleration," but rather religious "liberty."
This is a very crucial point, because with "toleration" the implication is
that the government is "putting up with" religion and has the right not to
do so. Instead, the founders, using the language of the Westminster
Confession Chap. 20, sect 2, argued that religious liberty was an
inalienable right, and the government is not in the position to "tolerate"
or not to tolerate religion. People inherently have the right to exercise
their religious consciences, and the government simply cannot prevent that.
That was the essence of the Memorial and Remonstrance, Jefferson's Bill for
Religious Liberty, Mason's 16th amendment to the VA bill of rights, and the
first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Unfortunately too many people today think of the first amendment in terms
of religious toleration, as if the government sees religious as something
dreadful which needs to be tolerated--as long as its practitioners do not
attempt to influence others. This concept would have been totally foreign
to every one of the founders...yes, I said every one.
> not just among Christian sects but toward non-Christians as well. This
> was one of the great examples the U.S. republic set for the rest of
> the world.
Well into the late 19th century, the U.S. government was "imperializing" by
taking over such lands as Hawaii, Midway, Puerto Rico, the Phillipines,
Guam, the Marshalls, etc. They largely did this as a result of the belief
expressed by late turn of the century politicians, such as Woodrow Wilson,
that we, as a Christian nation, are doing the natives of these lands a
favor by missionizing them, civilizing them, and allowing them to be part
of our empire.
In other words, if indeed the idea of the founders was to be an example of
religious humility to the rest of the world, they utterly failed. To this
day our political leaders have imposed numerous sanctions upon Muslim
nations for their "religious" views concerning women, etc. We have always
thought that our religious views were superior to the rest of the world,
and we still do. We base our laws upon our Judeo-Christian sensibilities:
We don't allow polygamy, other religious cultures do. We don't allow public
nudity, other cultures do. We don't allow Courts to be open on Sunday,
other cultures do. Not that that is right or wrong, but it is what has
happened in America.
Misuse of Sources
Snipping/Doctoring Quotes
http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=459617191 (3/27/1999 - Characteristic
noted by others)
Mike Curtis wrote:
>
> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net <http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/profile.xp?author=Gard...@pitnet.net&ST=PS>> wrote:
>
> >Mike Curtis wrote:
> >> This is what propagandists do. They snip material they know interferes
> >> with their message and label others in an attempt to demonize. I even
> >> emailed the guy about his labeling me and I received no response. He's
> >> on a mission. Stay on his toes and keep asking him to address history.
> >
> >Look at the entire exchange above! Where's the "history." Its a bunch of blah
> >blah blah ad hominem ad hominen. Really don't have time for it.
>
> I wasn't writing to you. I was writing to jalison. We are both
> wondering when you will actually attempt addressing what we are
> posting.
>
> I've pointed out what you do. I see no ad hominem in this post. I
> suggest you look up the word.
You supposedly made "points" against me by calling me a propagandist. That
is a classical example of an ad hominem fallacy. Ad hominem is Latin for
against the man (as opposed to against the facts); when you criticize me as
a "propagandist" rather than discuss the substance of the debate you are
engaging in fallacious ad hominem logic...it aint worth my time.
Pseudo-History
Undue Prominence/Influence Given to Historical Figures
http://x29.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=460612081 (3/29/1999 - Story)
>
> Joseph Story came from the New England area, and like it or not, there was
> a different mindset regarding religion in that part of the country then
> there was in other parts of the country. Unions between church and state,
> established religions, etc were not alien in the thinking of most of the
> leadership of that area, from founding of the various colonies in the
> 1600's to almost mid 1800's at least. It is by no accident that so many
> people who advance much of what you are advancing, that also try to claim
> this is a Christian nation, founded on Christianity or Christian principles
> or the Bible, etc quote New Englanders, and point to historical events in
> the New England area.
Perhaps that's because literacy in New England was much more prevalent than
with her southern neighbors. Perhaps there were better opportunities there
for education, for experiments with republican governments; perhaps the
people there were a little more industrious, i.e., had fewer slaves doing
work for them.
I know you wish it were not so, but New England was the cradle for the
birth of America.
http://x29.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=460615248 (3/29/1999 - Story & Blackstone)
Story looked at some of the following passages from the common law and
recognized that Christianity was woven into it:
THIS IS FROM BLACKSTONE--
"Basis of Judicial Oaths. The belief in a future state of rewards and
punishments, the entertaining just ideas of the attributes of the Supreme
Being, and a firm persuasion that He superintends and will finally
compensate every action in human life, are the grand foundation of judicial
oaths, which call God to witness the truth of those facts, which perhaps
may only be known to him and the party attesting. All moral evidence, all
confidence in human veracity [are] weakened by apostasy, and overthrown by
total infidelity...
Gross Impieties. We proceed now to consider some gross impieties and
immoralities, which are punished by our municipal law, frequently in
concurrence with the ecclesiastical; the spiritual court punishing pro
salute animae, for the safety of the soul, while the temporal courts
correct more for the sake of example, than for private amendment.
Blasphemy. An offence against God and religion is that of blasphemy against
the Almighty, by denying His being or providence, or by contumelious
reproaches of Christ. Also all profane scoffing at the holy scriptures, or
exposing them to comtempt and ridicule. This is punished by fine and
imprisonment, or infamous corporal punishment.
(c) http://x29.deja.com/[getdoc.xp?AN=460013828 (3/29/1999 - Luther)
> The point isn't the Christianity. My point was the separation of
> secular from the Church. People were changing and being forced to
> change. You want to ignore that. You want every context to be
> religious. You also ignore that "morals" existed in people's not
> christian and accuse me of saying that you didn't know about the
> Indians. You, sir, are the one with blinders on.
I suppose this is the conflict in a nutshell. My point has always been the
fact that the colonies were permeated with Christianity. I have never been
wanting to imply a mandate for church/state union. If you want to argue the
church/state question, I'm just not game for it. I'm not running away, I
just don't have an argument; I concede... church and state should be
separate; I have never thought otherwise.
Now if you want me to comment upon Winthrop's classical theology that is
fine (I did actually study a little theology at seminary). You seem to be
claiming things for Winthrop, however, which were part and parcel of being
Protestant. The differentiation between secular and ecclesiastic law traces
at least back to 1520 and Luther.
(d) http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=455456086 (3/15/1999 - Blackstone)
Also: http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=455456311
http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=455456392
> What role did Blackstone have regarding the DOI?
Jefferson believed the right of liberty is grounded in a person's status of
being a Creature of God. Where might have Jefferson gleaned that novel
idea?
What did Jefferson and the Founders mean by the term inalienable rights?
The term was drawn from the English Common Law of property. When people own
land or other kinds of property, they may sell it, give it away, rent or
lease it, or transfer it to others. In the Common Law, to sell or transfer
one’s rights to property was to “alienate” them (see Blackstone II:19-23).
According to Blackstonem, “Inalienable rights” are rights that are so
essential to our identity as humans that no one can sell them or give them
away without denying one’s own personhood. They are a higher than ordinary
property rights. Ordinary rights can be bartered, sold or traded.
Inalienable rights cannot. The Creator endows people with these inalienable
rights, attaching them to human nature. Since inalienable rights are part
of the definition of mankind, to take them away is to attack humanity
itself.
Where did Blackstone glean this understanding of inalienable rights? It was
the canon lawyers and men like Aquinas that developed the concept of
*persona jura* (human rights based upon the fact of being a creation of
God). It was the medieval church that translated its beliefs about creation
into the belief that every person is, therefore, a possession of God, and
retains a certain respect as a result. The concept of "due process"
likewise arose from the canon law of the Romish Church (see Harold Berman,
Law and Revolution)
(e) http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=456152589 (3/18/1999)
> What role exactly did Patrick Henry play with regards to religion on the
> national level?
That question you ask does not deal with the quote above, it rather tries
to evade it. In Henry's quote, he is not talking only about himself, he is
talking about those who founded "this great nation." The question should
not be, then, what role Henry played, but whether or not he was an accurate
commentator upon the events. As a contemporary of the founders, I would
allege that he was in a much better position to make this assessment than
we are today. Your opinion seems to be that Henry was simply idiotic,
regardless of the role he played.
Second, the citation of the treaty of 1797 has the "just being politically
shrewd" problem which you often assign to Washington when he makes
statements such as "religion is necessary for good government." In the
treaty, they are "offering a morsel" to the mahometans. The authenticity of
the document is also in question.
(f) http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=459231387 (3/25/1999 - Also Undue
Influence Given Historical Documents)
> Joseph Story has nothing to do with your book. I seriously question why you
> introduce him into this discussion when your only stated purpose was to
> talk about your thesis which covered a time period before Joseph Story.
>
> Joseph Story wasn't born until 1779. What is the time frame of your book?
My book cites numerous commentators on the state of affairs in the colonies
(viz., Perry Miller, Edmund Morgan, etc.) who were born much later than
1779. Although primary sources are usually preferred, it is standard to
cite secondary authorities. I consider Story a first-rate scholar, just
like Perry Miller (and, I might add, the author of the 1892 Holy Trinity
decision).
[…..]
> Have you ever heard of Minor v Ohio?
Yes. You left out a pretty important part of the decision, viz.:
"The only foundation -- rather, the only excuse -- for the proposition,
that Christianity is part of the law of this country, is the fact that it
is a Christian country, and that its constitutions and laws are made by a
Christian people. And is not the very fact that those laws do not attempt
to enforce Christianity, or to place it upon exceptional or vantage ground,
itself a strong evidence that they are the laws of a Christian people, and
that their religion is the best and purest of religions?" (23 Ohio St. 211,
249)
Like Luther, Milton, Locke, and Madison, Minor v. Ohio claims that
Christianity proves itself true by refusing to receive "special
protection."
John Milton, the Puritan poet who defended Oliver Cromwell in the Puritan
Revolution of the 1640's wrote these words:
"And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the
earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously, by licensing and
prohibiting [i.e., establishing religion], to misdoubt her strength. Let
her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free
and open encounter?
...For who knows not that Truth is strong, next to the Almighty? She needs
no policies, nor stratagems, nor licensings [protections from the
Government] to make her victorious; those are the shifts and the defences
that error uses against her power. Give her but room, and do not bind her
when she sleeps..."
It would be absurd to argue that Milton did not believe Christianity was
the Truth; however, just because he argues against establishmentarianism
doesnt mean that he thinks Christianity should not be promoted. On the
contrary, he thinks the best way to promote Christianity is by making sure
the playing field with other ideas is a level playing field. This is what
Minor v. Ohio says.
BTW, Jefferson wrote very fondly of John Milton, as did Locke. I think
Minor v. Ohio makes a hell of a lot of good sense.
(g) http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=459235815 (3/25/1999 [Blackstone])
Gene,
What you have said is largely the truth; however, Edward Coke's INSTITUTES
was actually the law textbook that was used at the most influential schools
such as William and Mary. Blackstone did not publish until the late 1760's
when many of the founders had already graduated college.
Coke was a Puritan in 1628 when Charles I shut down Parliament. He was the
author of the Petition of Right which exerted almost as much influence upon
the founders as did Magna Carta. Jefferson said of Coke "a sounder Whig
never wrote."
But, thanks for your reminder that Blackstone was quoted second only to
Montesqueiu (and the Bible). The Lutz and Hyneman study is very revealing,
even though it is a bit misleading insofar as they didn't distinguish
between a favorable or an unfavorable citation; thus men like Hume and
Hobbes also rank quite high.
For more info consult the resource at
http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
<http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=www2.pitnet.net,ST_rn=ps]/jump/http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html>
2. Undue Influence of Christianity
http://x29.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=460176097 (3/28/1999 - Also Selling Book)
Richard A. Schulman wrote:
>
> What you say makes excellent sense and does a fine job in locating the
> republic traditions linking the Netherlands, the two English
> revolutions, and the American Revolution. I look forward to reading
> your book for more details!
Well I want to give you a discount! I trust that you have consulted
http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
<http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=www2.pitnet.net,ST_rn=ps]/jump/http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html>
> >> 2) Christianity was THE most important influence on the American
> >> Revolution.
>
http://x28.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=460137038 (3/28/1999)
> doc...@frenet.net <http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/profile.xp?author=doc...@frenet.net&ST=PS> wrote:
>
> I lost the URL for the American history textbook you had posted. Does is the book a Christian text?
The book attempts to show in a scholarly fashion the fact that early
America was permeated with Christian elements. You can find the information
at http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
<http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=www2.pitnet.net,ST_rn=ps]/jump/http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html>
Thanks for asking,
Rick
http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=459628008 (3/27/1999 - Also given to
Calvinism)
As a matter of fact the latest research, done at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison, shows the Jefferson drew explicitly from Abjuration act
of the Dutch Republic of 1581.
Now, you ask, what does the Trinity have to do with all of this. Answer:
probably very little. The only connection is that these Protestant
political theorists were orthodox Protestant Christians, meaning that they
were also Trinitarians. It wasn't trinitarianism which motivated them, it
was their commitment to Protestant resistance theories, first developed by
Luther, refined by Calvin, and carefully articulated by the Puritans.
yes, the hessians were also trinitarians, as were most of the catholics in
europe, as indeed might be said of George III himself. It was not
trinitarianism which motivated men to revolt, but rather their association
with the Calvinist resistance theories.
Does that clarify my position. You may be able to convince me otherwise.
> 2) Christianity was THE most important influence on the American
> Revolution.
Well, for starters, this was the claim of most of the members of Parliament
who spoke and wrote during the era. Although they didn't say Christianity
was behind the revolution, they did insist that Calvinism was behind it. In
parliament the revolution was known as the Presbyerian Rebellion. Both in
the colonies and in Britain, the revolution was understood as an extension
of the english civil war of 1641 which pitted the Puritans against the
crown.
Insofar as the socio-cultural context at large was concerned, Christianity
was indeed the most ubiquitous force permeating every aspect of the
founders lives.
> Here one runs into two problems: (1) assessing the relative weighting
> to be given to multiple causal factors; (2) the problem previously
> alluded to, of explaining why a majority of the world's Trinitarian
> Christians at the time of the American Revolution did not share its
> ideals.
>
> For my part, however, I do certainly think that Christian notions of
> Original Sin played an important role, in conjunction with classical
> theories of mixed government, in fostering the checks and balances of
> the 1789 Constitution.
I'd like to hear you say more about this. What exactly are you referring
to. I think you are probably right.
(d) http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=459827279 (3/27/1999 - Also Calvinism)
jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>
> Could you kindly point out all this large Christian influence in the
> Constitution?
Just for starters:
The root principle of the new Constitution was denoted by the word
“federal,” a term based in Calvinist theology. The word “federal” signified
two things. First, it referred to the nature of the new union. Second, it
referred to the new way that the government was organized, and particularly
to the relationship between the individual states and the whole American
nation. The founders called their new government a “federal” government.
They called the constitution a “federal” constitution.
In the American colonies, the words “federal” and “federal head” were
widely known and generally understood because of the widespread influence
of Calvinist Christianity. To many in the Founders’ day, to say that
America was a “federal” government, with a “federal” constitution was to
imply that Calvinist principles were assumed in the nature of the new
union. The English word “federal” came from the Latin word foedus, which
meant “bond” or union. Foedus was often used in the Latin Bible to
translate the Hebrew word for “covenant.” The Puritans and other Calvinists
were people of “federal” or covenant theology. The word federal in American
culture was widely known to be linked to the Puritans and to the
Westminster Confession and Catechism (1646). In the New England states
where Calvinism was particularly strong, many Christians viewed the
Constitution in this light.
(e) http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=459909860 (3/27/1999)
jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>
> >:|Like Luther, Milton, Locke, and Madison, Minor v. Ohio claims that
> >:|Christianity proves itself true by refusing to receive "special protection."
>
> Oh brother.
>
> Minor v Ohio was a court case.
> Minor v Ohio says a lot of things, the decision is something like 17 pages
> long.
Of course. Luther says a lot more things than that. What I am saying is
that the position stated WITHIN Minor v. Ohio, is that Christianity
demonstrates its excellence through it's willingness to be open to others.
It does say:
"Is not the very fact that those laws do not attempt to enforce
Christianity, or to place it upon exceptional or vantage ground, itself a
strong evidence that they are the laws of a Christian people, and that
their religion is the best and purest of religions?"
(f) http://x28.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=453122286 (3/9/1999 - Also
Selling Book, Support for Establishment, Insults, Undue
Prominence/Influence Given to Historical Figures)
Also: http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=453122292
http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=453125636
http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=453128097
http://x34.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=453132971
Here is a response to your criticism of the thesis of the book, Never
Before in History (http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh
<http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=www2.pitnet.net,ST_rn=ps]/jump/http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh>).
I think you may have
mistakingly pigeon-holed me. This book does not argue "accomodationism."
Rather it argues that the socio-cultural and socio-political context of the
founding was saturated with Christianity, and as such, the Christian
suppositions that the founders inherited by osmosis worked their way into
the substance of those founding documents.
[…..]
> >Having said this, we want to argue that there are some systematic problems
> >with way many accomodationists use quotations. In particular, we believe
> >that many of their quotations are not sufficient to establish their primary
> >claim that the framers intended the Constitution to favor either
> >Christianity or theism, or provide aid to religion.
The framers intended that the constitution favor the will of the people.
Insofar as the will of the people was Christianity, the framers sought to
allow the people the freedom to exercise that disposition whenever and
wherever they saw fit. Granted, the Federalist #10 speaks of the protection
of the dissenter, but Madison never believed that the dissenter should be
protected at the cost of the oppression of the majority.
Insofar as theism v. atheism is concerned, the framers...every one, without
exception...believed that atheism was pure foolishness. They believed in
what are traditionally referred to as the teleological and cosmological
arguments for God's existence (the "first mover" and the "watchmaker"
arguments). With Jefferson, they believed that the existence of a Creator
was "self-evident." (i.e., indisputable) They believed that atheism was
demonstrably, scientifically disproven, and they did not believe that the
state should protect stupidity. Many of them, e.g., Washington, Franklin,
Adams, (regardless of their own views) believed that religion was necessary
to undergird public morality.
[…..]
You see, there you go... In your last paragraph you say "in this debate
about the constitution, do not use those who were not framers as evidence."
Now in this paragraph you say, "the framers were not
such-and-such...Jefferson, for example..." You first want to exclude
Patrick Henry from the company of framers (which is fine), but then you
insist upon including Jefferson. The hypocrisy is glaring.
[…..]
> Whoa, you will find little if any evidence that Madison was highly
> religious, highly Christian, etc.
Uh...I don't know; I suppose everyone without a religious disposition
attends divinity school and allows oneself to be mentored, discipled, and
shepherded by a flaming Calvinist preacher (viz., Witherspoon). Have you
ever read through Madison's notes which he took at Princeton? Do so and
then say that there is "little if any evidence." Have you read Smylie's
work on Madison which demonstrates that his political disposition was
formed at the feet of Witherspoon? Do you contest the fact that Witherspoon
was an orthodox Presbyterian theologian? Is your thesis that although
Madison was steeped in Calvinism through his college education, he rejected
all that he imbibed in his formative years and became averse to it?
> >And as is stated on the section I posted on quotations, it really doesn't
> >matter how religious or non religious a person was. The founders separated
> >religion and government.
You need to look closer. The founders separated government and doctrine, or
government and denominationalism, but they believed that the divinely given
rights of the human were the bedrock upon which a social contract is
established. Jefferson says the fact that all men are created equal is a
"self-evident" truth. Implied in that statement is that it is a
self-evident truth that there is a creator. No creator, no rights. No
rights, no government. That's Jefferson's logic. You cannot say that the
founders separated theism and government. You're just demonstrably wrong.
You have Jefferson to blame for that.
> > Charles Pinckney
>
> Charles Pinckney offered the clause that directly separated church and
> state at the Constitutional convention. He also led the fight in his home
> state to disestablish religion in the revised South Carolina Constitution
> in 1790.
Disestablishmentarianism was a movement begun by Luther in the 1520's,
championed by the Puritan John Milton in 1648, by Locke in 1689, and by a
number of Baptist ministers during the founding. It's goal is to prevent
the government from prescribing a particular doctrine or denominational
standard or forcing the collection of taxes to support a particular church.
We are quite thankful that the Protestant view of "separate kingdoms"
(Luther) found its way into the constitution. I, for one, do not want the
government telling me where I can and can't go to church. Nonetheless, the
founders, such as Pinckney understood that the authority for government
rests in the consent of the governed. Therefore, even Pinckney would have
been opposed to having government open on Sundays, public nakedness,
polygamy, etc.,--all government decisions based upon religious convictions.
[…..]
> >Blackstone was a full fledged believer in revealed religion (i.e., the
> >bible),
>
>Irrelevant
99% of the laws in the U.S. sprung from Blackstone! I suppose the nature of
the laws of a nation don't say much about its government!!??
> >His works that were cited were Commentaries on the Laws of England.
> >There was only one chapter or so that had anything to do with Religion, and
> >one must remember, England had an established church. reliigon and
> >government were very much in a union with each other.
Please go back and read Blackstone. YOU are leaving a whole lot out.
> >and most of his content was rooted in medieval (Catholic) political
> >philosophy (e.g., the Magna Carta).
>
>I don't even know what that is suppose to mean.
What that is supposed to mean is that Blackstone, who is credited with
"losing the colonies" by the British crown (they felt that his political
philosophy spawned the revolution), grounded most of his writing in the
work of Sir Edward Coke, a Puritan lawyer under Charles I Stuart whose
textbook, Coke's Institutes, was the source from which Jefferson, Adams,
Madison, etc., etc., learned about law and rights (I can give you the
citations upon request). Coke explicitly tied religion and law together,
as did Blackstone. Coke, on the other hand, drew his philosophy on law and
government from Henri Bracton, Thomas Aquinas, and Cardinal Langton (author
of the Magna Carta). These men were all Catholic theologians as well as
political scientists. That is the fertile soil from which Blackstone, the
most formative political theorist in the late 18th century, blossomed. This
is even the view of one of the most respected legal scholars today, Harold
Berman.
Of course all of this is documented and better argued in the book, Never
Before in History (http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
<http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=www2.pitnet.net,ST_rn=ps]/jump/http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html>)
[…..]
> > THOMAS JEFFERSON: You might think it outrageous to say that Jefferson
> >had a Christian view of law and rights. You will point out that Jefferson was
> >very clearly outside the mainstream in his views of Christ as Savior. He did
> >not believe Jesus was God. If he did not have an orthodox view of the
> >Christianity, how could he have a Christian view of law and rights?
> > Regardless of whatever his personal views of religion were,
> >Jefferson's political writings were saturated with ÒChristianÓ ideas. This is
> >a result of Jefferson's immersion in a Christian culture. Whether he
> >personally confessed Jesus as his savior is of little issue in terms of
> >whether his theories were Christian. Jefferson adopted, by osmosis, much of
> >the general Christian world-view of his mentors. Armchair historians easily
> >forget Jefferson's cultural context; Jefferson's educational training did not
> >occur in the classroom of Deists in Paris, but at the feet of clergymen in
> >Virginia. From the time he was nine years old until the time he was sixteen,
> >he was tutored by two orthodox ministers: Rev. James Maury and Rev. William
> >Douglas. When he studied law at William and Mary he was not the pupil of
> >Voltaire. His mentor was Mr. George Wythe, "a devout Christian and by no means
> >a deist." And although the same cannot be said of Jefferson, it is recorded
> >that Jefferson admired Wythe's Christian virtue. Jefferson called Wythe "my
> >second father, my earliest and best friend." Though Jefferson became a
> >Unitarian who was quite fond of the French deists, he was instilled with
> >orthodox Christianity in his formative years. Despite his private doubts about
> >the deity of Christ, as a statesman he complied with tradition, referring to
> >Jesus as "Our Savior" and "Lord" in the ordinary Christian sense (see the
> >Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom). In other words, as a son of a
> >Christian culture, JeffersonÕs blood was Christian. And that blood permeates
> >the concepts set forth in his political writings.
>
>
> You will have to do better then the above. You really seem to be working
> hard at trying to claim Jefferson as one of your own.
> Solid examples would go much father in trying to establish your claims. Do
> yoo have any examples of his writings etc that would do this?
There ARE a few examples above! Purchase NEVER BEFORE IN HISTORY to see the
more thorough discussion.
[…..]
> >The absence of Christian thought and morality in the Constitution is a
> >powerful evidence that the founders did not intend to create a Christian
> >nation. Indeed, a popular early criticism of the Constitution is that it
> >allowed non-Christians to serve in federal offices. and did nothing to
> >promote Christianity (see Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore. The Godless
> >Constitution. ch. 2). If the founders wanted to favor Christianity or
> >Judeo- Christian morality, they failed utterly in that lask. This should
> >make us suspect that the Constitution was never intended to set up
> >Christianity as a preferred religion in the first place.
Partially I agree. They did not want to legislate doctrine. But they did
hope that republican morality would prevail, and they did believe that the
Bible was the best instrument toward republican morality (at least
Franklin, Washington, Rush, Adams, etc.)
(g) http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=455290498 (3/15/1999)
Also: http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=455336248
> If your fundamental thesis was and is that most of those men who became
> founders of this country and/or were the framers of the documents that
> created this nation were all orthodox evangelical, fundamentalist type
> Christians, you are not all that correct.
That is definitely NOT my thesis.
> If you are trying to make a case that this government or nation was based
> on the Christian religion, or the Bible, etc, you are not correct.
That is partially my thesis. I argue that the Christian milieu of the
founding era resulted in a multitude of Christian principles finding their
way, by osmosis, into the foundation of our nation.
> If you are trying to say that religion played a varying role in influencing
> various people prior to and during the formation of this country,
> government, nation, you are correct.
That is part of my thesis.
> The impression I am getting from all your arguments is that you are
> claiming far more for the Christian religion then was the case.
Don't get impressions. Believe what I say explicitly.
(h) http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=454180251 (3/12/1999)
Thanks, Andrew. I am not a churchgoer either. It is perplexing how those
who are averse to Christianity go to such lengths to avoid the blatant
truths about America's birth. They crucify common sense.
The argument of the book, NEVER BEFORE IN HISTORY
(http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
<http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=www2.pitnet.net,ST_rn=ps]/jump/http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html>)
is simply that the socio-cultural
and socio-political context of the founding was saturated with
Christianity, and as such it was a profound influence upon the founding.
(i) http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=454419460 (3/12/1999)
I don't understand why the fact that I have made the argument that
Christianity permeated the founding of the U.S. (see
http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
<http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=www2.pitnet.net,ST_rn=ps]/jump/http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html>)
means I must be a Christian
fundamentalist. The Library of Congress has been exhibiting a similar claim
(see http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html
<http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=lcweb.loc.gov,ST_rn=ps]/jump/http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html>)
Does that mean that
all of the curators at the Library of Congress must be fundamentalist
Christians?
I think the following critics are simply not willing to face the facts of
history. Their aversion to Christianity has caused them to deny historical
data which is overwhelmingly evident.
(i) http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=458801712 (3/24/1999 - Also Use of
Typical Religious Right Quotes/Pseudo-History)
> For example, what does Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution
> have to do with your book and the time frame of 1500's or so to 1776 or so?
Story addressed what he called the general, if not universal, sentiment of
the founders regarding religion. That is the very same subject I am
interested in.
[…..]
> People cite Holy Trinity in this matter because they seem to think it gives
> weight, authority, credence, respectability. etc to the Christian nation
> claim.
I think the Supreme Court is generally recognized as being a group of
relatively well-educated and thoughtful people. That is why I think you
ought to take note of Holy Trinity, dictum or not. And, BTW, yes, I take
note of the supreme court decisions I think are wrong-headed for the same
reason.
> >:|The accurate labeling of early American History as being "Christian" in its
> >:|cultural makeup by the Supreme Court in 1892, is totally important to me, but
> >:|unimportant to you (as you have said above)
>
> You can't have it both ways. Now you are saying that it is important that
> the Supreme Court labeled this nation as Christian, but above you said it
> wasn't. Why would it be important that the Supreme Court labeled this
> nation or its history as Christian? Is that needed to make it real?
What I am saying is that I am agreeing that the Holy Trinity case had no
importance as a statement officially establishing Christianity in the U.S.;
that was not what it was about and it is not what it did. In that regard it
is less than unimportant, it is nothing. It is important, however, as a
highly esteemed body acknowledging the Christian fiber woven throughout
America's early history. That doesn't have to be a law to be true. It
doesn't have to have relevance to your project to be valuable. "So what" is
very easy to type. It doesn't diminish the truth of a claim. Perhaps from
now on, unless what you say is relevant to my project, I will type "so
what."
[…..]
> Only Christians added anything, huh?
They were the "movers and shakers" in giving us the founding documents and
concepts, our laws, our educational institutions, our nomenclature, and
yes, our bigotry and judgmentalism.
(j) http://x24.deja.comgetdoc.xp?AN=458106850
Let me be clear. I am interested in asserting and defending this point:
"Christianity permeated the socio-cultural context of America at the time
of the founding. Regardless of the fact that a few of the founders were not
explicitly orthodox Christians, Christianity was deeply embedded into their
collective consciousness: the natural result of the ubiquity and
penetration of Christianity into every nook and cranny of the American
colonial experience. In the colonies the peoples' religion saturated every
aspect of their life. Their Christian theological suppositions impacted
their educational pursuits, their domestic standards, their nomenclature,
their love for science, and their basic concepts of law and rights that
gave rise to the American system."
(taken from http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
<http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=www2.pitnet.net,ST_rn=ps]/jump/http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html>)
[…..]
That was the thesis I attempted to prove or disprove in my research. The
bulk of the primary sources I worked through (viz., laws, wills,
educational institutions, nomenclature, diaries, etc.), seemed to evidence
the fact that Dr. Hodge's assertion was essentially accurate. This is a
Christian nation insofar as Christianity has permeated its social fiber
from the beginning.
I believe that is essentially the gist of what the Supreme Court said in
1892. I never set out to argue whether what the Supreme Court said meant
that Christianity was established in the United States. I simply argued
that what the Supreme Court said was historically accurate and has never
been, subsequently by later courts, denied as historically accurate. By
pointing that out, you have implied that I am making a legal claim about
established religion. You have misunderstood my claim.
(k) http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=457072379 (3/20/1999)
> The right question would be:. legally speaking, what did it mean. The
> answer is, legally speaking, not a thing.
You have it exactly backwards. This is because you only see the world
through the eyes of your "cause." What I have been arguing is the Christian
socio-historical context of the birthing of America...the same sort of
issues traced in the Holy Trinity opinion. I really don't care much what
the legal ramifications are. I am primarily concerned with the accurate
representation of history. Did the Court state America's early history
accurately. I am of the opinion that it did. You are of the opinion that it
doesn't matter. As long as they got the history correct, then that's all
that matters. I don't think the court ever meant for the phrase "this is a
Christian nation" to mean that the government must be Christian in all its
aspects. I think the court was simply acknowledging what the library of
Congress is currently alleging to be true
(http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html
<http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=lcweb.loc.gov,ST_rn=ps]/jump/http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html>),
viz., that
this nation is Christian in its historical socio-Cultural Fiber.
(l) http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=456713443 (3/19/1999)
The Shoe wrote:
>
> All your quotations prove is that there were "this is a Christian nation"
> idiots around since the beginning.
>
>
> > "The man who has the hardihood to avow that he does not believe in a
> > God, shows a recklessness of moral character and utter want of moral
> > responsibility, such as very little entitles him to be heard or believed
> in a
> > court of justice in a country designated as Christian."
And that is all I have been trying to prove!! There have been quite a few
of them around since the beginning... as a matter of fact, there were a lot
more of them around in the beginning then there are now. Yes! That's all I
am trying to prove.
However, some of the people in this conversation have been alleging that
these "idiots" were not really around in the beginning... or, more
precisely, they were around, but they were a small minority who had no
influence in America's birth.
The historically undeniable fact is that there were a lot of these "idiots"
around in the beginning, and their voices played a very important role in
the founding.
For a resource detailing more see http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
<http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=www2.pitnet.net,ST_rn=ps]/jump/http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html>
(m) http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=455489353 (3/15/1999)
> What role did Blackstone have regarding the DOI?
Jefferson believed the right of liberty is grounded in a person's status of
being a Creature of God. Where might have Jefferson gleaned that novel
idea?
What did Jefferson and the Founders mean by the term inalienable rights?
The term was drawn from the English Common Law of property. When people own
land or other kinds of property, they may sell it, give it away, rent or
lease it, or transfer it to others. In the Common Law, to sell or transfer
one s rights to property was to alienate them (see Blackstone II:19-23).
[…..]
When the Patriot leaders were pressed to make an axiomatic case for
freedom, they routinely did so on a religious basis... Sam Adams and James
Otis, for example put it that, the right of freedom being the gift of God
almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift. John Adams
likewise contended that human freedom was founded in the ordinance of the
Creator... John Dickinson, for instance, said of American freedoms: We
claim them from a higher source, from the King of Kings and Lord of all the
earth ... Hamilton s version was The sacred rights of mankind are not to be
rummaged for among parchments and musty records. They are written... by the
Hand of the Divinity... The Supreme Being... invested [mankind] with an
inviolable right to personal liberty. Jay asserted that we are... entitled
by the bounty of an indulgent Creator to freedom.
In a nutshell, the concept that humans are endowed by their creator with
inalienable rights is a concept which came down through the canon lawyers
into the common law and disseminated most agressively in the Commentaries
of Blackstone which were ubiquitous in the American Colonies; that
Jefferson had imbibed Blackstone by in 1776 is beyond question (I
think...with you, I would be reluctant to claim that George Washington was
from Virginia).
3. Undue Influence Given Historical Documents
http://x28.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=459913694 (3/27/1999 - Plus Selling Book)
b...@deism.com wrote:
> The Declaration and the Constitution are the two most important documents regarding our nation. One
> is plainly Deistic and the other completely non religious. No amount of arguing can change this fact.
Is the Act of Abjuration of the Dutch Republic in 1581, which secular
scholars have identified as one of the principle sources for the
Declaration, a deistic document as well?
For the Act of Abjuration, see
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1581dutch.html
<http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=www.fordham.edu,ST_rn=ps]/jump/http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1581dutch.html>
For a resource refuting your claim above in general, see
http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
<http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=www2.pitnet.net,ST_rn=ps]/jump/http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html>
http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=454679192 (3/13/1999)
Jim,
I read with great interest the articles you cited regarding the Library of
Congress exhibit. One writes:
> It claims that Jefferson was not really in favor of separation of state and
> church!!! The exhibit claims he never thought removing affairs of church from
> matters of state an essential element of our freedom!!!
I have yet to see that part of the exhibit. Can you point me toward that?
Or is it that this writer is imposing an interpretation upon the exhibit
which is not explicit, much like you have done with my thesis and
intentions.
Another writes
> [Huston] writes that, quote: "the founders thought that virtue and morality required religion,
> therefore religion was necessary." What hogwash! The naive, gullible, innocent and
> historically ignorant will believe this nonsense.
I think that Huston was probably referring to the Northwest Ordinance,
which reads "Religion, Morality and knowledge [are] necessary to good
government and the happiness of mankind..."
Does the Northwest Ordinance not say that? Or does it say it, but it's
author was a poor communicator who meant something entirely different. Or
is it that it does say it, but it can only be correctly understood and
interpretted by you guys who know better.
This is an example of the utter refusal to take the historical data for
what it is.
4. Undue Influence Given to Teachers/Nominal Religious Affiliation
http://x34.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=453684104 (3/10/1999 - Also Undue
Influence Given to Christianity, Founders as Orthodox Christian, Selling
Book)
Also: http://x34.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=453688536
The Declaration of Independence is not a Deist document. It is not a
"Christian" document either. It's a political document. It was not based
upon Jefferson or his religious views. Rather it was based upon the views
of John Locke (a Christian), Algernon Sydney (a Puritan), Edward Coke (a
Puritan), William Blackstone (a Christian), etc.
At least that is what Jefferson said about it...if you are willing to
believe him (See Jefferson to Henry Lee, 5/8/1825)
[…..]
> We're not saying the majority of Americans were Deists, only that many
> of the key founders were Deists and that Deism is the only spiritual
> philosophy that made it into the Declaration of Independence while no
> religious or spiritual ideas made it into the Constitution.
Again, the "spiritual philosophy," if there is such a creature, that "made
it in" to the Declaration was the coinage of Christian men: Locke, Sidney,
Coke, and Blackstone. Read their works...Jefferson plagiarized them. Every
11th grader knows that.
[…..]
Do you think you represent the consensus of all students who attending
Catholic school. The argument I am making is not about any one particular
founder who went through the Ivy League; but a generic statement that
education in the formative years generally does impact one's views. Have
you ever taken a course in sociology. Are you alleging that education has
no part of the socialization and indoctrination process of an era? Are you
alleging that all the founders in unison shucked off everything they were
taught in college? weird!
For instance, I bet you wear pants and a shirt rather than a kimono...
Certain aspects of Western culture run through your veins, regardless of
whether you consciously adopted them. The founders were also subject to
this phenomenon. Their culture was saturated with Christianity. Therefore,
they held to Christian practices and Christian ideas. It was part and
parcel of culture. None of them would have advocated opening court or
congress on Sunday (you might not either), none of them would have
sanctioned nakedness in public or polygamy, even though there are religions
and cultures elsewhere that do condone these practices. Whether they
confessed it explicitly or not, the founders were victims of their
socio-cultural context, and that context was saturated with Christianity.
That's all this book
(http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
<http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=www2.pitnet.net,ST_rn=ps]/jump/http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html>)
is alleging.
[…..]
> > Puritanism ran through his (Franklin's) blood.
>
> How does religion run through your blood? Given Franklin's reputation as
> a ladies man, I don't see the conection with the Puritans!
Again, I suppose you need to take a course in sociology or anthropology.
Human beings are not unaffected by the culture in which they are born and
bred. Franklin was born in a large Puritan Family, studied for the Puritan
Ministry, considered Cotton Mather his hero, wrote a defense of Calvinism,
and became the biggest proponent of the Protestant Work Ethic (poor
richard) that America has ever known. That is what I mean by "puritanism
ran through his blood."
[…..]
> This type of thinking has no place in a progressive society
> and did nothing to promote the US Revolution. In fact the bible teaches
> us to obey our rulers because they are doing God's work & by rebelling
> against them we're rebelling against God. Does this sound like it could
> be used to start a revolution????
Boy is this shallow, Bob. Have you ever heard of the English Civil War...
read about it.... 1649, the Puritans in England took Charles I Stuart, who
argued for "Divine Right of Kings" and put his head on the chopping block.
On what grounds did the Puritans do this? Oh my...Puritans must not have
been Christians, they must have had no respect for the Bible!!?? On the
contrary, they, like the Hebrew prophets in the old testament, felt it was
their duty to challenge Kings when the Kings went astray; and Jefferson
adopted the Puritan motto: Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God. Yes,
Puritanism ran through Jefferson's blood as well, in spite of the fact that
he made many negative statements about John Calvin, et al.
Lies
Threats
Insults
http://x29.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=460984939 (3/30/1999)
Mike Curtis wrote:
> Now you are simply being a snot also. At least I can back away. I can
> apologize to you as I did. I'm beginning to see you are to selfish to
> accept that. You consider yourself a Christian person. Bah! Maybe you
> are an example of the modern Christian.
Stop whining and argue history
(isn't that what you said?)
http://x29.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=460625343 (3/29/1999)
I wish you might express a little less schizophrenia in this regard.
http://x29.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=460016044 (3/28/1999)
Geeze, you are schizophrenic. First you accuse me of "spamming a multitude
of newsgroups" (which I did not, and I explained how this conversation
broadened), and now you are questioning why I am interested in narrowing
the discussion.
http://x29.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=460060000 (3/28/1999)
Mike Curtis wrote:
> Poor dear. I'm describing your style on line. The evidence isn't to
> you, you poor thing, it is to your style here. If you made an argument
> that addressed something I wrote and all I did was call you a name
> then _that_ would be an ad hominem. Go back to school and learn more
> about debate.
Let me inform you a little about debate: the "poor dear, poor thing," is
100% rhetoric, and very immature at that. Mike, anyone who has been
following this thread recognizes what your "are you running away" comments
reflect: an immature grade-school approach to picking a fight. "oooo are
you afraid, ooooo are you running away?" That's what 15 year olds say in
the hallways of their high schools. Perhaps I have been mistaken. I thought
that you were older than 15. If I have wrongly assumed this, forgive me; if
you are truly 15, I'll try to be more understanding about your adolescent
need to argue like a punk.
http://x28.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=461153954
> This is what *I* wrote, Garndiner:
> > >> Now you are simply being a snot also. At least I can back away. I can
> > >> apologize to you as I did. I'm beginning to see you are to selfish to
> > >> accept that. You consider yourself a Christian person. Bah! Maybe you
> > >> are an example of the modern Christian.
>
> Deal with that rather than running away from it.
I thought we have decided to return to arguing history rather than spinning
wheels with character assassinations. That's what I'd really like to do.
But if you would rather I respond to the insults in the paragraph above, I
suppose I can get a few more jabs in too, if you really insist. I'd rather
not. What you have said is really immature; and it would be really immature
for me to exacerbate the playground nonsense.
Religious Right Ideology
Support for Establishment
http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=448580734 (2/25/1999)
I have to say I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments about Colonial
history. I do highly recommend you read the book; it gives all the
documentary evidence for the points you made in your post below.
snail...@webtv.net
<http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/profile.xp?author=snail...@webtv.net&ST=PS>
wrote:
>
> It looks to me that this book would be a good one to read.
>
> Certainly Christianty is laced in everthing in the establishment of our
> country. When I read Bob's post I thought of many things that indicates
> this as being so.
>
> Our judicial system of law arose from common law which recognized
> Christainty as the religion of the state. The oaths required by states
> to hold office during the establisment of out nation, such as:
> .
> MARYLAND 1776. Article XXXV. That no other test or qualification ought
> to be required than such oath of support and fidelity to this state and
> a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.
>
> VERMONT 1786 Frame of Government Section 9 ,each member (of the
> legislator ) before taking his seat, shall make and subsribe the
> following declaration...own and profess the Christian religion.
> There are others .
http://x29.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=460494185 (3/31/1999)
jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
> You were the one who had decided to tell me what Minor v Ohio "said"
>
> You were the one who got on your soap box, delivered a sermon quoting your
> friendly European "sources' then proceed to tell me that was what the
> justices in Minor v Ohio was talking about.
>
> Problem with that was, it just wasn't so.
Minor v Ohio anticipated an affirmative answer to the question, "Is not the
very fact that those laws do not attempt to enforce Christianity, or to
place it upon exceptional or vantage ground, itself a strong evidence that
they are the laws of a Christian people, and that their religion is the
best and purest of religions?"
You deny it? That would really show every one your resistance to reason.
http://x29.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=460625344 (3/29/1999 - Also
Pseudo-History)
It seems to me that Madison's letter to Jasper Adams is in regard to
whether the Government ought to finance a particular religious affiliation:
Madison writes:
"the simple question to be decided is whether a support of the best &
purest religion, the Xn religion itself ought, not so far at least as
pecuniary means are involved, to be provided for by the Govt rather than be
left to the voluntary provisions of those who profess it."
I would argue that most Protestant Christians of reknown (i.e., all those
Europeans whom you don't think matter: Luther, Milton, Locke, Sydney,
Harrington, etc.), agree with Madison on this point. The voluntary nature
of dedication to religion is essential to true faith. If Jasper was
suggesting a coerced religion, he was wrong. I'm not sure that Madison and
Adams were as far apart as you perceive. Their difference is a subtle and
nuanced one.
One think is clear: they both assert that Christianity is the "best and
purest religion."
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=458485310 (3/24/1999)
> Mr. Jefferson has, with his accustomed boldness, denied that
> Christianity is a part of the common Law, & Dr. [Thomas] Cooper has with
> even more dogmatism, maintained the same opinion. I am persuaded, that a
> more egregious error never was uttered by able men. And I have long desired
> to find leisure to write a dissertation to establish this conclusion. Both
> of them rely on authorities & expositions which are wholly inadmissible.
> And I am surprised, that no one has as yet exposed the shallowness of their
> enquiries. Both of them have probably been easily drawn into the
> maintenance of such a doctrine by their own skepticism. It is due to truth,
> & to the purity of the Law, to unmask their fallacies.
That was quite well said.
> It had a higher object; to cut off for ever every pretence of
> any alliance between church and state in the national government.
> The framers of the constitution were fully sensible of the dangers from
> this source, marked out in the history of other ages and countries; and not
> wholly unknown to our own.
> vs.
> My own private judgement
> has long been, (& every day's experience more & more confirms me in it,)
> that government can not long exist without an alliance with religion to
> some extent; & that Christianity is indispensable to the true interests &
> solid foundations of all free governments. I distinguish, as you do,
> between the establishment of a particular sect, as the Religion of the
> State, & the Establishment of Christianity itself, without any preference
> of any particular form of it.
I don't see the contradiction between these two statements that you seem to
see. Both of these seem to me to be true, accurate, and reflective of the
general sense of what the framers believed.
[…..]
> " Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Gov't in the
> Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by
> Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents' already furnished
> in their short history"
> (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).
Of course. There is a difference between church (ecclesiastical bodies) and
religion. Obviously Story knew the difference; Madison and Jefferson both
knew the difference even though they occasionally used "religion" in a
narrow sense meaning "church," but you don't seem to see a difference.
Founders as Orthodox Christian
http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=448577392 (2/25/1999)
Dear Bob,
I perceive you are a committed deist, and I don't want to quarrel with you
about the merits of your religion, but your assertions about American
history are wrong-headed and unsupportable.
Six facts, I hope you will have the integrity to admit are indisputable:
1) Neither Jefferson nor Paine were part of the assembly of founders who
wrote the U.S. Constitution in 1787.
2) Paine was a first generation immigrant to the U.S. at the behest of
Benjamin Franklin, and although his book, COMMON SENSE, was a best seller
as a political tract, his views on religion led him to be labelled an
infidel by the majority of the key founders. As an immigrant it is not fair
to say that Paine's perspective was the product of six generations of life
in the American Colonies. His religious perspective did not represent the
consensus of the colonists. In key places such as Princeton, all students
had to refute Paine as a part of their graduation requirements.
3) The following "key founders" were strongly Christian, and by that, I
mean traditional orthodox believers in the trinity:
Patrick Henry (give me liberty)
Samuel Adams (boston tea party)
Roger Sherman (member of the Dec of Ind committee)
James Otis (taxation w/o rep)
James Madison (father of the constitution)
John Hancock (first signer of the Dec.)
William Churchill Houston (secretary of the 2nd cont cong)
George Wythe (Jefferson's Mentor)
John Witherspoon
Charles Pinckney
4) Harvard, William & Mary, Yale, and Princeton were the institutions where
most of the founders received their intellectual formation; all of these
institutions were traditional orthodox Christian academies until the 19th
century.
5) The two most often quoted sources by the founders were, first, the
Bible, and second, William Blackstone's Common Law Commentaries (See
Hyneman & Lutz). Blackstone was a full fledged believer in revealed
religion (i.e., the bible), and most of his content was rooted in medieval
(Catholic) political philosophy (e.g., the Magna Carta). What's more, the
entire Common Law tradition was rooted in orthodox Christianity.
6) The First Great Awakening was the generation in which the founders were
born and reared. The First Great Awakening was led by Jonathan Edwards,
George Whitefield, and John Wesley...their views permeated the colonies;
and they were hardly deists!
Now a quick word about the men whom I'm sure you will claim for your band:
(b) http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=451397972 (3/4/1999 - also Selling
Book, Support for Establishment)
Also: http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=451405509
GEORGE WASHINGTON: I am quite aware that his religious sentiments are a
great matter of controversy. You mentioned in your post your interest in
Boller's book on Washington. The most celebrated biography of Washington is
Mason Weems' THE LIFE OF GEORGE WASHINGTON, 1809; this book portrays
Washington as a committed orthodox Christian.
[…..]
JOHN ADAMS: a graduate of Harvard, a place steeped in Puritanism; like
Washington, he used some deistic language, but his explicit creed (1813)
was as follows: "My religion is founded on the hope of pardon for my
offenses."
[…..]
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: Of all the founders, Franklin is most deistic. I will
grant him to your cause, with Paine. But you need to be honest enough to
admit that Franklin, as an 81 year old man at the Constitutional Convention
was too feeble to provide the erudition he possessed as a younger man.
Further, you must admit that Franklin was steeped in Puritanism and
Presbyterianism...he studied for the ministry, he wrote a defense of
Predestination, and he was a huge fan of Christianity, even though he
demurred from its precepts. Although Franklin explicitly identified with
the Deists (per AUTOBIOGRAPHY), Puritanism ran through his blood. That is
why Franklin is perhaps the one individual in America most closely
identified with "the Protestant Work Ethic."
THOMAS JEFFERSON: You might think it outrageous to say that Jefferson had a
Christian view of law and rights. You will point out that Jefferson was
very clearly outside the mainstream in his views of Christ as Savior. He
did not believe Jesus was God. If he did not have an orthodox view of the
Christianity, how could he have a Christian view of law and rights?
Regardless of whatever his personal views of religion were, Jefferson's
political writings were saturated with ÒChristianÓ ideas. This is a result
of Jefferson's immersion in a Christian culture. Whether he personally
confessed Jesus as his savior is of little issue in terms of whether his
theories were Christian. Jefferson adopted, by osmosis, much of the general
Christian world-view of his mentors. Armchair historians easily forget
Jefferson's cultural context; Jefferson's educational training did not
occur in the classroom of Deists in Paris, but at the feet of clergymen in
Virginia. From the time he was nine years old until the time he was
sixteen, he was tutored by two orthodox ministers: Rev. James Maury and
Rev. William Douglas. When he studied law at William and Mary he was not
the pupil of Voltaire. His mentor was Mr. George Wythe, "a devout Christian
and by no means a deist." And although the same cannot be said of
Jefferson, it is recorded that Jefferson admired Wythe's Christian virtue.
Jefferson called Wythe "my second father, my earliest and best friend."
Though Jefferson became a Unitarian who was quite fond of the French
deists, he was instilled with orthodox Christianity in his formative years.
Despite his private doubts about the deity of Christ, as a statesman he
complied with tradition, referring to Jesus as "Our Savior" and "Lord" in
the ordinary Christian sense (see the Virginia Statute for Religious
Freedom). In other words, as a son of a Christian culture, JeffersonÕs
blood was Christian. And that blood permeates the concepts set forth in his
political writings.
Critics like yourself, both Christian and non-Christian, have often
insisted that the U.S. Constitution is not "Christian" because it nowhere
refers to "our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." Over the years there have
been repeated efforts by some Christian groups to make the Constitution
"Christian" by an amendment that would change the preamble to include a
reference to "our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." This cosmetic change would
add ecclesiastical language almost as a decoration. It would have no
material effect on any of the concepts in the document. Yet it is
supposedly required in the eyes of some to make the Constitution
"Christian." The issue is one of surface versus substance. It is the
substance of the document that makes it a product of Christianity. In the
Puritan outlook, Christian jargon was not the key. The content and the
underlying concepts were the key. The fact that terms such as "federalism"
and "due process of law" had an explicit Christian heritage, and that the
entire Constitution rested on a Puritan view of the ordinary depravity of
man was the kind of evidence that was relevant to showing the Christian
impact on the Constitution.
The language of the Founders was creator-oriented because it dealt with
civil government, law, and individual rights. The Founders did not apply
redeemer-oriented language--Christian jargon--to these documents of public
law, because Calvin, Luther, and dozens of other Protestant political
theorists called it a corruption of the gospel. By using creator-oriented
language, the founders were squarely within the mainstream of the English
Common Law heritage. And they were completely in harmony with the
traditional Puritan use of legal terms and rights terms.
In the Puritan approach, concepts were very important. Some concepts dealt
with law. Others dealt with rights. By 1776, the Puritans were fully
convinced that concepts about the equality of all human beings, individual
inalienable rights, and government by the consent of the governed were
fully biblical ideas. It is not surprising in light of the Puritan impact,
that these ideas were foundational to the American colonial outlook at the
time of independence. These were not Enlightenment concepts or Deistic
concepts. They were Puritan concepts, and fully Christian. And they were
more than just Puritan concepts. They were part of that broader stream of
Christian thought in which the Puritans stood. Where the colonies were
concerned, the concepts were Puritan for the simple fact that for decades
the Puritans were purveyors of these concepts and were intellectual leaders
prior to 1776. The concepts were Christian even though they were expressed
in natural terms rather than ecclesiastical language. In the Puritan
approach to the creator-redeemer distinction, natural language was the
right language to use.
To the critics, however, naturalistic language is automatically suspect.
Such language could not be "Christian" because it does not sound religious
enough. People are prone to test the founding documents not by their
concepts and content, but by whether they used Christian jargon. If
redemptive language was not used, many simply assume that the documents
were not "Christian." That is not only a foolish and narrow-minded approach
to evaluating the founders and their writings, it leads to a patently
erroneous conclusion.
Basis For Citizenship
http://x29.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=460835153 (3/30/1999)
jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>
> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net <http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/profile.xp?author=Gard...@pitnet.net&ST=PS>> wrote:
>
> >:|> Remember, Story and others believed that religion was essential to good
> >:|> citizens, good government, etc. Madison did not believe that.
> >:|
> >:|Wasn't it Madison that said that a person must be considered a subject of the
> >:|Governor of the Universe BEFORE he can be considered a member of civil
> >:|society? Why yes, it was.
>
> My, my, well, since you have such a good imagination, as demonstrated by
> your spins on various court cases, why don't you tell us what he meant by
> the above.
Perhaps he meant that a person must be considered a subject of the Governor
of the Universe before he can be considered a member of civil society.
http://x29.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=460838463 (3/30/1999)
jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
> I get the impression that the founders of this nation were Calvin, Locke,
> Blackstone, Luther, and a few others from Europe, coupled with a few select
> men on this side of the pond, men like P. Henry. Samuel Adams, John
> Hancock, etc.
Now that you mention it Leopold Ranke called Calvin the founder of the U.S.
Do you think Ranke was a sloppy historian? You probably wont be surprised
to find the George Bancroft agreed.
As far as Locke is concerned, it is the public school textbooks which are
saying how central he was to the founding. Are they all bogus?
For Blackstone, see e.g., Zweiben, Beverly. How Blackstone Lost the
Colonies: English Law, Colonial Lawyers, and the American Revolution. New
York: Garland Publishing, 1990.
Religious Right Associations
http://x29.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=460841716 (3/30/1999)
jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
> >:|I wish I knew why he is being so coy about his foundations. I don't
> >:|understand the end he hopes to achieve. When I write a thesis or a
> >:|book I usually have an end goal and a reason for doing it.
> >:|
>
> I dunno, I do know that his co-author is intimately involved with the
> Religious right, I believe I recall seeing where his book has a forward or
> recommendation by Dr. J Kennedy, also someone very much involved with the
> religious right.
Back in logic 101 this was called the ad hominem fallacy, genetic brand.
Check it out http://rampages.onramp.net/~alaska/reporter/fallacy/page20.htm
<http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=rampages.onramp.net,ST_rn=ps]/jump/http://rampages.onramp.net/~alaska/reporter/fallacy/page20.htm>
http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=455297102 (3/15/1999 - Also Undue
Influence of Christianity)
> Then there is the matter of your co-author.
>
> Regent University? I live 6 miles from Regent University. I am very aware
> of Pat Robertson, The ACLJ, Christian Coalition, 700 Club, CBN, Regent
> University, etc.
>
> I suspect others are as well.
What you are doing here is called the genetic fallacy. I refer you to
Irving Copi, an INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC.
> How odd, haven't you stated the exact same thing? Were you referring to
> only one sentence of the Northwest Ordinance? BTW, do you happen to know
> anything about the history of that one sentence?
I know its certain to be another argument like "Christianity was imposed
upon the common law." But as I have said, the esoteric history of the
document doesn't change the document itself. Jefferson may be right that
Prisot was misinterpretted, Coke erred, Blackstone erred, etc.; but that
does not change the fact that Coke and Blackstone embodied the common law
in their eras. Likewise, even if the sentence in the NWO was interpolated
by some fraudulent scribe, it is still there, and it remains part of the
founding.
Use of Typical Religious Right Quotes/Pseudo-History
http://x29.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=460625346 (3/29/1999)
> >:|Charles Hodge's statements about this being a Christian Nation also have no
> >:|legal bearing either.
>
> Let's keep the discussion on the subject.
>
> The subject is the dictum of Justice Brewer.
Golly, I hope the subject of this conversation is not limited to the 1892
Holy Trinity case. If so, I have a lot better things to do.
http://x29.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=460625347 (3/29/1999)
> >:|That is why I think you ought
> >:|to take note of Holy Trinity, dictum or not.
>
> Sorry, but what you think on this matter doesn't count for much. You have
> demonstrated that you either don't or won't understand the lack of
> significance of the dictum you are so enamored with.
I have acknowledged the fact that the LEGAL significance of the "dictum" is
very minimal, but I refuse to agree with your constant claim that only
writings which can be cited as legal precedents are at all significant. I
did not know Brewer had written the book "Christian Nation" (I know you'll
bash me for my ignorance); if I had, and if it elucidated the history
contained in the 1892 decision, I believe it might be very significant to
my claims. I don't give a hoot that it is not an official court decision.
Like most historical texts, most of the citations in my book are not legal
sources, that's because all historians are not interested in the same
church/state debate that you are enamored with.
http://x28.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=459911630 (3/27/1999)
> Joseph Story is all but a patron saint of those who claim this was is and
> should always be a Christian nation. Those who argue that religion, oh
> wait, who are really arguing that their form of Protestant Christianity
> should be protected by the government, supported by the government and
> given special status by the government.
>
> Church of the Holy Trinity {though most who advance that argument wouldn't
> know who David Brewer was if he walked up and shook their hand on the
> street} is another one of their favorite examples used to prove their
> claims.
>
> Now, I find it really interesting that you use the same items. Isn't their
> enough examples in the time frame of your book? Why do you feel the need
> to keep going out to other time frames?
I didn't cite either Joseph Story or the Holy Trinity decision in my book.
But your insistance that a historian can only use primary documents is
nonsense and not at all scholarly. I did, for example, lean on Charles
Hodge to some degree in the book; Page Smith even more. From your
perspective, Hodge is meaningless because he was only a professor at
Princeton and his writings have no legal import. This is where I disagree.
A reputable scholar's opinion on history is routinely offered in support of
a thesis.
(d) http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=454669818 (3/13/1999)
> He could have equaled Blackstone in knowledge on the subject.
I do not question Jefferson's legal erudition whatsoever.
But let's be clear about what he did and didn't say in the three letters.
Jefferson does admit that the scholars of the common law, between Alfred
and Blackstone, explicitly claim in various terms that Christianity is part
and parcel of the common law. Coke and Blackstone mince no words about
this, and Jefferson knew it. What Jefferson does, however, is allege that
they were somehow defrauded into stating those assertions, through an
interpolation of a pious scribe in the time of Alfred and through a
misinterpretation of Prisot several centuries later. In other words,
Jefferson does not deny that the common understanding of the common law is
that it is intimately intertwined with Judeo-Christian principles, he
simply alleges that it only became so through a series of perpetuated
mistakes made by the great scholars of the common law.
In other words, Jefferson is doing that which many fundamentalists do
today: they see that the present understanding the first amendment mandates
a "wall of separation"...then they attempt to show how this interpretation
arose out of a series of snowballing legal mistakes. I am not saying that
these fundamentalists are right.
What I am saying is that they would certainly be wrong to say that the
present common understanding of the first amendment is that it does not
imply "separation of church and state." Likewise, Jefferson would be wrong
if he were to have written that it was not the common understanding in his
day that the common law was intertwined with Judeo-Christianity. Of course,
being a reasonable man, he did not say that. And since my thesis primarily
deals with the "common understanding" i.e., "cultural context," what
Jefferson argued was really an esoteric matter of little consequence to
whether the colonists by and large viewed the common law as a Christian
institution, which I continue to maintain that they did! Furthermore, I can
provide abundant evidence that the preponderance of U.S. jurists in the
19th century continued to understand the common law and christianity to be
yoked.
Therefore, I do not believe that Jefferson's personal views on the matter
discredit the thesis. Your information, has, however, forced me to agree
that Jefferson himself saw the common law as originally unconnected with
Christianity, but rather entirely Saxon from the start, and then became
corrupted with fraudulent Christian impositions upon it.
(e) http://x34.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=454449974 (3/12/1999)
> I would urge you all to think about the consequences of not keeping church and
> government separate.
I trust that this particular suggestion is not directed toward me. All I
have alleged is that the founding era was permeated with Christianity, and,
as a result, the founders brought much of their Christian backgrounds to
the table in Philadelphia 1776-1787. I have never advocated not keeping
church and government separate. Most Protestants, from Luther to Locke to
the founders believed that the government should not, indeed CAN NOT (viz.,
Luther http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/Secauth.HTM
<http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=fly.hiwaay.net,ST_rn=ps]/jump/http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/Secauth.HTM>),
bind someone to believe something
against their conscience.
Nonetheless, don't forget that the principle reason the founders insisted
upon separation of church and state was too protect the church from the
state's interference, NOT to protect the state from the church's
interference.
(f) http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=457592797 (3/22/1999)
By Joseph Story
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Judge, of U.S. Supreme Court
Law Faculty of Harvard University, 1829 to 1845
In fact, every American colony, from its foundation down to the revolution,
with the exception of Rhode Island, (if, indeed, that state be an
exception,) did openly, by the whole course of its laws and institutions,
support and sustain, in some form, the Christian religion; and almost
invariably gave a peculiar sanction to some of its fundamental doctrines.
(g) http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=457271744 (3/21/1999)
This is a result of our current abandonment of the common law tradition
which is rooted in milleniums of legal and theological decision making. Now
we are throwing much of it away in exchange for new "fads." (See Harold
Berman, LAW AND REVOLUTION 1983):
"It is only in the twentieth century that the Christian foundations of
Western law have been almost totally rejected. This twentieth-century
development is a historical consequence of the Western belief, of which St
Anselm was the first exponent, that theology itself may be studied
independently of revelation. Anselm had no intention of exalting reason at
the expense of faith. Yet once reason was [*198] separated from faith for
analytical purposes, the two began to be separated for other purposes as
well. It was eventually taken for granted that reason is capable of
functioning by itself and ultimately this came to mean functioning without
any fundamental religious beliefs whatever.
By the same token, it was eventually taken for granted that law, as a
product of reason, is capable of functioning as an instrument of secular
power, disconnected from ultimate values and purposes; and not only
religious faith but all passionate convictions came to be considered the
private affair of each individual. Thus not only legal thought but also the
very structure of Western legal institutions have been removed from their
spiritual foundations, and those foundations, in turn, are left devoid of
the structure that once stood upon them," pp. 197-198.
(h) http://x24.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=457355432 (3/21/1999 - Also
Lies [Re: Treaty of Tripoli])
> What do you find in the majority opinion of the Supreme Court historically
> inaccurate? (see http://member.aol.com/EndTheWall/TrinityHistory.htm <http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=member.aol.com,ST_rn=ps]/jump/http://member.aol.com/EndTheWall/TrinityHistory.htm>)
Whether or not you perceive the opinion as gratis dictum or not, my point
is that the Supreme Court has never, to my knowledge, disavowed the
accuracy of the "dictum." This is what concerns me most. I have a stake in
Brewer being historically accurate. I don't consider the Supreme Courts
words just superfluous nursery rhymes. "Dictum" or otherwise, Supreme Court
opinions are generally respected as given by intelligent men of learning
and wisdom.
(i) http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=456637652 (3/19/1999)
> Now, my understanding is, from what you have said, you really aren't into
> all this "Christian nation" stuff.
Depends on what you mean by Christian nation. If you mean Christian
Reconstructionism (i.e., Theonomy), then I do not see their interpretation
as historically valid.
If, on the other hand, you simply mean the position of the Supreme Court in
its undistilled 1892 decision, I agree with the majority opinion of the
Court (unabridged at http://member.aol.com/EndTheWall/TrinityHistory.htm
<http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=member.aol.com,ST_rn=ps]/jump/http://member.aol.com/EndTheWall/TrinityHistory.htm>)
[…..]
> Did his wants, wishes,. desires, dreams, etc make it into law?
Many of the Christian opinions of Sir Blackstone did, regardless of
Jefferson's 1814 letter alleging Christianity to be fraudulently introduced
into common law.
[…..]
> >:|Second, the citation of the treaty of 1797 has the "just being politically
> >:|shrewd" problem which you often assign to Washington when he makes statements
> >:|such as "religion is necessary for good government." In the treaty, they are
> >:|"offering a morsel" to the mahometans. The authenticity of the document is
> >:|also in question.
>
> The authenticity? Really? In what way?
1) Washington never signed the treaty. The treaty didn't come to the
president's desk until March 1797. At that time John Adams was President.
(See Ray Irwin, THE DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS OF THE U.S. WITH THE BARBARY
POWERS, 1776-1816, UNC Press, 1931, p. 84)
2) When the treaty was translated from Arabic to English, in the process
much important religious language was jettisoned (see Charles Bevans,
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS OF THE USA 1776-1949), XI, p.
1078.
3) the phrase "the government of the U.S.A. is not in any sense founded on
the Christian Religion" was interpolated into the treaty (Bevans op cit, p
1077). That phrase was not part of the 1805 congressional approval of the
treaty.
(j) http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=456642754 (3/19/1999)
> For anyone interested in the FACTS regarding the dicta [no legal standing]
> comments of Justice Brewer see
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/trinity.htm <http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=members.tripod.com,ST_rn=ps]/jump/http://members.tripod.com/~candst/trinity.htm>
This article concludes by citing Justice Brennan's disparagement of the
1892 decision
"the Court takes a long step backwards to the days when Justice Brewer
could arrogantly declare for the Court that 'this is a Christian nation.'
Those days, I had thought, were forever put behind us ...."
However, Justice Brennan's words were the MINORITY opinion of the court in
the 1983 Lynch case. The 1892 opinion of the Court has never been reversed,
much to the despair of those who wish American history was something other
than that which it was (as outlined by the Supreme Court in 1892).
What do you find in the majority opinion of the Supreme Court historically
inaccurate? (see http://member.aol.com/EndTheWall/TrinityHistory.htm
<http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=member.aol.com,ST_rn=ps]/jump/http://member.aol.com/EndTheWall/TrinityHistory.htm>)
(k) http://x24.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=456784956 (3/19/1999)
> What exactly is the point here? That the Supreme Court in 1892 thought the
> US was a "Christian Nation"? I don't see how that really matters, since no
> special laws go along with that, unlike the Muslim Sharia. The Constituion
> clearly calls for a seperation of Church & state in any event, and to alter
> that by declaring an offical religon, would require an act of Congress not
> the Sumpreme Court.
What exactly is your point here? That the Supreme Court is wrong in their
interpretation of the constitution? According to the constitution, the
Supreme Court has the last word on that matter, so their interpretation is
really the only one that matters. The opinion in Holy Trinity has never
been rescinded or overturned, only disparaged by Brennan in a minority
opinion in the 1980's.
(l) http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=456379853 (3/18/1999)
Ed Watts wrote:
>
> I am SO sick and tired of this.
> America was founded on the quest for freedom.
> Freedom from the state church in England.
> Freedom to be Puritans. Freedom to leave Plymouth and found Rhode Island.
> Freedom to be Quakers. Freedom to practice any
> religion whatsoever, or none at all.
Not quite: In a number of states, atheism disqualified citizens from
certain privileges, a few examples to wit:
"The man who has the hardihood to avow that he does not believe in a God,
shows a recklessness of moral character and utter want of moral
responsibility, such as very little entitles him to be heard or believed in
a court of justice in a country designated as Christian."
-- the Supreme Court of Tennessee, 1871
Background
Selling Book
http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=446617941 (2/20/1999)
http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=446467245 (2/20/1999)
http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=446465081 (2/20/1999)
http://x29.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=460137038 (3/28/1999)
http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=452261407 (3/7/1999 - Also Undue Influence
of Christianity)
Andrew,
Excellent response! The proof that is sought by the critics is found in the
book (http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
<http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=www2.pitnet.net,ST_rn=ps]/jump/http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html>.
For example, the proof that
the orthodox Christian education of the Ivy League clearly directed the
founders' path is shown beyond dispute.
Furthermore, the assertion made by our critical friend that Samuel Adams
was anything other than a Puritan is laughable.
If they knew what happened to Thomas Paine after AGE OF REASON was
published, they would realize that Deism has always been an unacceptable
minority voice in the development of this nation.
I challenge them to read the book, then refute it. I don't believe it can
be done.
http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=452038620 (3/6/1999 - Also Religious Right
Associations)
Also: http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=452042167
http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=452042168
http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=451412185
The publishers of "Of Pandas and People" have recently published a new
textbook on American History, which is now for sale on discount at
http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
<http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=www2.pitnet.net,ST_rn=ps]/jump/http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html>
This is such a good book at such a good price. Endorsed by James Kennedy
and Peter Marshall. Just as "PANDAS," this is sure to be a home-school
classic. Get yours while they're on sale!!
Blessings,
Lesley
[Note:
http://www.creationmoments.com/linkedpages/productpgs/scientific_studies/1340-0.html
Of Pandas and People
Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon
A supplemental textbook for public school use presenting a rationale for
intelligent design as an alternative theory for biological origins. Offers
creationist interpretations for classic evidences generally used to support
evolution. Thoroughly researched and beautifully illustrated. Interest
level: High School-Adult]
http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=451411293 (3/4/1999)
http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=455480894 (3/15/1999)
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=458217165 (3/23/1999)
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=456383633 (3/19/1999)
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=456500036 (3/19/1999)
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=456733028 (3/19/1999)
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=456340639 (3/18/1999)
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=456382674 (3/18/1999)
Next Time Start at:
Message
March , 1999
jal...@cox.net
>:|
>:|"ambrose searle" <ambros...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
=============================================================
For any readers/lurkers, now or in the future (thanks to the former
Deja.com, now Google and other such sites) who has an interest in this they
can find the above type discussions in their original form. They took
place between March 3, 1999 and September 29, 2000.
Usually in the some or all of the following 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,
alt.atheism,
You will be able to spend a good couple of days reading the various
discussions that took place between quite a few people, but the bulk taking
place between, on the one hand:
Gard...@pitnet.net & rgar...@my-deja.com
with some input from time to time from:
RichardAS...@att.net
ic...@best.com
(and a few others I don't remember now)
and usually on the other hand one or several of the following (in the order
they appeared on the scene):
b...@deism.com
jal...@pilot.infi.net & buc...@exis.net
mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam & mscu...@my-deja.com
wat...@email.msn.com
timothy...@mindspring.com
jeffrey...@my-deja.com
scot...@maine.edu
mod...@my-deja.com
and a few others from time to time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The titles of the threads so that the readers can look them up if they wish
can be found at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=5locfu0nr38bl4sl5u2evlsuit1370knfi%404ax.com&output=gplain
============================================================================
Readers can decide for themselves if they think that Ambrose is Gardiner
returned or if Ambrose is a Gardiner clone who has spent time studying
Gardiner so as to imitate him. More importantly, they can see how well
others countered the arguments that the current Ambrose is trying to give
now. I say that because Gardiner gave them all and then some back then.
Actually, all of the threads throughout that entire run (March 3, 1999, to
September 29, 2000) is very educational for anyone interested in American
history from the colonial period to the late 1800s.
There is a good amount of European history prior to 1800 toss in as well as
Gardiner liked to keep dragging in European history.
The bulk of the discussions did center around the time period of approx
1760 to 1820 I would guess.
There was a tremendous amount of primary source historical data provided,
by most, involved in the discussions, and even more cites of web sites,
publications, etc.
I personally think that it would be a worthwhile effort one day to collect
them all put them together in chronological order, remove the insults, name
calling baiting, etc and publish what remains.
One would end up with a very good publication of some solid pro and con
viewpoints back by solid historical data in most cases.
jal...@cox.net
With regards to the long post I posted, it would not be hard to locate in
Google the deja.com references since there were only four threads running
in March 1999 with Gardiner (Ambrose/Gardiner) and there are dates
provided.
The 4 threads were:
New Book: Was American founded upon Christianity or Deism? [began 3-3-99
ran into April]
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: 1999/03/04
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=clw-1403991757080001%40i48-22-27.pd
x.du.teleport.com&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DGardiner%2540pitnet.net%26start%3D90%26hl%3D
en%26lr%3D%26selm%3D370df852.2487168%2540news.sig.net%26rnum%3D92&as_drrb=b&
as_maxd=14&as_maxm=3&as_maxy=1999&as_mind=29&as_minm=3&as_miny=1995
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Christianity and the Founding [began 3-9-99 ran into April]
From: Gardiner (Gard...@pitnet.net)
Subject: Christianity and the founding
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.religion.deism
Date: 1999/03/09
[THREAD]
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=36fa3a15.16333909%40news.pilot.infi.net&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dchristianity%2Band%2Bthe%2Bfounding%2Bjalison%2540pilot.infi.net%2Balt.religion.deism%26hl%3Den%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[one msg]
From: jal...@pilot.infi.net (jal...@pilot.infi.net)
Subject: Re: Christianity and the founding
Newsgroups: alt.atheism, alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.religion.deism
Date: 1999/03/23
[THREAD]
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=36fa78b2.1688634%40news.pilot.infi.net&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dchristianity%2Band%2Bthe%2Bfounding%2Bjalison%2540pilot.infi.net%2Balt.religion.deism%26hl%3Den%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The role of religion in early America [3-25-99 ran into April]
From: Gardiner (Gard...@pitnet.net)
Subject: the role of religion in early america
Newsgroups: alt.history.colonial
Date: 1999/03/25
[THREAD]
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=3706d791.338253752%40news.sig.net&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dchristianity%2Band%2Bthe%2Bfounding%2Bjalison%2540pilot.infi.net%2Balt.religion.deism%26hl%3Den%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch&as_drrb=b&as_maxd=30&as_maxm=3&as_maxy=1999&as_mind=29&as_minm=3&as_miny=1995
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Was Christianity part of the Common Law? [3-31-99 ran into April]
rom: Gardiner (Gard...@pitnet.net)
Subject: Re: Was Christianity part of the Common Law?
Newsgroups: alt.history.colonial, alt.history, alt.society.liberalism,
alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.religion.christian, alt.religion.deism,
alt.deism,
soc.history
Date: 1999/04/01
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=37040DF9.DEA2F862%40pitnet.net&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26q%3DWas%2Bchristianity%2Bpart%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bcommon%2Blaw%2Bjalison%2540pilot.infi.net%2Balt.history.colonial%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fletis Humplebacker
> ============================================================================
> Readers can decide for themselves if they think that Ambrose is Gardiner
> returned or if Ambrose is a Gardiner clone who has spent time studying
> Gardiner so as to imitate him. More importantly, they can see how well
> others countered the arguments that the current Ambrose is trying to give
> now. I say that because Gardiner gave them all and then some back then.
Who could possibly care ? Please explain the relevence if your impressions
were true. I don't get it. If you have something worthwhile to contribute to
the conversation, please do so. Engaging in a persoanl attacks or posting
websites that engage in personal attacks, whether they be by "scholars"
or not, only diminishes your effectiveness.
> There is a good amount of European history prior to 1800 toss in as well as
> Gardiner liked to keep dragging in European history.
Good, we can't very well ignore it can we ? We aren't discussing the
American Indians when we discuss the formation of America.
fletis
jal...@cox.net
>:|
>:|"ambrose searle" <ambros...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>:|news:fe9a0c54.02060...@posting.google.com...
>:|
>:|>
>:|> "It is a scholarly commonplace to point out how much Jefferson (and
>:|> his fellow delegates to the Continental Congress)were influenced by
>:|> Locke. Without disputing this we would simply add that an older and
>:|> deeper influence ?? John Calvin ?? was of more profound
>:|> importance"
>:|>
>:|> Dr. Page Smith, Professor of History, UCLA
>:|
>:|There are significant differences between Locke and Calvin. Locke's verws
>:|were secular, whereas Calvin were religious. While Locke said that a people
>:|had the right to overthrow a tyranical government, Calvin approved of
>:|resistence to a government only if the government forces the people to act
>:|against the "word of God."
>:|
>:|How does this affect American History? If you read the Declaration of
>:|Independence and other relavent decuments, you will find that the revolution
>:|was fought over issue such as the imposition of taxes, desolving local
>:|legislatures, and stationing armed troops. None of the complaints were
>:|religious in nature.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You might find the following of interest. Especially if ambrose/gardiner
responds to you.
[Ran from April 16, 1999 to approx April 23, 1999]
From: Mike Curtis (mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam)
Subject: Calvin and Obediance
Newsgroups: alt.history.colonial
Date: 1999/04/16
[THREAD]
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=373EFF50.657C0D62%40pitnet.net&rnum=24&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DWas%2Bchristianity%2Bpart%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bcommon%2Blaw%2Bjalison%2540pilot.infi.net%2Balt.history.colonial%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26start%3D20%26sa%3DN
[ran the latter half of April, 1999]
From: Mike Curtis (mcu...@inetport.com)
Subject: Calvin's Influence
Newsgroups: alt.history.colonial
Date: 1999/04/18
[THREAD]
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=373ca0af.9802964%40news.pilot.infi.net&rnum=8&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26q%3DWas%2Bchristianity%2Bpart%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bcommon%2Blaw%2Bjalison%2540pilot.infi.net%2Balt.history.colonial%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch
[Ran from mid May 1999 to Mid June 1999]
From: Mike Curtis (mcu...@inetport.com)
Subject: Locke and Calvinistic Theories of Resistance
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.history.colonial
Date: 1999/05/15
[THREAD]
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=38f94371.22187506%40news.pilot.infi.net&rnum=19&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DWas%2Bchristianity%2Bpart%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bcommon%2Blaw%2Bjalison%2540pilot.infi.net%2Balt.history.colonial%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26start%3D10%26sa%3DN
Fletis Humplebacker
>
> "Fletis Humplebacker"
> > > One good thing which can be said about that Library of
> > > Congress exhibit: It doesn't make a pretence of being
> > > impartial, or of giving an overall view. The title of the
> > > exhibit is: "Religion and the Founding of the American
> > > Republic" With a name like that, you know that it's going
> > > to be slanted.
> > This shows your bias. The exhibit does give an overall view,
> > devoting much of it to deists, but obviously not enough to suit
> > you. You can't ignore religion if you are talking about the past
> > anymore than you could today.
> > Get your noggin out of the sand Richard.
> I am biased because I state that an exhibit about religion which is
> sponsored by Christians is slanted towards Christianity?
If there were Christian dollars involved that doesn't make the
exhibit slanted. It would obviously have to pass muster. It is
not believable that the site would remain up, given the scrutiny
it has had by now, thanks to the efforts of some opinionated historical
revisionists that nurse off of educational institutions and our tax dollars,
if it did not have a bases in reality.
I have to wonder if you hold the same view when you listen to
Public National Radio or watch PBS. Do you automatically dismiss
anything they have to say ?
You may want to dismiss this interview with Paul Johnson from the PBS
website. I read his book "A History of Christianity" and I can assure you
that he is no Christian apologist, the atheists I've talked to love to
quote him .
http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript139.html
MR. JOHNSON: The phrase was Abraham Lincoln's. He used it at aspeech
in Trenton, New Jersey in February 1861. And I think what he meant by that
was that the first settlers in America believed theywere the chosen people and
that they had a special task, to build a city on a hill, to be a light to the Gentiles
everywhere.
MR. WATTENBERG: John Winthrop said that; is that right?
MR. JOHNSON: Yes, John Winthrop, one of the -- the first governor of
Massachusetts said that. And they believed it. And for a long time Americans
felt they had a special role in the world.
MR. JOHNSON: Of course, he meant that. But I think there was a religious element,
too, because one of the most remarkable things about the United States was the way
in which religion supported progress instead of, on the continent of Europe, opposing
it. So religion and democracy and religion and republicanism fitted in very well.
MR. WATTENBERG: Did religion create republicanism?
MR. JOHNSON: Well, I think you could argue that. I certainly did in my lectures,
because I think the Great Awakening from the 1740s onwards, the great religious
revival, was the first nationwide event in American history. You have to remember
those 13 colonies mainly had contacts with London rather than with themselves, or
Liverpool.
The Great Awakening, which was a religious event, for the first time created nationwide
characters like Jonathan Edwards, and for the first time began to bring all the states together.
And it was a kind of millennarian event. They were expecting something to happen. And,
of course, what did happen was the American Revolution. So I think religion was probably
the most important single force behind that event.
MR. JOHNSON: Yes. When de Tocqueville came here in the 1830s, henoticed the strong
connection between American politics, Americanculture and American religion. He came
from a society in France wherereligion was always seen as the enemy of progress. He was
astonishedto discover in America that religion was one of the forces behindprogress.
...etc.
-------------------------------------------------
Now I fully expect you to dig up as much dirt on Paul Johnson, I'm not a fan
by the way, to attempt to discredit his views. But one has to wonder why so
many who study this reach the same conclusion. On the other hand we have a hand
full of agenda driven individuals trying to spin a new history for the US.
> It does mention Deism, but what does it say? It calls Deism "a minority
> within a minority."
> Wax
And it can't be true ? Your view on why more early Americans didn't
identify themselves as deists is because you say they wanted to
avoid the persecution of those evil Christians but the evidence is
contrary to that showing it to be one of the most, if not most, open culture
anywhere.
fletis
jal...@cox.net
jal...@cox.net
>:|> >:|> "Jayne also ignores the significant areas in which both Jefferson
>:|
You can expect and will receive a record of those who disagree with your
opinions, conclusions and spinning.
Readers can decide for themselves, or do their own research.
First, I will offer the following:
[Ran from April 16, 1999 to approx April 23, 1999]
From: Mike Curtis (mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam)
Subject: Calvin and Obediance
Newsgroups: alt.history.colonial
Date: 1999/04/16
[THREAD]
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=373EFF50.657C0D62%40pitnet.net&rnum=24&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DWas%2Bchristianity%2Bpart%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bcommon%2Blaw%2Bjalison%2540pilot.infi.net%2Balt.history.colonial%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26start%3D20%26sa%3DN
[ran the latter half of April, 1999]
From: Mike Curtis (mcu...@inetport.com)
Subject: Calvin's Influence
Newsgroups: alt.history.colonial
Date: 1999/04/18
[THREAD]
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=373ca0af.9802964%40news.pilot.infi.net&rnum=8&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26q%3DWas%2Bchristianity%2Bpart%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bcommon%2Blaw%2Bjalison%2540pilot.infi.net%2Balt.history.colonial%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch
[Ran from mid May 1999 to Mid June 1999]
From: Mike Curtis (mcu...@inetport.com)
Subject: Locke and Calvinistic Theories of Resistance
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.history.colonial
Date: 1999/05/15
[THREAD]
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=38f94371.22187506%40news.pilot.infi.net&rnum=19&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DWas%2Bchristianity%2Bpart%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bcommon%2Blaw%2Bjalison%2540pilot.infi.net%2Balt.history.colonial%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26start%3D10%26sa%3DN
>:|> Hint: Jefferson wasn't a orthodox Christian.
>:|
>:|According to YOUR definition of "orthodox" you would have to say he
>:|was. Your definition is, however, flawed. Jefferson did not fit into
>:|any "camp." Jefferson was a member of a sect of one. He considered
>:|himself a "real Christian," but in saying that he was implying that
>:|most people are not Christians. As a matter of fact he said that
>:|Calvin was an atheist.
>:|
>:|Why are you so resistent to dealing with my posts point by point? Do
>:|you think you score any points with readers by avoiding a
>:|point-by-point debate, skirting around the details, by name-calling
>:|people who you argued with in 1999? Then by emptying as much of the
>:|contents of your hard drive onto usenet as you can?
>:|
>:|You are right when you say that I cannot force you to debate the
>:|issues systematically or point by point. You have your style and
>:|that's that. But I find it hard to believe that you really think your
>:|approach is winning favor for your cause long-term.
>:|
>:|Searle
Then I will offer this:
Hint: Jefferson wasn't a orthodox Christian.
[Founders in general, long long post but most complete probably thus far
--- 5/19/02]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl783259543d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=9creeugfmesftrah
9m1epc0qac46rj0j8l%404ax.com
[Mostly Jefferson, primary/secondary evidence, including old reply to
Gardiner---5/14/02]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3825310418d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=53i2eu0fuv023s
9r7r3itsg4839javqgiu%404ax.com
[Jefferson, primary/secondary material --- 5/16/02]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3825310418d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=27nceuor6e8g3d
ctnk6iqjt7d55brhavgv%404ax.com
[Mostly Jefferson --- 5/15/02]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3825310418d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=olj4eu8mi4g43qj
cq3g0fmck5atv7ojntg%404ax.com
[Jefferson, more of the correting so called erros of my, more attempts by
postr to creat mountian out of a spec --- 5/20/02]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl146791123d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=vbtheuc3vacrqkh9
4pt41drcgjhldag3gf%404ax.com
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
followed by this:
[orthodoxy]
Newsgroups:
alt.american,alt.atheism,alt.renewing.american.civilization,alt.revolution.american,
alt.history.american
Subject: Re: Crosspost; In God We Trust
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 14:21:19 GMT
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4gnmfu8pjh8nt62nl3s371rovl8ebbqf14%404ax.com&output=gplain
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
and finally finishing with this:
From: buc...@exis.net (buc...@exis.net)
Subject: Original Gardiner, the beginning
Newsgroups: alt.history, soc.history, soc.history.war.us-revolution,
alt.history.colonial, alt.deism, alt.religion.deism
Date: 1999/12/28
[THREAD]
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=38b700d7.22107344%40news.exis.net&rnum=12&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Doriginal%2Bgardiner%2Bbuckeye%2540exis.net%2Balt.history.colonial%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26start%3D10%26sa%3DN
Especially this one:
[My full, point by point reply to all of Gardiner's claims and points.]
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3880e93a.16061580%40news.exis.net&output=gplain
jal...@cox.net
>:|maf...@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.02060...@posting.google.com>...
>:|>
>:|> All founding fathers detested organized religion.
>:|
>:|That's ignorant. Unfortunately, some like jalison are liable to come
>:|to your rescue when you make absurd assertions like this.
LOL, actually for once I will even agee with you. All founding fathers did
not detest organized religion.
Absolute statements seldom if ever are absolute.
However, on the other hand, your examples do not prove a whole lot either.
jal...@cox.net
>:|> >:|> The title of the exhibit is: "Religion and the Founding of the American
>:|> >:|> Republic" With a name like that, you know that it's going to be slanted.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|Huh? Why so?
>:|>
>:|>
>:|> Hmmmmmm, maybe this will explain it, huh?
>:|
>:|You are comical: you're alleging that the Library of Congress is
>:|agenda-driven by special interest groups, but all of the citations
>:|you give to prove this come from URLS like: "evolvefish.com" and
>:|"infidels.org."
>:|
You sure are trying awfully hard, but in spite of your comemnts, you aren't
disproving or damaging what is located at the following URL.
See:
Newsgroups:
soc.history.war.us-revolution,alt.history.colonial,alt.atheism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,alt.deism,alt.atheism,alt.religion.deism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.history
Subject: L.O.C. EXHIBIT (update)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:14:18 -0400
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=d11tqs02s7dubb5jkbu3r1su3plnfaoq3c%404ax.com&output=gplain
jal...@cox.net
>:|"Richard Weatherwax"
>:|>
>:|> "Fletis Humplebacker"
>:|
>:|
>:|> > > One good thing which can be said about that Library of
>:|> > > Congress exhibit: It doesn't make a pretence of being
>:|> > > impartial, or of giving an overall view. The title of the
>:|> > > exhibit is: "Religion and the Founding of the American
>:|> > > Republic" With a name like that, you know that it's going
>:|> > > to be slanted.
>:|
>:|
>:|> > This shows your bias. The exhibit does give an overall view,
>:|> > devoting much of it to deists, but obviously not enough to suit
>:|> > you. You can't ignore religion if you are talking about the past
>:|> > anymore than you could today.
>:|> > Get your noggin out of the sand Richard.
>:|
>:|> I am biased because I state that an exhibit about religion which is
>:|> sponsored by Christians is slanted towards Christianity?
>:|
>:|
>:|If there were Christian dollars involved that doesn't make the
>:|exhibit slanted. It would obviously have to pass muster. It is
>:|not believable that the site would remain up, given the scrutiny
>:|it has had by now, thanks to the efforts of some opinionated historical
>:|revisionists that nurse off of educational institutions and our tax dollars,
>:|if it did not have a bases in reality.
>:|
Again, not everyone agrees with you.
Fletis Humplebacker
> "Fletis Humplebacker"
> >:|If there were Christian dollars involved that doesn't make the
> >:|exhibit slanted. It would obviously have to pass muster. It is
> >:|not believable that the site would remain up, given the scrutiny
> >:|it has had by now, thanks to the efforts of some opinionated historical
> >:|revisionists that nurse off of educational institutions and our tax dollars,
> >:|if it did not have a bases in reality.
> Again, not everyone agrees with you.
I looked at the evolvefish site and laughed when I read it. A small band
of professors band together to throw a temper tandrum. LOL.
And I'm not going to purue through old newsgroup messages to try
to understand your POV.
> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
Who is arguing for repealing the Church and state doctrines ?
fletis
Fletis Humplebacker
<jal...@cox.net>
> "Fletis Humplebacker"
> >:|This shows your bias. The exhibit does give an overall view, devoting much
> >:|of it to deists, but obviously not enough to suit you. You can't ignore
> >:|religion if you are talking about the past anymore than you could today.
> >:|Get your noggin out of the sand Richard.
> Not everyone agrees with you.
I had no idea. Don't you have another routine ?
fletis
Fletis Humplebacker
"Richard Weatherwax"
> "ambrose searle" <ambros...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> < CLIP >
> > Apparently you haven't taken History 101. Museum displays,
> > especially those on display at the LOC (again:
> > http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html), are
> > indeed PRIMARY SOURCES.
> >
> > The Library of Congress tends to have some of the very best primary
> > sources available to historians. No, those displays aren't even
> > "reproductions."
> < Clip >
> The Library of Congress may have excellent primary sources, but those
> sources are not available through this site. The site show some good
> photographs of primary documents. It gives short quotes from some of those
> documents, but that's all. Primarily the site is mere commentary and
> opinions.
> For example, in section III, under the subheading, "Revolution Justified by
> God" it has a photo of a pamphlet written by Abraham Ketaltas. The
> exhibitors claim "Many Revolutionary War clergy argued that the war against
> Britain was approved by God," and then quotes a short paragraph from the
> pamphlet. But there is no way of finding out what is inside.
I don't understand. You wanted the whole pamplet online ? And that would have help
how ?
> When we enlarge the photo, are we able make out that the contents is from a
> sermon "PREACHED OCTOBER 5TH, 1777." That was more than a year after the
> Declaration of independence had been signed. Therefore we have no way of
> telling what that particular minister believed before the Revolutionary War
> began.
> Seeing as churches traditionally support their countries wars, the pamphlet
> as exhibited is meaningless.
> Wax
You didn't really need to play Dick Tracy with your magnifying lens
and secret decoder ring, this is printed out right below the photo:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God Arising And Pleading His People's Cause; Or The American War . . .
Shewn To Be The Cause Of God
Abraham Keteltas
Newbury-Port: John Mycall for Edmund Sawyer, 1777
Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (87)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can see how you missed the Locke photo earlier. Your mindset is a
case study in denial. If there were no churches that supported the
war you would be all over it, since most did we must discard them
as evidence.
You also imply that the minister may have been for the war effort prior
to it and a year later saw the light and preached against it. Your brain latched
onto this slim possibility and bypassed all the others prior to the end of the war.
You must be trolling.
fletis
Richard Weatherwax
>
> "Richard Weatherwax"
>
> > "ambrose searle" <ambros...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > < CLIP >
>
> > > Apparently you haven't taken History 101. Museum displays,
> > > especially those on display at the LOC (again:
> > > http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html), are
> > > indeed PRIMARY SOURCES.
> > >
> > > The Library of Congress tends to have some of the very
> > > best primary sources available to historians. No, those
> > > displays aren't even "reproductions."
> > < Clip >
>
> > The Library of Congress may have excellent primary sources,
> > but those sources are not available through this site. The site
> > show some good photographs of primary documents. It gives
> > short quotes from some of those documents, but that's all.
> > Primarily the site is mere commentary and opinions.
>
> > For example, in section III, under the subheading, "Revolution
> > Justified by God" it has a photo of a pamphlet written by
> > Abraham Ketaltas. The exhibitors claim "Many Revolutionary
> > War clergy argued that the war against Britain was approved
> > by God," and then quotes a short paragraph from the
> > pamphlet. But there is no way of finding out what is inside.
>
>
> I don't understand. You wanted the whole pamplet online ? And
> that would have help how ?
When Jalison asked for "primary sources" Your spiritual brother, ambrose
searle, gave the "Religion and the Founding of the Americian Republic" site,
claiming that it had "PRIMARY SOURCES". He was wrong. A photograph of the
cover of a pamphlet is not a primary source.
In fact: No primary sources are available to us through that site except
for a few short quotations.
I did not imply that he may have been for the war and then preached against
it. On the contrary. He may have been against the war and had only "seen
the light" that morning. You don't know.
Was the author an advocate of independence prior to the signing of the
Declaration of Independence? Or did he merely join the bandwagon after the
war began? You don't know.
Fletis Humplebacker
> "Fletis Humplebacker"
> > I can see how you missed the Locke photo earlier. Your mindset is a
> > case study in denial. If there were no churches that supported the
> > war you would be all over it, since most did we must discard them
> > as evidence.
> > You also imply that the minister may have been for the war
> > effort prior to it and a year later saw the light and preached
> > against it. Your brain latched onto this slim possibility and
> > bypassed all the others prior to the end of the war.
> I did not imply that he may have been for the war and then preached against
> it. On the contrary. He may have been against the war and had only "seen
> the light" that morning. You don't know.
Typical lawyer answer. You missed the point and focused on the nonissue.
The point was, YOU don't know. That the minister would have flipped his opinion
after the war is a longshot at best and obviously your best shot.
> Was the author an advocate of independence prior to the signing of the
> Declaration of Independence? Or did he merely join the bandwagon after the
> war began? You don't know.
> Wax
The point was that you disregarded everything else and grasped a longshot
and hoped no one would notice. Please don't insult us.
fletis
Fletis Humplebacker
"Richard Weatherwax"
>
> "Fletis Humplebacker"
> > I don't understand. You wanted the whole pamplet online ? And
> > that would have help how ?
> When Jalison asked for "primary sources" Your spiritual brother, ambrose
> searle, gave the "Religion and the Founding of the Americian Republic" site,
> claiming that it had "PRIMARY SOURCES". He was wrong. A photograph of the
> cover of a pamphlet is not a primary source.
> In fact: No primary sources are available to us through that site except
> for a few short quotations.
> Wax
That's an intellectualy dishonest opinion if it is genuine. They went out of their
way to showthe books and pamplets, showing the covers and quoting what was
in them. They have the pamplets. They have the primary sources. Just because
they did not electronically post them in their entirety does not mean that they don't
have the primary sources. I'm convinced that you are trolling. You can't be for real.
fletis
Richard Weatherwax
<jal...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ubfufukhg3800ej95...@4ax.com...
< Wax >
> [Ran from mid May 1999 to Mid June 1999]
> From: Mike Curtis (mcu...@inetport.com)
> Subject: Locke and Calvinistic Theories of Resistance
> Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.history.colonial
> Date: 1999/05/15
> [THREAD]
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=38f94371.22187506%40news.p
ilot.infi.net&rnum=19&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DWas%2Bchristianity%2Bpart%2Bof%2Bth
e%2Bcommon%2Blaw%2Bjalison%2540pilot.infi.net%2Balt.history.colonial%26hl%3D
en%26lr%3D%26start%3D10%26sa%3DN
>
I would like to add a couple of points to this post which refers to the
separation of church and state.
On my researces into the causes of the Revolutionary War, I cannot find
religion being an issue. As each state began disassociating themselves from
the British, they revoked their charters and wrote state constitutions. Not
one of those constitutions required a separation of church and state.
It was not until after the Revolution that religion became an issue. The
first state to take action was Virginia in 1785 which passed "A Bill for
Establishing Religious Freedom" written by Thomas Jefferson:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7842/rfindex.htm
Within a short time, most states passed similar laws.
One part of the Virginia law stated:
that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious
opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or
geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as
unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an
incapacity of being called to offices of trust and
emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that
religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those
privileges and advantages to which, in common with
his fellow citizens, he has a natural right.
This is reflected in Article VI of the Constitution:
no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification
to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Therefore, although religion was not an issue in the Revolution, Freedom of
Religion became a concern following the revolution and was acted upon in
most states and placed into the Constitution before the Bill of Rights was
written. And Thomas Jefferson played a key role in this taking place.
--
Wax
S of S: 5:1
Eat, friends, drink,
and be drunk with love.
Melody Blaiser
>"Richard Weatherwax" <weath...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<Y0uL8.16764$ov7.31...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>...
>> "ambrose searle" <ambros...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:fe9a0c54.02060...@posting.google.com...
>> > "Richard Weatherwax" <weath...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:<yFeL8.16405$JY2.29...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>...
>> > >
>> > > One good thing which can be said about that Library of
>> > > Congress exhibit: It doesn't make a pretence of being
>> > > impartial, or of giving an overall view. The title of the exhibit
>> > > is: "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic"
>> > > With a name like that, you know that it's going to be slanted.
>> >
>> > Huh? Why so?
>>
>> Are you that dumb?
>>
>> If the exhibit was named Prussian Beer Makers and the Founding of the
>> American Republic, would you expect it to give useful and accurate
>> information? Or would you expect it to be slanted towards beer makers from
>> Prussia?
>
>Your logic is absurd. In your view, since the Federal Government has a
>famous exhibit all about the Nazi's Holocaust, we must presume that
>the exhibit is slanted in favor of the Holocaust.
Actually they do in the Holocaust Museum and there is nothing
favourable about the Nazi Holocaust.
The Library of Congress exhibit tended to disguise how Massachusetts
Bay really treated those who disagreed with the prevailing view. These
would be Baptists, Quakers and even their own Congregationalists.
Those were the most glaring errors of bias.
>Good museum curators try to present reality: good, bad, or
>indifferent. The Library of Congress has an impeccable reputation as
>having good curators.
>
>Searle
Melody Blaiser
Richard Weatherwax
I am equally convinced that you are stupid.
I shall repeat.
When Jalison asked for "primary sources" Your spiritual brother, ambrose
searle, gave the "Religion and the Founding of the Americian Republic" site,
claiming that it had "PRIMARY SOURCES". He
was wrong.
They may have primary sources, but you cannot access them. You are merely
taking their word for what the documents say. And as you are aware,
statements can be taken out of context.
Richard Weatherwax
>
> > "Fletis Humplebacker"
>
> > > I can see how you missed the Locke photo earlier. Your
> > > mindset is a case study in denial. If there were no
> > > churches that supported the war you would be all over it,
> > > since most did we must discard them as evidence.
>
> > > You also imply that the minister may have been for the war
> > > effort prior to it and a year later saw the light and preached
> > > against it. Your brain latched onto this slim possibility and
> > > bypassed all the others prior to the end of the war.
>
>
> > I did not imply that he may have been for the war and then
> > preached against it. On the contrary. He may have been
> > against the war and had only "seen the light" that morning.
> > You don't know.
>
>
> Typical lawyer answer. You missed the point and focused
> on the nonissue. The point was, YOU don't know. That the
> minister would have flipped his opinion after the war is a
> longshot at best and obviously your best shot.
The bandwagon effect is quite powerful and well known by politicians.
It is well known that many people who were totally against independence at
the beginning of the war became strong supporters as it continued. Merely
because some minister gave a sermon in support of the war more than a year
after the war began, is no proof that the same minister supported the war at
its beginning. It is possible that the contents of the pamplet could tell
us, but it is not made available to us.
>
> > Was the author an advocate of independence prior to the
> > signing of the Declaration of Independence? Or did he
> > merely join the bandwagon after the war began? You don't
> > know.
>
> > Wax
>
> The point was that you disregarded everything else and
> grasped a longshot and hoped no one would notice. Please
> don't insult us.
You are merely exposing your own foolishness.
The issue was whether the site was a source of primary documents. That
pamphlet is a primary document, but it's contents are not available to us.
You are merely accepting what the site says about the pamphlet. That's
secondary at best.
Fletis Humplebacker
>
> "Fletis Humplebacker"
> > "Richard Weatherwax"
> >
> > > "Fletis Humplebacker"
> >
> > > > I can see how you missed the Locke photo earlier. Your
> > > > mindset is a case study in denial. If there were no
> > > > churches that supported the war you would be all over it,
> > > > since most did we must discard them as evidence.
> >
> > > > You also imply that the minister may have been for the war
> > > > effort prior to it and a year later saw the light and preached
> > > > against it. Your brain latched onto this slim possibility and
> > > > bypassed all the others prior to the end of the war.
> >
> >
> > > I did not imply that he may have been for the war and then
> > > preached against it. On the contrary. He may have been
> > > against the war and had only "seen the light" that morning.
> > > You don't know.
> >
> >
> > Typical lawyer answer. You missed the point and focused
> > on the nonissue. The point was, YOU don't know. That the
> > minister would have flipped his opinion after the war is a
> > longshot at best and obviously your best shot.
>
> The bandwagon effect is quite powerful and well known by politicians.
So are you a politician or a lawyer ? Both ?
> It is well known that many people who were totally against independence at
> the beginning of the war became strong supporters as it continued. Merely
> because some minister gave a sermon in support of the war more than a year
> after the war began, is no proof that the same minister supported the war at
> its beginning. It is possible that the contents of the pamplet could tell
> us, but it is not made available to us.
Well, Richard. What you are saying is that they are trying to pull
the wool over our eyes. Do you really think that the people who put the
exhibit together could get away with misrepresenting the contents ?
I know you don't think much of Christians but you should at least be
willing to concede some measure of intelligence.
> > > Was the author an advocate of independence prior to the
> > > signing of the Declaration of Independence? Or did he
> > > merely join the bandwagon after the war began? You don't
> > > know.
> > > Wax
> > The point was that you disregarded everything else and
> > grasped a longshot and hoped no one would notice. Please
> > don't insult us.
> You are merely exposing your own foolishness.
> The issue was whether the site was a source of primary documents. That
> pamphlet is a primary document, but it's contents are not available to us.
> You are merely accepting what the site says about the pamphlet. That's
> secondary at best.
> Wax
Only if you will only settle on holding the originals in your hand as a primary
source. That's generally all that sources do is report the contents.
You say it could be misrepresented so I suggest you march over there and
demand an inspection to your satisfaction. Otherwise it's about as primary as
it gets.
fletis
Jesus Christ
us:
> This is reflected in Article VI of the Constitution:
>
> no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification
> to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
And several states continue to defy this.
--
___ _ ___ , , __ _ ______
/\ / (_) ()(_| | () / (_)/| |/|/ \ | | ()(_) |
| | \__ /\ | | /\ | |___| |___/ | | /\ |
| | / / \ | | / \ | | |\| \ _ |/ / \ _ |
\_|/\___//(__/ \__/\_//(__/ \___/ | |/| \_/\_/\//(__/(_/
/|
\| FALSE CHRISTIANS (failed the Luke 6:30 test):
Pastor Frank
M. Clark
CaptainKIRKusa1
Arne Langsetmo
[snip]
> > . . . although they cannot find these
> > principles in the Bible. Where does the Bible speak about
> > "natural rights"?
>
> Romans chapter 2.
>
> This is what Thomas Jefferson learned from his Law School Textbook
> (Sir Edward Coke), who wrote:
>
> "The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the
> nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and
> direction; and this is lex æterna the moral law, called also the law
> of nature... And by the law, written with the finger of God in the
> heart of man, were the people of God a long time governed, before the
> law was written by Moses, who was the first reporter or writer of law
> in the world. . . ."
FWIW, false.
> ". . . The Apostle, in the Second Chapter to the Romans saith,
> Cum enim gentes quae legem non habent naturaliter ea quae legis sunt
> faciant [While the gentiles who do not have the law do naturally the
> things of the law]... This law of nature, which indeed is the eternal
> law of the creator, infused into the heart of the creature at the time
> of his creation, was two thousand years before any laws written, and
> before any judicial or municipal laws."
>
> Coke's Reports, Trin. 6 Jac. 1.7, 1.
Now that's a good deal. Gawd gets credit for everything of
man's invention because He supposedly invented man. Righto.
If it's a good idea, obviously it was Gawd's doing. Therefore
let us all give praise to Gawd and thank him for giving us
the gift to express His Divine Plan through our own brilliant
insights. Well, if you were to ask Jefferson, he'd tell
people to spend more time acting "brilliant" and less time
blandishing praise on some sky pixie for making all this
possible. . . .
> > Where does the Bible say, "All men are created equal"?
>
> Galatians 3:28, among others. Most scholars feel that Jesus' frequent
> exhortations concerning the dignity of Samaritans, Lepers, Romans, and
> Prostitutes clearly suggests the idea that all persons, regardless of
> race, gender, illness, or vocation, are to be regarded alike.
Ayep, I'm sure the slave and freeman were all alike in
Gawd's eyes. . . .
> > Where does the Bible
> > speak about a democratic form of government?
>
> I don't think it does. But I also don't think that you will find
> many of the U.S. founders using that term in a positive way as
> well. . . .
Which must explain their creation of a House of Representatives,
democratically elected, eh?
> . . . Most of them detested the idea of democracy.
Or at least so say those who themselves have little appreciation
for such. But then again, we _are_ a free nation, so I don't
have to accept such a conclusion by others who are of a
mind that they're better than I.
> > On the contrary. While the Bible says that all governments are established
> > by God (Romans 13:1), the Constitution says that this government is
> > established by "We the People."
>
> If you were a little deeper, you would know that in the founding era
> there was a very famous phrase: vox populi vox dei est (the voice of
> the people is the voice of God); . . .
See above for my take on Gawd's plagiarism (to go along
with His manifold other character flaws).
"Yes, there is a God, and He's a malevolent thug."
-- S.L. Clemens in a jovial mood
[snip]
> > While the first Commandment demands the worship of one God. The first
> > amendment guarantees freedom of religion.
>
> The first amendment arose from the conviction that Jesus demanded a
> voluntary rather than a coerced faith.
Are you under the misapprehension that Jesus holds the
patent on this concept?
[snip]
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
a.a.#101
Fletis Humplebacker
>
> "Fletis Humplebacker"
> > "Richard Weatherwax"
> > >
> > > "Fletis Humplebacker"
> >
> > > > I don't understand. You wanted the whole pamplet online ? And
> > > > that would have help how ?
> >
> > > When Jalison asked for "primary sources" Your spiritual
> > > brother, ambrose searle, gave the "Religion and the Founding
> > > of the Americian Republic" site, claiming that it had
> > > "PRIMARY SOURCES". He was wrong. A photograph
> > > of the cover of a pamphlet is not a primary source.
> >
> > > In fact: No primary sources are available to us through that
> > > site except for a few short quotations.
> > That's an intellectualy dishonest opinion if it is genuine. They
> > went out of their way to showthe books and pamplets,
> > showing the covers and quoting what was in them. They
> > have the pamplets. They have the primary sources. Just
> > because they did not electronically post them in their entirety
> > does not mean that they don't have the primary sources. I'm
> > convinced that you are trolling. You can't be for real.
> I am equally convinced that you are stupid.
You should know by now how much I value your opinion.
> I shall repeat.
> When Jalison asked for "primary sources" Your spiritual brother, ambrose
> searle, gave the "Religion and the Founding of the Americian Republic" site,
> claiming that it had "PRIMARY SOURCES". He
> was wrong.
> They may have primary sources, but you cannot access them. You are merely
> taking their word for what the documents say. And as you are aware,
> statements can be taken out of context.
> Wax
You cannot acces real documents over the internet. They are all images.
You have to go there and fondle them directly if you have doubts about
the representation. I don't think you have a realistic view of primary
sources.
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/PrimarySources.html
INTERNET. Increasingly, libraries are digitizing archival resources and
providing access to these special collections through the Web. Many
digital library collections contain excellent primary resources such as
photographs, scanned images of letters or the full-text of books and journals.
(did you see that ? OR the full-text....)
fletis
Jesus Christ
> ambros...@yahoo.com (ambrose searle) wrote in message
> news:<fe9a0c54.02053...@posting.google.com>...
[piggybacking]
> > The first amendment arose from the conviction that Jesus demanded a
> > voluntary rather than a coerced faith.
Oooh, that's a gem.
Arne Langsetmo
[snip]
> Not sure why you have interpolated this line of argument into this
> thread, but, hey, sounds interesting to me.
>
> So, to answer your question:
>
> "Jefferson and other secular-minded Americans subscribed to certain
> propositions about law and authority that had their roots in the
> Protestant Reformation. It is a scholarly commonplace to point out how
> much Jefferson (and his fellow delegates to the Continental Congress)
> were influenced by Locke. Without disputing this we would simply add
> that an older and deeper influence 末 John Calvin 末 was of more
> profound importance (or that Locke's consciousness, like Jefferson's,
> was a consequence in large part of the Reformation).
>
> The American Revolution might thus be said to have started, in a
> sense, when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the church door at
> Wittenburg. It received a substantial part of its theological and
> philosophical underpinnings from John Calvin's Institutes of the
> Christian Religion and much of its social theory from the Puritan
> Revolution of 1640-1660, and, perhaps less obviously, from the
> Glorious Revolution of 1689. Put another way, the American Revolution
> is inconceivable in the absence of the context of ideas which have
> constituted Christianity. The leaders of the Revolution in every
> colony were imbued with the precepts of the Reformed faith."
>
> 末鳳age Smith, Professor of American History, UCLA
> The Religious Roots of the American Revolution
Well, I guess you might say that the roots of the American
Revolution were "religious" _if_ you consider the _only_
"real" religion to be the one rebelling against supreme authority
(and further that such rebelliousness is the _defining_
characteristic of the "religion"). But if you happen to be
Catholic, you might not look at this in quite the same
manner. Then you can look to the Mormons and the Seventh
Day Adventists for what constitutes "religion" and what
constitutes "blasphemy" and "apostasy" if you happen to
be a Protestant. The common denomination is not the
particular religion in ascendency or under assault, but
rather the workings of rational men of free will and
intellect.
That Calvinists might be inclined to rebellion does not
make all rebels Calvinists. Such a claim would be the
logical fallacy of "affirmation of the consequent":
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#consequent
> "The idea that a people suffering under a tyrant had the right to
> resist him through their legally constituted representatives was
> traditional Calvinism. It was in fact rooted in certain views of John
> Calvin himself. Calvinism had coupled with that conviction two others,
> namely, that there is no lawful government without a mutual compact
> freely entered into by king and people, and that government must be
> based upon fundamental written law... This scheme of thought had been
> further developed by many thinkers before Locke gave to it the form
> that played so great a part in the thinking of the American Whigs.
> When, therefore, Jefferson wove these ideas into the Declaration of
> Independence, Presbyterians recognized at once their Calvinistic
> theology and their Whig political theory... As in the Declaration of
> Independence, so in the Constitution, Calvinistic political theory had
> influenced all political thought of the day."
>
> 末豊eonard Trinterud, The Forming of an American Tradition
See above.
> "Presbyterians supported the cause of independence; and indeed the
> American revolution was but the application of the principles of the
> Reformation to civil government."
>
> 末萌eorge Bancroft, History of the United States of America from the
> Discovery of the Continent, vol. VI, p.271.
See above.
By your specious reasoning, even communists are simply doing the
Lord's work.
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Arne Langsetmo
[snip]
> Try http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html
>
> It's a little more reputable of a source than your "infidels.org"
> citation.
>
> Or are you are one of those wackos who think that the curators of the
> Library of Congress are in a right-wing conspiracy with Bob Jones and
> Benny Hinn?
Actually, the CRW foamers have managed to get one of their
mouthpieces installed there. Can't remember his name offhand,
but he's been roundly criticised by a number of other historians
for his slanted revisionism. Haven't caught him manufacturing
quotes yet ala David Barton, but he's of the same yet more
subtle ilk.
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Arne Langsetmo
> > "ambrose searle" <ambros...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:fe9a0c54.02060...@posting.google.com...
> > > >
> > > > One good thing which can be said about that Library of
> > > > Congress exhibit: It doesn't make a pretence of being
> > > > impartial, or of giving an overall view. The title of the exhibit
> > > > is: "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic"
> > > > With a name like that, you know that it's going to be slanted.
> > >
> > > Huh? Why so?
> >
> > Are you that dumb?
> >
> > If the exhibit was named Prussian Beer Makers and the Founding of the
> > American Republic, would you expect it to give useful and accurate
> > information? Or would you expect it to be slanted towards beer makers from
> > Prussia?
>
> Your logic is absurd. In your view, since the Federal Government has a
> famous exhibit all about the Nazi's Holocaust, we must presume that
> the exhibit is slanted in favor of the Holocaust.
>
> indifferent. The Library of Congress has an impeccable reputation as
> having good curators.
You misspelled "had". Sorry for the spelling flame.
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
ambrose searle
> "ambrose searle" <ambros...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fe9a0c54.02060...@posting.google.com...
>
> >
> > Apparently you haven't taken History 101. Museum displays,
> > especially those on display at the LOC (again:
> > http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html), are
> > indeed PRIMARY SOURCES.
> >
> > The Library of Congress tends to have some of the very best primary
> > sources available to historians. No, those displays aren't even
> > "reproductions."
> < Clip >
>
> The Library of Congress may have excellent primary sources, but those
> sources are not available through this site. The site show some good
> photographs of primary documents. It gives short quotes from some of those
> documents, but that's all. Primarily the site is mere commentary and
> opinions.
>
> For example, in section III, under the subheading, "Revolution Justified by
> God" it has a photo of a pamphlet written by Abraham Ketaltas. The
> exhibitors claim "Many Revolutionary War clergy argued that the war against
> Britain was approved by God," and then quotes a short paragraph from the
> pamphlet. But there is no way of finding out what is inside.
You'll find the entire text of the Keteltas sermon in Ellis Sandoz'
POLITICAL SERMONS OF THE FOUNDING ERA; I've read it; it's not going to
help your argument.
It is an echo of the following Revolutionary war era sermons that are
available online
http://www.founding.com/library/lbody.cfm?id=230&parent=52
http://www.frii.com/~gosplow/west.html
http://www.frii.com/~gosplow/cushing.html
http://www.frii.com/~gosplow/allen.html
http://www.frii.com/~gosplow/jones.html
http://www.frii.com/~gosplow/langdon.html
http://www.frii.com/~gosplow/case.html
http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/howard.html
http://www.skidmore.edu/~tkuroda/gh322/Niles.htm
http://www.lessonsofthepast.com/scriptural/sermon68.htm
http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/witherspoon.html
http://www.lexrex.com/informed/otherdocuments/sermons/mass_sermon.htm
> When we enlarge the photo, are we able make out that the contents is from a
> sermon "PREACHED OCTOBER 5TH, 1777." That was more than a year after the
> Declaration of independence had been signed. Therefore we have no way of
> telling what that particular minister believed before the Revolutionary War
> began.
Here is a sermon that shows what clergy were saying prior to the war:
http://www.founding.com/library/lbody.cfm?id=230&parent=52
About this sermon, John Adams wrote, "It was read by everybody;
celebrated by friends, and abused by enemies... It spread an universal
alarm against the authority of Parliament. It excited a general and
just apprehension, that bishops, and dioceses, and churches, and
priests, and tithes, were to be imposed on us by Parliament."
(John Adams to H. Niles February 13, 1818)
This sermon has been called by one historian the spark which ignited
the American Revolution. This illustrates that the Revolution was not
only about stamps and taxes but also about religious liberty.
> Seeing as churches traditionally support their countries wars, the pamphlet
> as exhibited is meaningless.
Here is a list of clergymen, many of whom preached before and during
the revolutionary era. Find me one of whom did not preach in favor of
the revolution:
http://sdss4.physics.lsa.umich.edu:8080/~mckay/amckay/presbio.htm
Searle
ambrose searle
Hogwash. Almost everything on that site qualifies as a primary source.
Contemporary artifacts of any kind are primary sources, they often
tell us much more than the documents. Entire histories are being
written using just artifacts, and a heck of a lot less than is
available throught the LOC exhibit.
As a matter of fact, most native American history relies on artifacts,
since those people were largely without any written language, hence
documentless.
Does that mean that we have no native American primary sources? No
way.
Historians have drawn a whole lot from the sources that Dr. Hutson has
on display at the library of Congress; for example, the exhibit at
http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/f0304.jpg
tells a whole lot about what kinds of sources were motivating the
colonists to be rebellious. The picture includes an Anglican being
kicked out of Boston by a mob that are using four books to expel him:
Those books are labelled: LOCKE, SYDNEY ON GOVERNMENT, CALVIN'S WORKS,
and BARCLAY'S APOLOGY.
The cartoonist at that time certainly felt that the Colonists were
motivated by the Whigs: Locke and Sydney; by the Presbyterian, John
Calvin; and by the Quaker, Robert Barclay.
That is apparent from the evidence. Now, once we begin to look in
these men's writings, we can understand more of why this conflict was
perceived the way it was, particularly, by many as a "Presbyterian
Rebellion."
> Was the author an advocate of independence prior to the signing of the
> Declaration of Independence? Or did he merely join the bandwagon after the
> war began? You don't know.
I do. Keteltas was in favor of separation from England back in the
1760's. He was married into the New York Triumvirate, the group who
promoted American Independence in the 1750's and 60's in New York. He
went to the "seminary of sedition" where he graduated 1752. As did the
vast majority of Presbyterians, Keteltas preached fervently against
the King in the years prior to the revolution.
Searle