Religion and the Early American Republic
Gardiner
I want to thank you for the material you posted here regarding the place
of religion in society, particularly this word from Professor Bellah:
> Considering the separation of church and state, how is a president
> justified in using the word "God" at all? The answer is that the
> separation of church and state has not denied the political realm a
> religious dimension. Although matters of personal religious belief,
> worship, and association are considered to be strictly Private affairs,
> there are, at the same time, certain common elements of religious
> orientation that the great majority of Americans share. These have
> played a crucial role in the development of American institutions and
> still Provide a religious dimension for the whole fabric of American
> life, including the political sphere. This public religious dimension is
> expressed in a set of beliefs, symbols, and rituals that I am calling
> the American civil religion. The inauguration of a president is an
> important ceremonial event in this religion. It reaffirms, among other
> things, the religious legitimation of the highest political
> authority.
I really quite agree with these sentiments.
Michael J Nash
Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote in message
news:386038B9...@pitnet.net...
Well, I don't. And I think the Constitution is quite clear that the
government should not be used as a tool to bolster the blind faith of those
who choose to believe in gods. Presidents and their constituents are
entitled to believe and worship as they see fit, but their right to do so
ends where it crosses over into institutions that I, as an atheist citizen,
pay for with my tax dollars. The "vast majority" of people who worship gods
do not need the government to legitimize their beliefs, and we as Americans
certainly don't need somebody's fairy tale sky-pixie to legitimize the
authority of any elected official. That's what the ballot box is for.
--
Michael J. Nash aa # 1651 (remove "spamsux" from email address to reply)
EAC Director-General, Operation FUCKFEST (Freethinkers Undermining Christian
Knuckleheadedness, Fomenting Evil, and Stealing Things)
(formerly Operation SADISTIC)
President, Cunnilingus Lovers In Texas
**********************************************
"Is man one of God's blunders, or is God one of man's blunders?" --
Friedrich Nietzsche
"Faith is believing in things when common sense tells you not to." -- George
Seaton
Jeff Sinclair
Actually, Gardiner and I agree on very little. It is quite telling in
what he cut from the Bellah article, in order to try and support his
advocacy of destroying the wall between church and state:
" These questions are worth pursuing because they raise the issue of how
civil religion relates to the political society on the one hand and to
Private religious organization on the other. President Kennedy was a
Christian, more specifically a Catholic Christian. Thus his general
references to God do not mean that he lacked a specific religious
commitment. But why, then, did he not include some remark to the effect
that Christ is the Lord of the world or some indication of respect for
the Catholic church! He did not because these are matters of his own
private religious belief and of his relation to his own particular
church; they are not matters relevant in any direct way to the conduct
of his public office. Others with different religious views and
commitments to different churches or denominations are equally
qualified participants in the Political process. The principle of
separation of church and state guarantees the freedom of religious
belief and association, but at the same time clearly segregates the
religious sphere, which is considered to be essentially
private, from the political one."
It clearly notes the need for seperation of church and state even while
recognizing the right of people to express their faith or non-faith;
just not in a way which seeks to impose itself on other people, whether
they be Christian, Moslem, Buddhist, Atheist, Animist, etc.
Unsurprisingly, Gardnier presents a partial quote, taken out of its
context, to argue that the political and the religious shpere should be
one. Again, as Jim Allison has posted quite cogently, that was _never_
the intention of the founding fathers, whatever their private religious
convictions.
--
"I have always been here" - Kosh
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Kenneth Childress
Nor can it be used as a tool to suppress the rights of religious people
to engage in their First Amendment freedoms. I take it that you are
against "hate crime" laws then, as they are clearly a violation of the
First Amendment, and the Equal Protection clauses of the Constitution.
Or, do you approve of them because they are being used to silence
religious folks?
>Presidents and their constituents are
>entitled to believe and worship as they see fit, but their right to do so
>ends where it crosses over into institutions that I, as an atheist citizen,
>pay for with my tax dollars.
Please be more specific here. What do you mean?
>The "vast majority" of people who worship gods
>do not need the government to legitimize their beliefs, and we as Americans
>certainly don't need somebody's fairy tale sky-pixie to legitimize the
>authority of any elected official. That's what the ballot box is for.
How is the government being used to "legitimize" people's beliefs?
>--
>Michael J. Nash aa # 1651 (remove "spamsux" from email address to reply)
>EAC Director-General, Operation FUCKFEST (Freethinkers Undermining Christian
>Knuckleheadedness, Fomenting Evil, and Stealing Things)
>(formerly Operation SADISTIC)
>President, Cunnilingus Lovers In Texas
By then, IMO, one would would display this kind of signature has to be suspect
in his capacity for intellectual or rational thought.
--
c...@teleport.com
> > Considering the separation of church and state, how is a president
> > justified in using the word "God" at all?
Because that is his right. It is also his right to totally ignore "God".
And that is exactly what the First Admendment really means.
> > The answer is that the
> > separation of church and state has not denied the political realm a
> > religious dimension.
Nope, and it does not require one either. The United States would
continue to run as well with or without any religious influences. The
disruptive thing would be a state enforced religious orthodoxy.
> > Although matters of personal religious belief,
> > worship, and association are considered to be strictly Private affairs,
> > there are, at the same time, certain common elements of religious
> > orientation that the great majority of Americans share.
And many who do not share them.
> > This public religious dimension is
> > expressed in a set of beliefs, symbols, and rituals that I am calling
> > the American civil religion.
A new nadir, the Constitution as a "biblical" document! Your leap of
logic is strabismic.
> > The inauguration of a president is an
> > important ceremonial event in this religion.
No, it is a civil event. But, you can redefine it erroneously if you wish.
----------------------------------
Fas Est Et Ab Hoste Doceri
----------------------------------
Rick Gardiner
separation of church and state is wonderful.
Go get 'em, Jimmy!
Michael J Nash
Kenneth Childress <ic...@best.com> wrote in message
news:38610463$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> In article <83q1ep$49ra$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>,
> Michael J Nash <NASHMs...@prodigy.spamsux.net> wrote:
(snip)
> >Well, I don't. And I think the Constitution is quite clear that the
> >government should not be used as a tool to bolster the blind faith of
those
> >who choose to believe in gods.
>
> Nor can it be used as a tool to suppress the rights of religious people
> to engage in their First Amendment freedoms. I take it that you are
> against "hate crime" laws then, as they are clearly a violation of the
> First Amendment, and the Equal Protection clauses of the Constitution.
> Or, do you approve of them because they are being used to silence
> religious folks?
Actually, I'm undecided on hate-crime legislation. On one hand, I can
understand the sentiment behind it, but on the other hand, I wonder how much
good such legislation would do, as opposed to the harm to people's 1st
Amendment rights. Anyway, this is off topic...
>
> >Presidents and their constituents are
> >entitled to believe and worship as they see fit, but their right to do so
> >ends where it crosses over into institutions that I, as an atheist
citizen,
> >pay for with my tax dollars.
>
> Please be more specific here. What do you mean?
Specifically, I'm referring to the fact that we deem it necessary to pay for
chaplains to administer to the spiritual needs of theistic members of
Congress, which is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. I'm
referring to the fact that some deem it necessary to open sessions of
Congress and other public events with organized prayer, a violation of the
First Amendment and an insult to those who lack theistic beliefs. I'm
referring to the presence of the words, "In god We Trust" on the currency
that I, as an Ameican consumer, am required to use in order to engage in
commerce in this country. I'm referring to the use of the words "one nation
under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance and the implication thereof; namely,
that one has to believe in a god in order to be a loyal American. I'm
referring to the attempts by some to introduce voucher programs that would
fund religious indoctrination and the teaching of creationist pseudoscience
to our nation's schoolchildren, while at the same time reducing funding to
our already underfunded public schools. I'm referring to the attempts by
many in this country to interject religious indoctrination into our public
institutions; namely, the attempts by some to force the posting of the
Judeo-Christian 10 commandments in schools and courtrooms, and to force the
teaching of young-earth creationism in our schools as legitimate theory in
our classrooms, despite the utter lack of evidence for this pseudoscientifc
set of hypotheses. I'm also referring to the official sanctioning of
heterosexual marriage, while homosexual marriage is disallowed due to the
religious sensibilities of the theist majority, and for no other logical
reason. I could go on forever with this...
>
> >The "vast majority" of people who worship gods
> >do not need the government to legitimize their beliefs, and we as
Americans
> >certainly don't need somebody's fairy tale sky-pixie to legitimize the
> >authority of any elected official. That's what the ballot box is for.
>
> How is the government being used to "legitimize" people's beliefs?
See above.
--
Michael J. Nash aa # 1651 (remove "spamsux" from email address to reply)
EAC Director-General, Operation FUCKFEST (Freethinkers Undermining Christian
Knuckleheadedness, Fomenting Evil, and Stealing Things)
(formerly Operation SADISTIC)
President, Cunnilingus Lovers In Texas
**********************************************
Gardiner
>
> > >their right to do so
> > >ends where it crosses over into institutions that I, as an atheist citizen,
> > >pay for with my tax dollars.
> >
> > Please be more specific here. What do you mean?
>
> Specifically, I'm
> that I, as an Ameican consumer, am required to use in order to engage in
> commerce in this country.
Well, geez, Mr. Nash, perhaps you should start a campaign to prevent use
of the calendar by the government. After all, today is Thursday... the
day of Thor, god of thunder; how dare the federal government force
anyone to use this religious terminology in our public schools. I know
that there are teachers everywhere today telling children that this is
Thursday. And my tax dollars go to support those teachers. Some of these
same teachers are known to say "God Bless You" when their students
sneeze. Arrest 'em I say!!
I even knew a public school teacher who said "Adios" to her students at
the end of the day. This criminal teacher was trying to pull a fast one
on us, for those of us who know Spanish know that she was telling the
kids to "Go With God." It would have been just as bad if she had said
"Adeiu" for it means something quite similar.
Then there are the other teachers and government officials who say
"goodbye" to us routinely. They thought they were going to get away with
it, but I pulled out the OED on them and I discovered that GOODBYE is
simply a contraction of God-be-with-ye.
I'm with you, Mr. Nash, I say we end this religious oppression
immediately. The next time a public school teacher says goodbye to my
child, I'm going to get the ACLU and Jim Alison to sue! I hope you'll be
in court with me too.
Next month will be January, the month of Janus, the god who both looks
forward and backward. I don't believe in that God, and yet when the
Federal Government sends me my 1040's, they are going to force upon me
the idea that it is Janus' month. And my tax dollars pay for those
documents.
I think this provides us with a great chance to initiate a legal suit
against the IRS. Thanks for bringing up the fact that my tax dollars go
to support all sorts of religious expression by the government. I trust
you will be helping me end it right away.
By the way, I really love the responsible way you present your cause as
stated by your signature below. It is rare to find such a professional
and respectable representation of proper demeanor in these newsgroups.
Many people are clearly wackos, but you sir, are the epitome of a level
headed, mature, highly respectable participant in a newsgroup. Your
signature tells all--
> --
> Michael J. Nash aa # 1651 (remove "spamsux" from email address to reply)
> EAC Director-General, Operation FUCKFEST (Freethinkers Undermining Christian
> Knuckleheadedness, Fomenting Evil, and Stealing Things)
> (formerly Operation SADISTIC)
> President, Cunnilingus Lovers In Texas
RG
Jeff Sinclair
soc.history.war.us-revolution,
alt.history.colonial,
sci.skeptic,
alt.deism,
alt.atheism,
alt.religion.deism,
alt.religion.christian.presbyterian>>
In article <38625FC5...@pitnet.net>,
Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> Michael J Nash wrote:
> >
> > > >their right to do so
> > > >ends where it crosses over into institutions that I, as an
atheist citizen,
> > > >pay for with my tax dollars.
> > >
> > > Please be more specific here. What do you mean?
> >
> > Specifically, I'm
> > referring to the presence of the words, "In god We Trust" on the
currency
> > that I, as an Ameican consumer, am required to use in order to
engage in
> > commerce in this country.
<<Straw man, Asinine comments, and ad hominems snipped>>
Michael J. Nash comments restored:
"Specifically, I'm referring to the fact that we deem it necessary to
pay for chaplains to administer to the spiritual needs of theistic
members of Congress, which is a blatant violation of the First
Amendment. I'm referring to the fact that some deem it necessary to
open sessions of Congress and other public events with organized
prayer, a violation of the First Amendment and an insult to those who
lack theistic beliefs. I'm referring to the presence of the words, "In
god We Trust" on the currency that I, as an Ameican consumer, am
required to use in order to engage in commerce in this country. I'm
referring to the use of the words "one nation under god" in the Pledge
of Allegiance and the implication thereof; namely, that one has to
believe in a god in order to be a loyal American. I'm referring to the
attempts by some to introduce voucher programs that would fund
religious indoctrination and the teaching of creationist pseudoscience
to our nation's schoolchildren, while at the same time reducing funding
to our already underfunded public schools. I'm referring to the
attempts by many in this country to interject religious indoctrination
into our public institutions; namely, the attempts by some to force the
posting of the Judeo-Christian 10 commandments in schools and
courtrooms, and to force the teaching of young-earth creationism in our
schools as legitimate theory in our classrooms, despite the utter lack
of evidence for this pseudoscientifc set of hypotheses. I'm also
referring to the official sanctioning of heterosexual marriage, while
homosexual marriage is disallowed due to the religious sensibilities of
the theist majority, and for no other logical reason. I could go on
forever with this..."
Let the reader note that instead of dealing forthrightly with these
legitimate concerns of someone who disagrees with blatant attempts,
largely by the religious right, to hijack governmental institutions to
promote a particular religious point of view, "Pastor"(TM) Ricky
instead isolates one phrase of the whole and builds a straw man out of
it, and cries crocodile tears over his .sig file.
Concerning only the phrase "In God we trust" on money, there are other
religious groups in this country who do not hold to the idea of a
personal God. Buddhists, Hindus, and so on immediately come to mind.
The phrase "In God we trust", while many people agree with it, is the
_overt_ promotion of a religious idea which many others disagree with,
unlike Gardiner's "Thursday, Adios, Goodbye" straw man. It could very
well be argued that this _does_ constitute a breach of the
establishment clause of the first amendment to the constitution. It
also makes for very bad religion.
It is to be noted that the other violations of the establishment clause
noted by Mr. Nash are avoided. To do so would almost certainly draw
other people into the discussion, which would seem to be what Gardiner
wants to avoid. His pattern has been to ridicule, berate, offer up half-
truths or partial quotations torn out of context in order to support
what has increasingly appeared to be a dishonest advocacy of religious
establishment by claiming that the founding fathers were "orthodox
Christians" and that they had intended such a particular religious
sensibility to be the de facto officially sanctioned governmental
ideology. Jim Allison and Mike Curtis have disabused him of that since
early this year, even though he continues to offer up
dishonest "scholarship".
So, do you think that "Pastor"(TM) Ricky, who has been shown to be a
liar and slanderer and dishonest about his use of sources, some of
which are of dubious origin (i.e.- his use of the Madison quote by
Burton, which even Madison scholars at the University of Virginia
cannot seem to find), will now suddenly reform and offer either Michael
Nash, me, or anybody else an honest argument? Or do you think that he
will respond to this with yet another post filled with slander and
personal attacks? Let's see what he has to say about his own
tendencies, shall we?:
"For the record, Jeffy, I'm a nasty, brash, abrasive, condescending,
mean-spirited soul. I'm certainly not a representative of holiness, but
I've never said otherwise."
Would that be a "no"?
Kenneth Childress
Michael J Nash <NASHMs...@prodigy.spamsux.net> wrote:
>
>
>Kenneth Childress <ic...@best.com> wrote in message
>news:38610463$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
>> In article <83q1ep$49ra$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>,
>> Michael J Nash <NASHMs...@prodigy.spamsux.net> wrote:
[...]
>> Nor can it be used as a tool to suppress the rights of religious people
>> to engage in their First Amendment freedoms. I take it that you are
>> against "hate crime" laws then, as they are clearly a violation of the
>> First Amendment, and the Equal Protection clauses of the Constitution.
>> Or, do you approve of them because they are being used to silence
>> religious folks?
>
>Actually, I'm undecided on hate-crime legislation. On one hand, I can
>understand the sentiment behind it, but on the other hand, I wonder how much
>good such legislation would do, as opposed to the harm to people's 1st
>Amendment rights. Anyway, this is off topic...
Well, you'd better think long and hard about it as the current approach
to the laws are going to decimate First Amendment freedoms. The topic
is definitely related, so it is not entirely off topic. It is certainly a
tangentential topic though.
>> >Presidents and their constituents are
>> >entitled to believe and worship as they see fit, but their right to do so
>> >ends where it crosses over into institutions that I, as an atheist
>citizen,
>> >pay for with my tax dollars.
>>
>> Please be more specific here. What do you mean?
>
>Specifically, I'm referring to the fact that we deem it necessary to pay for
>chaplains to administer to the spiritual needs of theistic members of
>Congress, which is a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
Of course, this practice was put into place by the very people who
drafted the Constitution and Bill of Rights. One would think they would
know whether or not the practice was unconstitutional. That you
consider this unconstitution puts your credibiity on the subject in
serious doubt.
>I'm
>referring to the fact that some deem it necessary to open sessions of
>Congress and other public events with organized prayer, a violation of the
>First Amendment and an insult to those who lack theistic beliefs.
Nonsense. Because you here religious speech IN NO WAY violates your
rights. The insult is your advocating stopping them. You have no right
to not be offended. Of course, I challenge you to try to explain how
your rights are violated when you hear a prayer.
>I'm
>referring to the presence of the words, "In god We Trust" on the currency
>that I, as an Ameican consumer, am required to use in order to engage in
>commerce in this country.
Oh please, you are getting more and more absurd as you go along.
>I'm referring to the use of the words "one nation
>under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance and the implication thereof; namely,
>that one has to believe in a god in order to be a loyal American.
The Declaration of Independence really ticks you off doesn't it?
>I'm
>referring to the attempts by some to introduce voucher programs that would
>fund religious indoctrination and the teaching of creationist pseudoscience
>to our nation's schoolchildren, while at the same time reducing funding to
>our already underfunded public schools.
Public schools are not underfunded. You have really fallen for all the
propoganda.
>I'm referring to the attempts by
>many in this country to interject religious indoctrination into our public
>institutions; namely, the attempts by some to force the posting of the
>Judeo-Christian 10 commandments in schools and courtrooms, and to force the
You know, these things used to take place without any problem. What's
your problem with it?
>teaching of young-earth creationism in our schools as legitimate theory in
>our classrooms, despite the utter lack of evidence for this pseudoscientifc
>set of hypotheses.
We won't even start in on the problems with evolutionism.
>I'm also referring to the official sanctioning of
>heterosexual marriage, while homosexual marriage is disallowed due to the
>religious sensibilities of the theist majority, and for no other logical
>reason.
There is not a single reason for sanctioning a sexually perverse union.
You don't even want to get me started on this topic. I've read up on
the homosexual advocates, their techniques and practices. They are
probably the most dishonest, and dispicable group in this country. If
same-sex marriages are so virtuous then why are the advocates tauting
the virtuals? Why all the lies, victim playing, tactics to silence the
opposition? Do tell me the virtues?
>I could go on forever with this...
Believe me, I've heard all the lies, propoganda, and mistruths that you
might bring forth. Based on your list, which is nothing more than tired
old atheist arguments, I can tell you need some education on the topics.
>> >The "vast majority" of people who worship gods
>> >do not need the government to legitimize their beliefs, and we as
>Americans
>> >certainly don't need somebody's fairy tale sky-pixie to legitimize the
>> >authority of any elected official. That's what the ballot box is for.
>>
>> How is the government being used to "legitimize" people's beliefs?
>
>See above.
I didn't see a single item of substance above.
--
Jeff Sinclair
ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
> In article <83up5k$g69$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Jeff Sinclair <jeffrey...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> ><<To restore groups add:
> >soc.history.war.us-revolution,
> >alt.history.colonial,
> >sci.skeptic,
> >alt.deism,
> >alt.atheism,
> >alt.religion.deism,
> >alt.religion.christian.presbyterian>>
> >
> >In article <38625FC5...@pitnet.net>,
> > Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> >> Michael J Nash wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > >ends where it crosses over into institutions that I, as an
> >atheist citizen,
> >> > > >pay for with my tax dollars.
> >> > >
> >> > > Please be more specific here. What do you mean?
> >> >
> >> > Specifically, I'm
> >currency
> >> > that I, as an Ameican consumer, am required to use in order to
> >engage in
> >> > commerce in this country.
> >
Michael J. Nash comments restored:
"Specifically, I'm referring to the fact that we deem it necessary to
pay for chaplains to administer to the spiritual needs of theistic
members of Congress, which is a blatant violation of the First
Amendment. I'm referring to the fact that some deem it necessary to
open sessions of Congress and other public events with organized
prayer, a violation of the First Amendment and an insult to those who
lack theistic beliefs. I'm referring to the presence of the words, "In
god We Trust" on the currency that I, as an Ameican consumer, am
required to use in order to engage in commerce in this country. I'm
referring to the use of the words "one nation under god" in the Pledge
of Allegiance and the implication thereof; namely, that one has to
believe in a god in order to be a loyal American. I'm referring to the
attempts by some to introduce voucher programs that would fund
religious indoctrination and the teaching of creationist pseudoscience
to our nation's schoolchildren, while at the same time reducing funding
to our already underfunded public schools. I'm referring to the
attempts by many in this country to interject religious indoctrination
into our public institutions; namely, the attempts by some to force the
posting of the Judeo-Christian 10 commandments in schools and
courtrooms, and to force the teaching of young-earth creationism in our
schools as legitimate theory in our classrooms, despite the utter lack
of evidence for this pseudoscientifc set of hypotheses. I'm also
referring to the official sanctioning of heterosexual marriage, while
homosexual marriage is disallowed due to the religious sensibilities of
the theist majority, and for no other logical reason. I could go on
forever with this..."
> You know, the asinine comments were in Mr. Nash's and your reply.
There
> is even an organization that is actively pusuing most of the items you
> and he "claim" are unconstitution. Not even PFAW, AUSC&S, the ACLU
(who
> just loves those kinds of battles) are fighting them. Why? Because
> they won't win and they not it.
Oh? And what is the name of this mysterious organization "that is
actively pusuing most of the items you and he "claim" are constitution
<<sic>>"
<<....>>
Thought not. As for the other three organizations that you claim are
not fighting them, let me give you a sample of the way that they
are "not fighting" them, okay?
http://www.pfaw.org/news/press//show.cgi?article=945724447
"Federal Court Overturns Ohio Vouchers
Court Strikes Down Public Funds for Religious Schools
A federal court in Cleveland today overturned Ohio's private and
religious school voucher program, holding that the program violates the
First Amendment to the Constitution. People For the American Way
Foundation along with other public education and constitutional rights
organizations brought the lawsuit against the voucher program, which
provides state financial support to religious schools."
http://www.pfaw.org/news/press//show.cgi?article=945380996
"People For the American Way Condemns Politics of Hate, Division in
Miami-Dade Anti-Gay Initiative
It's now official that conservative groups will launch a signature
petition drive seeking to repeal Miami-Dade County's human rights
ordinance and People For the American Way has pledged to continue the
fight against the anti-gay initiative with the SAVE Dade coalition.
Year-long speculation that the religious right would attempt to
overturn anti-discrimination protections for lesbians and gay men ended
when the Miami-Dade County Attorney recently informed the Florida
Family Association of Tampa that their draft language for an initiative
petition was in proper legal form."
These are just samples, Ken. It took me exactly two minutes to find
them. They are fighting against the kinds of intolerance that Michael
Nash mentioned and that the Constitution and The Bill of Rights sought
to keep the government from expressing toward groups in society which
are small and unpopular _including_ such people as religious
fundamentalists and Nazis who would seek to introduce such oppressive
intolerance into our political system, which was never the intent of
the founding fathers.
> [Mr. Nash's tired old cliches mercifully axed]
>
> >Let the reader note that instead of dealing forthrightly with these
> >legitimate concerns of someone who disagrees with blatant attempts,
> >largely by the religious right, to hijack governmental institutions
to
> >promote a particular religious point of view, "Pastor"(TM) Ricky
> >instead isolates one phrase of the whole and builds a straw man out
of
> >it, and cries crocodile tears over his .sig file.
>
> Let the reader not that nothing in Mr. Nash's response was significant
> enough to warrant any serious reply. I only bothered to point out the
> idiocy of the points.
You responded. You did not deal with any of the points or say why they
constituted "idiocy".
> The .sig file certainly is an indicator of the depths of Mr. Nash's
> thought processes. Readers can decide if that is a positive or a
> negative.
Mind reading again? I'm not particularly fond of the .sig file either,
but attacking that as an ad hominem attack rather than responding to
the valid concerns that he posted indicates that you have nothing
substantive to say.
Back up and try again.
Jeff Sinclair
Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> Jeff Sinclair wrote:
> >
> > <<To restore groups add:
> > soc.history.war.us-revolution,
> > alt.history.colonial,
> > sci.skeptic,
> > alt.deism,
> > alt.atheism,
> > alt.religion.deism,
> > alt.religion.christian.presbyterian>>
> >
> > In article <38625FC5...@pitnet.net>,
> > Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> > > Michael J Nash wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >their right to do so
> > > > > >ends where it crosses over into institutions that I, as an
> > atheist citizen,
> > > > > >pay for with my tax dollars.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please be more specific here. What do you mean?
> > > >
> > > > Specifically, I'm
> > > > referring to the presence of the words, "In god We Trust" on
the currency
> > > > that I, as an Ameican consumer, am required to use in order to
> > engage in
> > > > commerce in this country.
> >
> > <<Straw man, Asinine comments, and ad hominems snipped>>
> >
the
> > _overt_ promotion of a religious idea which many others disagree
with,
> > unlike Gardiner's "Thursday, Adios, Goodbye" straw man.
>
really
> means it, then there sure are a lot of Christians in this world who
you don't
> know.
You apparently missed the boat again, Gardiner. Such terms
as "adios", "goodbye", and so on are most commonly used as greetings,
etc. devoid of religious content, even though their backgrounds are of
religious origin.
As for when Christians or other religious say it and mean it, so what?
I use terms like these all the time and occasionally there is religious
content behind this too. Even friends and family members who are
atheist don't find anything offensive about this. It's a person's
private right to do so. The point of course is when public officials or
institutions _in their official capacity_ advocate a particular
religious point of view whether that be Christian, Buddhist, Taoist,
Confucian, etc. etc. So why not put on our bills "In G*d we trust"
after the manner of how some Jewish people do it? Or "In Allah we
Trust"; after all there is a significant Moslem population in this
country? Like "In God we Trust", it is quite probable that such
expressions cross the line into de facto establishment. It is an
obvious dishonest argument to assert that "adios", Thursday", "good-
bye", and a host of other similar phrases which do not normally have
religious content thereby constitute religious argument as well and it
represents a flaming straw man.
> If you think that no teachers who say "God-bless-you" to a child's
sneeze really
> mean it, then you don't know many of the millions of Christian
teachers who are
> currently employed in public schools.
Another absurd straw man. Several people do mean it, several don't. In
all cases it is not an unambiguous promotion of a religious point of
view onto someone who may hold onto a different belief system. It is
also clear that the expressions so proferred are not offered in an
official capacity but rather in an individual capacity.
I'm willing to bet, however, that you would run waving your hands and
screaming if a teacher were to offer up a "may the goddess of reason
bless you" in response to someone sneezing in a public school setting.
Or if a scientist were to propose teaching the theory of evolution,
which some ultra-conservative "Christians" like to claim is a religious
system, but which is in reality a scientific theory so well supported
by evidence that it has for all intents and purposes the status of
fact. Your "advocacy" of accomodation has smacked throughout your posts
of the advocacy of one or a few related religious traditions having de
facto government sanction to the exclusion of many others that you
don't like.
> Your position is becoming even more absurd. You seem to be saying
that the
> public school teacher is permitted to use religious language, such
as "God Bless
> You" or "Adios" *as long as he or she is being insincere* but if he
or she ever
> says this and sincerely means what he or she is saying, then the law
suits start
> to fly
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!
Mind reading again, Rick-nochio? Putting words in my mouth or the
mouths of people you disagree with? No surprise here at your usual
asinine dishonesty.
One. More. Time. Moron. The question is not religious motivation or non-
religious motivation but whether religious acts are proferred in an
official capacity. Duh!
>
> Then, of course we have the improbable, but not impossible, situation
of having
> a pagan public school teacher who truly believes in the Norse
pantheon; that
> teacher, because she really does believe, cannot use the weekly
calendar,
> because in doing so he or she is putting forth symbols of his or her
heartfelt
> faith.
>
> Yours is really quite an interesting position: public school teachers
can invoke
> religious blessings and salutations... as long as they are lying.
Straw man. Don't be asinine. Oh, I forgot - that's like asking you not
to breathe.
All your asinine arguments show is that you do not understand the
intent of the First Amendment. What is in question is the use of such
statements in an official capacity to promote a religious point of
view. Statements like Bush's "born again" statement reflect his own
private piety and while there were many people who disagreed, the
_context_ of the remarks were clearly understood to be a private
expression of his beliefs in a non-official capacity, even though he
himself is a public official. Things such as the display of a creche on
public property by civil government are done in an _official_ capacity
by their very nature, as public funds are used to set this up, and so
on. That is a breach of the wall of separation, and you know it.
> And I guess you and Alison will be the ones who get to determine
which teachers
> are sincere and which ones aren't: "when Ms. Jones said god-bless-you
to the
> student, she was insincere, so we're going to over look it. But now
when Mr.
> Madison says god-bless-you to his student, he is in trouble, because
we know
> that Mr. Madison went to seminary, goes to church, and probably means
what he is
> saying."
>
> This is hilarious.
This is projection, Rick-nochio. As has been argued above, the issue is
official sanction of religious groups or POVs, not whether officials
are religious or not.
But let's take a look at that judging issue that you are projecting
from yourself onto others, shall we? You and your shills in arguing for
accomodation of a pseudo-Christian religion by arguing against all
evidence that such people like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson,
framers of the Constitution, were "orthodox Christians". Jim Allison
has presented a literal mountain of evidence showing that that is not
the case. Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, Madison, etc. were typically
deists who were at time antagonistic toward organized religion. This is
also well documented. You have noted the use of the word "God"
and/or "Deity" to try and argue ineffectively that they were, using
such statements out of the total context of the individuals making such
statements. Jim Allison and Mike Curtis have had to educate you on what
the contexts of these statements were, just as you have been lecured on
presenting evidence devoid of context concerning the Israelite invasion
of Canaan, Luther's anti-semitism, etc. etc.
The import of your "arguments" throughout has been to suggest that the
intention was that this should be a "Christian" nation, with the
understanding that "Christian" principles, as interpreted by you,
should be the predominant guide to government to the virtual exclusion
of the principles of other religions and trains of thought such as
Judaism, Buddhism, Agnostic Skepticism, and even other forms of
Christianity, etc. _That_ breaches the establishment clause in fact and
in intent. "Christians", specifically those of the religious right who
lust after breaking down the wall of separation, would be set up as de
facto judges over everyone else in that scheme, including other
Christians, which, given their hatred and intolerance of anyone
different than they are, is something to be greatly avoided on a
democratic system of government.
> Please give me more entertainment.
Entertainment provided. Here's your mangled straw man back, Rick-
nocchio.
> Unanswered argument here restored:
Straw man argument destroyed above. Left in below for amusement:
> =====
> > Specifically, I'm
> > referring to the presence of the words, "In god We Trust" on the
currency
> > that I, as an Ameican consumer, am required to use in order to
engage in
> > commerce in this country.
>
>
> And in closing, a reminder for the record, Jeffy. I'm still a nasty,
brash,
> abrasive, condescending, mean-spirited soul. I'm certainly not a
representative
> of holiness, but I've never said otherwise.
No one disagrees with that, Rick-nocchio. You prove that with every
post you make. One of the few things I agree with you on.
> Maybe I'll be as holy as you one day. God forbid.
Someone like Madelyn Murray O'Hare was more holy than you are. The
difference is that she did not go around claiming "holiness" by saying
such things as "I was a pastor" and "I love Jesus". To assert these
things and then to whine "I never claimed I was holy" is just more of
your usual dishonesty. If I were you, I'd work on catching up to
someone like Bill Clinton first. Smoke any good cigars lately?
Oh, BTW, I had a great laugh at your citation from Luke ending with:
"For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles
himself will be exalted." (Luke 18:9-14)
Thanks for the entertainment, Mr. "My Credentials are Better Than
Yours" Gardiner. You are such a humble guy. LOL.
Richard
> Well, I don't. And I think the Constitution is quite clear that the
> government should not be used as a tool to bolster the blind faith of
those
> who choose to believe in gods. Presidents and their constituents are
> entitled to believe and worship as they see fit, but their right to do so
> ends where it crosses over into institutions that I, as an atheist
citizen,
> pay for with my tax dollars. The "vast majority" of people who worship
gods
> do not need the government to legitimize their beliefs, and we as
Americans
> certainly don't need somebody's fairy tale sky-pixie to legitimize the
> authority of any elected official. That's what the ballot box is for.
>
Would it then be safe to say that the military should not have chaplains in
your eyes? After all, they are public servants paid with public moneys
(including your tax dollars). Or is this a reasonable sacrifice to gaurantee
your freedom to offend others?
> --
> Michael J. Nash aa # 1651 (remove "spamsux" from email address to
reply)
> EAC Director-General, Operation FUCKFEST (Freethinkers Undermining
Christian
> Knuckleheadedness, Fomenting Evil, and Stealing Things)
> (formerly Operation SADISTIC)
> President, Cunnilingus Lovers In Texas
>
> **********************************************
> "Is man one of God's blunders, or is God one of man's blunders?" --
> Friedrich Nietzsche
>
> "Faith is believing in things when common sense tells you not to." --
George
> Seaton
Very nice - adds a great deal of legitimacy to your argument. Certainly
makes me look forward to your arguments.
R/
Richard
"Those thinkers who cannot believe in any gods often assert that the love of
humanity would be in itself sufficient for them; and so, perhaps, it would,
if they had it."-- G. K. Chesterton
buc...@exis.net
>:|Mr. Nash,
>:|
>:|> Well, I don't. And I think the Constitution is quite clear that the
>:|> government should not be used as a tool to bolster the blind faith of
>:|those
>:|> who choose to believe in gods. Presidents and their constituents are
>:|> entitled to believe and worship as they see fit, but their right to do so
>:|> ends where it crosses over into institutions that I, as an atheist
>:|citizen,
>:|> pay for with my tax dollars. The "vast majority" of people who worship
>:|gods
>:|> do not need the government to legitimize their beliefs, and we as
>:|Americans
>:|> certainly don't need somebody's fairy tale sky-pixie to legitimize the
>:|> authority of any elected official. That's what the ballot box is for.
>:|>
>:|
>:|Would it then be safe to say that the military should not have chaplains in
>:|your eyes? After all, they are public servants paid with public moneys
>:|(including your tax dollars). Or is this a reasonable sacrifice to gaurantee
>:|your freedom to offend others?
>:|
Well, this is from someone who you would have a hard time claiming wanted
to offend others:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1817 -- 1832
Excerpts from Madison's Detached Memoranda.
This document was discovered in 1946 among the papers of William Cabell
Rives, a biographer of Madison. Scholars date these observations in
Madison's hand sometime between 1817 and 1832.
--------- ------- --------- -------- --------
Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent
with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In
strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The
Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a
national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious
worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of
religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of
the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national
establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the
Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the
majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?
The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of
equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the
chaplains elected [by the majority shut the door of worship agst the
members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the
majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of
Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the
Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed
a Chaplain! To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his
sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked
deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers or
that the major sects have a tight to govern the minor.
If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or
voluntarily associated, and it be proper that Public functionaries, as well
as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like
their Constituents, do so at their own expense. How small a contribution
from each member of Cong wd suffice for the purpose! How just wd it be in
its principle! How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the
Constitution; and the divine right of conscience! Why should the expence of
a religious worship be allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public,
more than that for the Ex. or Judiciary branch of the Gov
Were the establishment to be tried by its fruits, are not the daily
devotions conducted by these legal Ecclesiastics, already degenerating into
a scanty attendance, and a tiresome formality!
Rather than let this step beyond the landmarks of power have the effect of
a legitimate precedent, it will be better to apply to it the legal aphorism
de minimis non curat lex: or to class it cum "maculis quas aut incuria
fudit, aut humana parum cavit natura."
Better also to disarm in the same way, the precedent of Chaplainships for
the army and navy, than erect them into a political authority in matters of
religion. The object of this establishment is seducing; the motive to it is
laudable. But is it not safer to adhere to a right principle, and trust to
its consequences, than confide in the reasoning however specious in favor
of a wrong one. Look thro' the armies & navies of the world, and say
whether in the appointment of their ministers of religion, the spiritual
interest of the flocks or the temporal interest of the Shepherds, be most
in view: whether here, as elsewhere the political care of religion is not a
nominal more than a real aid. If the spirit of armies be devout, the spirit
out of the armies will never be Less so; and a failure of religious
instruction &, exhortation from a voluntary source within or without, will
rarely happen: if such be not the spirit of armies, the official services
of their Teachers are not likely to produce it. It is more likely to flow
from the labours of a spontaneous zeal. The armies of the Puritans had
their appointed Chaplains; but without these there would have been no lack
of public devotion in that devout age.
The case of navies with insulated crews may be less within the scope of
these reflections. But it is not entirely so. The chance of a devout
officer, might be of as much worth to religion, as the service of an
ordinary chaplain. [were it admitted that religion has a real interest in
the latter.] But we are always to keep in mind that it is safer to trust
the consequences of a right principle, than reasonings in support of a bad
one.
==============================================================
JULY 10, 1822
I observe with particular pleasure the view you have taken of the
immunity of Religion from civil jurisdiction, in every case where it does
not trespass on private rights or the public peace. This has always been a
favorite principle with me; and it was not with my approbation, that the
deviation from it took place in Congs. when they appointed Chaplains, to be
paid from the Natl Treasury. It would have been a much better proof to
their Constituents of their pious feeling if the members had contributed
for the purpose, a pittance from their own pockets. As the precedent is not
likely to be rescinded, the best that can now be done, may be to apply to
the Constn. the maxim of the law, de minimis non curat.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: TO EDWARD LIVINGSTON FROM MADISON, July 10, 1822.
Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in Four Volumes, Published by
Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott & Co. Philadelphia, (1865),
pp 273-276. James Madison on Religious Liberty, Robert S.Alley, Prometheus
Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
Page is a member of the following web rings:
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
Legal Research Ring
**********************************************
c...@teleport.com
<rjtre...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Would it then be safe to say that the military should not have chaplains in
> your eyes? After all, they are public servants paid with public moneys
> (including your tax dollars). Or is this a reasonable sacrifice to gaurantee
> your freedom to offend others?
This is an utter straw man.
The military would cross the line only if they provided chaplins of only
one persuasion, or required religious observance attendance.
The military also provided cheap auto service stations, commissaries and
clothing stores on base. These venerable institutions have the same
status as the chaplins. use them if you desire or ignore them if you
Richard
put to rest the tossing of the phrase "straw man" around in a manner that
detracts from the point(s) being made or the questions being asked. I
believe this news group is for public discussions. I am quite confident to
suggest most of the ladies and gentlemen that contribute could stand to
review the rules of debate, nevertheless, if we could discuss issues of
substance and eliminate the finger pointing and generally bad behavior most
people would enjoy the conversations. Furthermore, we might learn
something - you included.
I thought my question was a reasonable one - you however, have glossed over
an important issue - should we pay for the chaplain corps with public
monies? However, in retrospect, I think this question is out of the context
of colonial or revolutionary war discussions.
R/
Richard
Rick Gardiner
>
> Excuse me sir, I am interested in the various view points - perhaps we can
> put to rest the tossing of the phrase "straw man" around in a manner that
> detracts from the point(s) being made or the questions being asked. I
> believe this news group is for public discussions. I am quite confident to
> suggest most of the ladies and gentlemen that contribute could stand to
> review the rules of debate,
Amen.
RG
Rick Gardiner
>
> The military also provided cheap auto service stations, commissaries and
> clothing stores on base. These venerable institutions have the same
> status as the chaplins. use them if you desire or ignore them if you
> wish.
That is exactly the argument James Madison used to justify the wording of his
religious day proclamations:
"resting these expressly on the voluntary compliance of individuals, and even
by limiting the recommendation to such as wished simultaneous as well as
voluntary performance of a religious act on the occasion"
"But I was always careful to make the Proclamations absolutely indiscriminate,
and merely recommendatory; or rather mere DESIGNATIONS of a day on which all
who thought proper might UNITE in consecrating it to religious purposes,
according to their own faith and forms"
Here is what Madison, as President, proclaimed:
> >[From Annals of Congress, Twelfth Congress, part 2, 2224.]
> >BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
> >A PROCLAMATION.
> >Messages and Papers of the Presidents, James Madison, vol. 1, p.498
> >
> >Whereas the Congress of the United States, by a joint resolution of the two
> >Houses, have signified a request that a day may be recommended to be observed
> >by the people of the United States with religious solemnity as a day of public
> >humiliation and prayer; and
> >
> >Whereas such a recommendation will enable the several religious denominations
> >and societies so disposed to offer at one and the same time their common vows
> >and adorations to Almighty God on the solemn occasion produced by the war in
> >which He has been pleased to permit the injustice of a foreign power to
> >involve these United States:
> >
> >I do therefore recommend the third Thursday in August next as a convenient day
> >to be set apart for the devout purposes of rendering the Sovereign of the
> >Universe and the Benefactor of Mankind the public homage due to His holy
> >attributes; of acknowledging the transgressions which might justly provoke the
> >manifestations of His divine displeasure; of seeking His merciful forgiveness
> >and His assistance in the great duties of repentance and amendment, and
> >especially of offering fervent supplications that in the present season of
> >calamity and war He would take the American people under His peculiar care and
> >protection; that He would guide their public councils, animate their
> >patriotism, and bestow His blessing on their arms; that He would inspire all
> >nations with a love of justice and of concord and with a reverence for the
> >unerring precept of our holy religion to do to others as they would require
> >that others should do to them; and, finally, that, turning the hearts of our
> >enemies from the violence and injustice which sway their councils against us,
> >He would hasten a restoration of the blessings of peace. Given at Washington,
> >the 9th day of July, A. D. 1812.
> >[SEAL.]
> >JAMES MADISON.r
Richard
R/
Richard
<buc...@exis.net> wrote in message news:3889edc3...@news.exis.net...
Rick Gardiner
>
> In article <gO994.3265$GF1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "Richard" <rjtre...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> However, in retrospect, I think this question is out of the context
> > of colonial or revolutionary war discussions.
>
> innudate historic discussion groups. Stick with the alt!
If you think that religion had little or nothing to do with the American
Colonies or the Revolutionary War, the fact is that you are not at all
familiar with the evidence of history.
There are a number of good books to read in this regard, however, I think the
original primary source material is clear enough. A good chunk of it is
available at http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
Rick
c...@teleport.com
> Amen.
>
> RG
You need to stick with the alt groups and quit cross posting also. Your
personal religious infatuations are noncontributory to historical venues.
c...@teleport.com
"Richard" <rjtre...@earthlink.net> wrote:
However, in retrospect, I think this question is out of the context
> of colonial or revolutionary war discussions.
You got that right! I am perturbed that these off topic religion threads
innudate historic discussion groups. Stick with the alt!
----------------------------------
c...@teleport.com
>
> That is exactly the argument James Madison used to justify the wording of his
> religious day proclamations:
Fine, go to the commisssary or go to church, but do it alone and not at
the top of your voice.
buc...@exis.net
>:|Thanks for this information - I look forward to studying it!
>:|
>:|R/
Kewl
buc...@exis.net
>:|c...@teleport.com wrote:
Go get 'em, Jimmy!
==================================================================
Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|Alison's critique of Jeffy Sinclair, Ph.D.'s post of Dr. Bellah's views on
>:|separation of church and state is wonderful.
>:|
>:|Go get 'em, Jimmy!
>:|
[me]
Hey silly, what are you smoking?
How did I get brought into this? Huh?
You must be smoking some sort of funny weeds.
LOL
You are a trip.
================================================================
buc...@exis.net wrote:
>
> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >:|Alison's critique of Jeffy Sinclair, Ph.D.'s post of Dr. Bellah's views on
> >:|separation of church and state is wonderful.
> >:|
> >:|Go get 'em, Jimmy!
> >:|
>
> Hey silly, what are you smoking?
>
> How did I get brought into this? Huh?
You brought yourself into it. Jeff Sinclair responded to Mr. Schulman's
post of a Robert Novak piece with a piece from Bellah.
Then you attacked Bellah.
RG
=================================================================
Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|
>:|
>:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|Alison's critique of Jeffy Sinclair, Ph.D.'s post of Dr. Bellah's views on
>:|> >:|separation of church and state is wonderful.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|Go get 'em, Jimmy!
>:|> >:|
>:|>
>:|> Hey silly, what are you smoking?
>:|>
>:|> How did I get brought into this? Huh?
>:|
>:|You brought yourself into it. Jeff Sinclair responded to Mr. Schulman's
>:|post of a Robert Novak piece with a piece from Bellah.
>:|
>:|Then you attacked Bellah.
>:|
As I said, you must be smoking some sort of funny weed.
Would you mind producing that post?
To set the record straight, I don't respond to Schulman, I don't even read
his posts/replies. I delete them.
Where is the post that you claim I posted that attacked Bellah?
What thread was it in? When was it posted? What did it say?
I wonder why you didn't quote any of it when you posted your crap above?
I just looked back over all my post from the 20th to today. I have no idea
what you are responding to, but it sure wasn't anything i can find of mine
that would come even close to what are claiming.. I think maybe you need a
vacation.
================================================================
buc...@exis.net wrote:
>
> To set the record straight, I don't respond to Schulman, I don't even read
> his posts/replies. I delete them.
Now there's a strategy! Excellent! I think this is the most telling
thing you have ever said about who your are and why you're here.
> Where is the post that you claim I posted that attacked Bellah?
>
> What thread was it in? When was it posted? What did it say?
>
> I wonder why you didn't quote any of it when you posted your crap above?
>
> I just looked back over all my post from the 20th to today. I have no idea
> what you are responding to, but it sure wasn't anything i can find of mine
> that would come even close to what are claiming.. I think maybe you need a
> vacation.
Schulman pointed out a piece in the NY Times, I cited the piece, and
Jeff Sinclair responded with a rebuttal from Robert Bellah.
The whole thing is here:
http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=563180559&search=thread&CONTEXT=946013353.1434583055&HIT_CONTEXT=946013353.1434583055&HIT_NUM=&hitnum=2
A rebuttal to Bellah was posted at
http://x45.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=563873425&CONTEXT=946013730.992280582&hitnum=1
The person who offered the rebuttal appears to be unnamed except by a
code, and insofar as you seem have been in the process of changing your
identity in the last week or two, I gathered the post was yours. The
sentiments there posted do seem to be your sentiments, do they not?
=================================================================
Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> To set the record straight, I don't respond to Schulman, I don't even read
>:|> his posts/replies. I delete them.
>:|
>:|Now there's a strategy! Excellent! I think this is the most telling
>:|thing you have ever said about who your are and why you're here.
Oh? Why is that? LOL
You need to calm down. :o)
>:|
>:|> Where is the post that you claim I posted that attacked Bellah?
>:|>
>:|> What thread was it in? When was it posted? What did it say?
>:|>
>:|> I wonder why you didn't quote any of it when you posted your crap above?
>:|>
>:|> I just looked back over all my post from the 20th to today. I have no idea
>:|> what you are responding to, but it sure wasn't anything i can find of mine
>:|> that would come even close to what are claiming.. I think maybe you need a
>:|> vacation.
>:|
>:|Schulman pointed out a piece in the NY Times, I cited the piece, and
>:|Jeff Sinclair responded with a rebuttal from Robert Bellah.
Yes silly, I am aware of your comments and Jeff Sinclair's remarks.
But you still haven't produced anything by me.
>:|
>:|The whole thing is here:
>:|http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=563180559&search=thread&CONTEXT=946013353.1434583055&HIT_CONTEXT=946013353.1434583055&HIT_NUM=&hitnum=2
>:|
>:|A rebuttal to Bellah was posted at
>:|http://x45.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=563873425&CONTEXT=946013730.992280582&hitnum=1
>:|
>:|The person who offered the rebuttal appears to be unnamed except by a
>:|code, and insofar as you seem have been in the process of changing your
>:|identity in the last week or two, I gathered the post was yours. The
>:|sentiments there posted do seem to be your sentiments, do they not?
Unnamed?
Oh!!!!!! You gathered?
LOL freaky.
Guess what, your gathering isn't very good.
My sentiments will be posted under my nick, name, etc. , thank you.
I realize you are rather used to attributing things to various people,
things you speculate on, imagine, invent, create. So it would be quite like
you to gather and speculate, and accuse with no rreal evidence, as in this
case. After all, it is the foundation of all you have done on here since
March, last.
Do voices speak to you as well?
As I said, you need a vacation. Or you need to lay of the wacky weed, its
getting to you.
Gardiner strikes out again.
Do remove your foot from your mouth before you try to walk.
BTW
This is the post from the url addy above
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: c...@teleport.com
Subject: Re: Religion and the Early American Republic
Date: 22 Dec 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <clw-221299...@i48-35-17.pdx.du.teleport.com>
References: <eBJdOIgrlhIRLn...@4ax.com>
<385DBA78...@pitnet.net> <83n6pq$6i4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
<386038B9...@pitnet.net>
X-Complaints-To: ne...@teleport.com
X-Trace: news1.teleport.com 945884808 216.26.61.81 (Wed, 22 Dec 1999
09:46:48 PST)
Organization: Your Name Here
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 09:46:48 PST
Newsgroups:
soc.history.war.us-revolution,alt.history.colonial,sci.skeptic,alt.deism,alt.atheism,alt.religion.deism,alt.religion.christian.presbyterian
> > Considering the separation of church and state, how is a president
> > justified in using the word "God" at all?
Because that is his right. It is also his right to totally ignore "God".
And that is exactly what the First Admendment really means.
> > The answer is that the
> > separation of church and state has not denied the political realm a
> > religious dimension.
Nope, and it does not require one either. The United States would
continue to run as well with or without any religious influences. The
disruptive thing would be a state enforced religious orthodoxy.
> > Although matters of personal religious belief,
> > worship, and association are considered to be strictly Private affairs,
> > there are, at the same time, certain common elements of religious
> > orientation that the great majority of Americans share.
And many who do not share them.
> > This public religious dimension is
> > expressed in a set of beliefs, symbols, and rituals that I am calling
> > the American civil religion.
A new nadir, the Constitution as a "biblical" document! Your leap of
logic is strabismic.
> > The inauguration of a president is an
> > important ceremonial event in this religion.
No, it is a civil event. But, you can redefine it erroneously if you wish.
----------------------------------
Fas Est Et Ab Hoste Doceri
----------------------------------
The author is identified, From: c...@teleport.com
and from the looks of it, it appears to be a valid email addy, even.
================================================================
buc...@exis.net wrote:
>
> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
> >:|>
> >:|> To set the record straight, I don't respond to Schulman, I don't even read
> >:|> his posts/replies. I delete them.
> >:|
> >:|Now there's a strategy! Excellent! I think this is the most telling
> >:|thing you have ever said about who your are and why you're here.
>
> Oh? Why is that? LOL
Because you have a long history of accusing people of ignoring you. You
assert
that when a person ignores another it is evidence that the person has
conceded defeat.
So your strategy of ignoring Schulman speaks volumes... on your own terms!
LOL.
RG
==================================================================
Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> To set the record straight, I don't respond to Schulman, I don't even read
>:|> >:|> his posts/replies. I delete them.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|Now there's a strategy! Excellent! I think this is the most telling
>:|> >:|thing you have ever said about who your are and why you're here.
>:|>
>:|> Oh? Why is that? LOL
>:|
>:|Because you have a long history of accusing people of ignoring you. You assert
>:|that when a person ignores another it is evidence that the person has conceded defeat.
>:|
Can you produce a comment of mine that states the above?
Is that what you are doing when you are ignoring others?
>:|So your strategy of ignoring Schulman speaks volumes... on your own terms!
>:|
Well, now that you have spent enough time trying to divert attention away
from your own silly blunder, lets get back to it.
Where are my words that led you to make the following comments:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go get 'em, Jimmy!
Michael Burton
Our Founding Fathers specifically rejected democracy as a form of
government because it has always lead to dictatorship in the end and
instead put in place a Limited Consitutional Republic, the common law
based upon, reformed and always reforming to the Gospel of Jesus Christ
upon which this Republic rests. The National Trust of this Republic has
always been placed in our Creator, and in no other nor in the absence of
our Creator.
James Madison the principle architect of the Constitution considered the
united States of America as a Christian nation
Joseph Story [Justice of the Supreme Court 1811 appointed by Madison] -
The real object of the [First A]mendment was not to countenance, must less
to advance, mahomentanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating
Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to
prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment.
Patrick Henry - It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that
this great nation was founded, not by religionists [pluralism], but by
Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Samuel Adams - We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom all men
ought to be obedient...let His kingdom come.
John Jay - Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers,
and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian
nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.
The Trinity Decision 1892 These, and many other matters which might be
noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic
utterances that this is a Christian nation.
Thomas Jefferson - I have always said that a studious perusal of the
sacred volume will make better citizens, better fathers, and better
husbands (Mr. Jefferson as they call him at the University of Virginia or
Young Tom as they call him at William and Mary, would be surprised to find
that the importance of fatherhood has been almost censored out of some
Christian dogma today.)
Jefferson, the so called guru of separation of church and state-understood
the vital importance of religion to education. While President he served
as Chairman of the board for education in Washington, District of
Columbia. In that capacity, he made the Bible one of two required books
in public schools. Todayąs flawed application of this concept of
Jeffersonąs words would be rebuked by the man who wrote them.
George Washington - Above all, the pure light of revelation has had an
influence on mankind, and increased the blessings of society. It is
impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.
John Quincy Adams - The first and almost the only book deserving of
universal attention is the Bible. I speak as a man of the world......The
Highest glory of the [American] Revolution was that it united in one
indissouluble bond the principles of Christianity and the principles of
civil government.
Andrew Jackson - It [the Bible] is the rock on which our Republic rests.
Zachary Taylor - It was for the love of the truths of this great and good
Book that our fathers abandoned their native shores for the wilderness.
Abraham Lincoln. - I am profitably engaged in reading the Bible. Take all
of this Book that you can by reason and the balance by faith, and you will
live and die a better man. It is the best book which God has given to
man.
Theodore Roosevelt. - Almost every man who has by his lifework added to
the sum of human achievement...has based his lifework largely upon the
teachings of the Bible.
Woodrow Wilson - A man has deprived himself of the best there is in the
world who has deprived himself of this [a knowledge of the Bible]
Herbert Hoover. - There is no other book so various as the Bible, nor one
so full of concentrated wisdom. Whether it be of law, business, morals,
etc...he who seeks for guidance ...may look inside its covers and find
illumination
John Adams - The Bible contains more philosophy that all the libraries
that I have ever seen; and such parts as I cannot reconcile with my little
philosophy, I postpone for future investigation
Ulysses S Grant - To the influence of this Book, we are indebted for the
progress made in civilization, and to this we must look as our guide in
the future.
Franklin D Roosevelt - The young must be taught, and they must be taught
truly if the spring waters of democracy are to be kept untainted...The
influence of the Scriptures in the early days of the Republic is plainly
revealed in the writing and thinking of the men who made the nation
possible...They found in the Scriptures that which shaped their course and
determined their actions.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1947, false imputation of separation of church and state into the
Constitution by Everson v BOE.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Neither the words nor the concept of separation of church and state can be
found anywhere in the Constitution for the united States of America which
has always placed its national trust in God.. Religious freedom, yes.
Encouragement of Christianity, yes. Encouragement of atheism by the
absence of religious expression, no. The real implication of the
application of separation of church and state is the separation of America
from God. This is a tragedy for Americanąs sovereign and inalienable
rights come solely from the Creator; and without a Creator, can there be
any inalienable rights or freedom? Only mere civil rights can come from a
government of men, but civil rights are alienable. Alienable civil rights
are granted and taken away by a stroke of the pen, law of the land. And
that is not so cool. Only inalienable and soverign rights [and the
inalienable responsiblity that come with them] can come from our Father.
Whether one believes or does not believe in God, it would be wise to honor
the concept in public for if He does not exist, you have no soverignity,
freedom.
In fact, the concept of separation of church and state does appear in one
constitution at paragraph 52, of the constitution for the Union of Soviet
Socialists Republics based upon the theology of Marx based upon the
theology of Darwin and the theory of evolution. For the 100 million
Christians and Jews put to the holocaust by Stalin bear testimony to the
alienability of civil rights.
Either as Christians and/or as Americans, heirs to the blessings and
responsibilites of Godąs covenant with Abraham, we have a duty as a chosen
people to fulfill the words our Creator calls His chosen people for
service.
Genesis 28:14 And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou
shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to
the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth
be blessed.
If we dare to use the words "a chosen people," ... we [must] remember that
in the language of true religion, "chosen" means for service, perhaps even
suffering, never for favouritism. Let us therefore thank God for the
opportunity to serve Him in His great plan for humanity. "
As sovereign Christian American Citizens, our rights do not come from the
Constitution . The Bill of Rights amend nothing in the Constitution but
merely attempt to put the newly formed government on notice from taking
sovereignty and inalienable rights away. Our sovereign freedom, unknown
in any other nation in the world, stems from a far more important document
which states: ł...[the American people] will assume among the powers of
the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of nature and
of Natureąs God entitles them.....We hold these truths to be self evident,
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and
the pursuit of Happiness. ˛
--
May God Bless You,
Michael
Character Counts. It is not hypocritical to set a high goal and occasionally fail. It is hypocritical to set a low goal and occasionally succeed.
Dan Moore
>
> Neither the words nor the concept of separation of church and state can be
> found anywhere in the Constitution for the united States of America which
> has always placed its national trust in God.
Too bad for your position that your god isn't mentioned in the
Constitution and the only mention of religion in the document
is an anti-establishment clause.
> Religious freedom, yes.
> Encouragement of Christianity, yes.
Nope, ain't in the Constitution.
> Encouragement of atheism by the
> absence of religious expression, no.
Well, you got one right.
> The real implication of the
> application of separation of church and state is the separation of America
> from God.
Nope, it is a separation of the government from religion, a very
different thing than separating the country from a god.
> This is a tragedy for Americanąs sovereign and inalienable
> rights come solely from the Creator;
Nope, no creator has shown up to claim this.
> and without a Creator, can there be
> any inalienable rights or freedom?
Youbetcha.
> Only mere civil rights can come from a
> government of men, but civil rights are alienable. Alienable civil rights
> are granted and taken away by a stroke of the pen, law of the land.
You forgot to mention human rights, inalienable.
> And
> that is not so cool. Only inalienable and soverign rights [and the
> inalienable responsiblity that come with them] can come from our Father.
Where is that god of yours?
> Whether one believes or does not believe in God, it would be wise to honor
> the concept in public for if He does not exist, you have no soverignity,
> freedom.
Why would you think this? In the absence of god (apparantly
the case) would you give up any claim to inalienable rights?
>
> In fact, the concept of separation of church and state does appear in one
> constitution at paragraph 52, of the constitution for the Union of Soviet
> Socialists Republics based upon the theology of Marx based upon the
> theology of Darwin and the theory of evolution.
It also appears in the anti establishment clause of the U.S.
Constitution. Give it a read sometime. Nice tie in to Darwin
and evolution.
> For the 100 million
> Christians and Jews put to the holocaust by Stalin bear testimony to the
> alienability of civil rights.
And the violation of inalienable human rights. Also your
100 million figure is highly suspect. In naming the victims
by religion you ignore the people of other religions slaughtered
by Stalin and you twist history to claim this was some kind
of religiously inspired slaughter.
> Either as Christians and/or as Americans, heirs to the blessings and
> responsibilites of Godąs covenant with Abraham, we have a duty as a chosen
> people to fulfill the words our Creator calls His chosen people for
> service.
>
> Genesis 28:14 And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou
> shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to
> the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth
> be blessed.
>
> If we dare to use the words "a chosen people," ... we [must] remember that
> in the language of true religion, "chosen" means for service, perhaps even
> suffering, never for favouritism. Let us therefore thank God for the
> opportunity to serve Him in His great plan for humanity. "
Why not drop the god stuff and just do good works all of
your own free will?
> As sovereign Christian American Citizens, our rights do not come from the
> Constitution . The Bill of Rights amend nothing in the Constitution but
> merely attempt to put the newly formed government on notice from taking
> sovereignty and inalienable rights away. Our sovereign freedom, unknown
> in any other nation in the world, stems from a far more important document
> which states: ł...[the American people] will assume among the powers of
> the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of nature and
> of Natureąs God entitles them.
Nature hasn't revealed a god so it seems we're on our own.
....We hold these truths to be self evident,
> that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
> with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and
> the pursuit of Happiness. ˛
>
> --
> May God Bless You,
> Michael
>
Dan
maff91
Burton) wrote:
>
>
>Our Founding Fathers specifically rejected democracy as a form of
>government because it has always lead to dictatorship in the end and
>instead put in place a Limited Consitutional Republic, the common law
>based upon, reformed and always reforming to the Gospel of Jesus Christ
>upon which this Republic rests. The National Trust of this Republic has
>always been placed in our Creator, and in no other nor in the absence of
>our Creator.
Try http://x25.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=549105149
http://x25.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=550330343
>
[...]
--
L.P.#0000000001
Jason Spaceman
Burton) wrote:
Hmmmm, at least some of these quotes are suspect. After checking
"They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading
Attributions" I am pretty sure the Washington quote is a fake, as
well as the Jefferson one. Perhaps the claim about Madison and the
Lincoln quote too? Anyone else want to take a stab at these.
Vince Voyeur.
mathew
> James Madison the principle architect of the Constitution considered the
> united States of America as a Christian nation
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt 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."
- James Madison, "Monopolies. Perpetuities. Corporations. Ecclesiastical
Endowments," as reprinted in Elizabeth Fleet, "Madison's Detatched
Memoranda," William & Mary Quarterly, Third series: Vol. III, No. 4
[October, 1946], p. 555.
> Patrick Henry - It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that
> this great nation was founded, not by religionists [pluralism], but by
> Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
"That religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of
discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by
force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the
free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience."
- Patrick Henry, 1736-1799, American patriot and statesman, Virginia
Bill of Rights, June 12, 1776. From Daniel B. Baker, ed., Political
Quotations, Detroit: Gale Research, Inc., 1990, p. 189.
> Thomas Jefferson - I have always said that a studious perusal of the
> sacred volume will make better citizens, better fathers, and better
> husbands (Mr. Jefferson as they call him at the University of Virginia or
> Young Tom as they call him at William and Mary, would be surprised to find
> that the importance of fatherhood has been almost censored out of some
> Christian dogma today.)
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American
people which declared that their legislature should make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise
thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
- Thomas Jefferson, as President, in a letter to the Baptists of
Danbury, Connecticut, 1802; from George Seldes, ed., The Great
Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 369.
> Jefferson, the so called guru of separation of church and state-understood
> the vital importance of religion to education. While President he served
> as Chairman of the board for education in Washington, District of
> Columbia. In that capacity, he made the Bible one of two required books
> in public schools. Today's flawed application of this concept of
> Jefferson's words would be rebuked by the man who wrote them.
"A professorship of Theology should have no place in our institution"
[the University of Virginia].
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Cooper, October 7, 1814. From
Gorton Carruth and Eugene Ehrlich, eds., The Harper Book of American
Quotations, New York: Harper & Row, 1988, p. 492.
For the rest, try the excellent article at
<URL:http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html>.
It's where I found the above.
<URL:http://www.postfun.com/pfp/worbois.html> is worth a glance too.
mathew
--
<URL:http://www.pobox.com/%7Emeta/>
Jeff/addesign
>On Tue, 28 Dec 1999 15:18:19 -0500, mike...@ix.netcom.com (Michael
>Burton) wrote:
>>Our Founding Fathers blahblahblah blah Gospel of Jesus Christ blah vlah blhah blah
<snip>
>>Abraham Lincoln. - I am profitably engaged in reading the Bible. Take all
>>of this Book that you can by reason and the balance by faith, and you will
>>live and die a better man. It is the best book which God has given to
>>man.
<snip>
>Hmmmm, at least some of these quotes are suspect. After checking
>"They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading
>Attributions" I am pretty sure the Washington quote is a fake, as
>well as the Jefferson one. Perhaps the claim about Madison and the
>Lincoln quote too? Anyone else want to take a stab at these.
Lincoln was more likely an atheist, who once wrote a booklet on why
Christianity is a crock, but friends persuaded him not to publish it.
Had he done so, he might never have been president. Jefferson was at
best a Unitarian, who found Christian doctrine from Nicaea onward to
be total nonsense.
In a letter to Dr. Rush, April 23, 1803, Jefferson outlines his views
on the comparative merits of Christianity in syllabus form, stimulated
by Dr. Priestley’s treatise of “Socrates and Jesus Compared.”:
“. . . To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed opposed; but
not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the
only sense in which he wished any one to be, sincerely attached to his
doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every
«human» excellence; and believing he claimed no other. . .”
To John Adams Monticello, October 13, 1813
“. . . In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should
have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been
muffled by priests, who have travastied them into various forms, as
instruments of riches and power to themsleves. . . . There will be
found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which
has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my
own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and
arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is easily
distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an octavo of
forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines, such as were
professed and acted on by the «unlettered» Apostles, the Apostolic
Fathers, and the Christians of the first century. Their Platonizing
successors, indeed, in after times, in order to legitimate the
corruptions which they had incorporated in the doctrine of Jesus,
found it necessary to disavow the primitive Christians, who had taken
their principles from the mouth of Jesus himself, of his Apostles, and
the Fathers contemporary with them. They excommunicated their
followers as heretics, branding them as the opprobrious name of
Ebionites or Beggars . . . .”
To James Smith Monticello, December 8, 1822
“ SIR,--I have to thank you for the pamphlets on the subject of
Unitarianism, and to express my gratification with your efforts for
the revival of primitive Christianity in your Quarter. No historical
fact is better established, than the doctrine of one God, pure and
uncombinded, was that of the early ages of Christianity; and among the
efficacious doctrines which gave triumph over the polytheism of the
ancients, sickened with the absurdities of their own theology. Nor was
the unity of the Supreme Being ousted from the Christian creed by
force of reason, but by the sword of civil government, wielded by the
will of the fanatic Athanasius. The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like
another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and
growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs. And a
strong proof of the solidity of the primitive faith, is its
restoration, as soon as a nation arises which vindicates to itself the
freedom of religious opinion, and its external divorce from the civil
authority. . . . . the Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three
but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man
can say he has any idea about it, and how can he believe what presents
no idea? He who thinks he does only deceives himself. He proves, also,
than man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against
absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is
the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility which they
call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind
becomes a wreck.
“I write with freedom, because while I claim a right to believe in one
God, if so my reason tells me, I yield as freely to others that of
believing in three. Both religions, I find, make honest men, and that
is the only point society has any right to look to. . . .”
Lincoln:
Sandburg's 6 volume Lincoln (2vol. Prairie Years, 4vol. War Years) has
numerous indexed references to his religious views.
War Years Vol. III pg 367:
"Two Quakeresses in a railway coach were overheard in a conversation:
'I think Jefferson [Davis] will succeed.'
'Why do you think so?'
'Because Jefferson is a praying man.'
'And so is Abraham a praying man.'
'Yes, but the Lord will think Abraham is joking.' "
Prairie Years, Vol. II pg170
"Lincoln . . . asked Villard, who was a German university graduate, if
it was true that most of the educated people in Germany were
'Infidels.' Villard replied they were not openly professed infidels,
but most of them were not churchgoers. 'I do not wonder at that,' was
Lincoln's rejoinder, as Villard heard it. 'My own inclination is that
way.' This brought Villard to saying that for himself he didn't
beleive in the existence of God or the divinity of Christ or the
immortality of the soul, as set forth in the doctrines of the
Christian Church."
" Lincoln put more questions to Villard and drew out his
anti-Christian ideas in full. And then, as Villard later told about it
later, 'Lincoln did not commit himself, but I received the impression
that he was of my way of thinking.' And when Villard later met the
opinions of Herndon and Lamon, who claimed Lincoln was an 'infidel,'
he said that he weasn't surprised and he felt that he had correctly
understood Lincoln . . ."
Prairie Years Vol. I, p414:
"Close friends of Lincoln, such as his law partner Herndon, and
Matheny, who stood as best man at his wedding, and a notion that
Lincoln was a sort of infidel. They said Lincoln told them he did not
believe the Bible was the revelation of God, and in as little book
that he wrote in New Salem he tried to prove Jesus was not the son of
God. 'Lincoln did tell me that he did write a little book on
infidelity--I got it from Lincoln's mouth,' said Matheny.
'An infidel, a theist, a fatalist,' was Herndon's notion."
Also try Try William H. Herndon and Jesse W. Weik, _Herndon's
Lincoln,_ Belford, Clarke, 1889
Jeff/addesign a.a #1063
****************************************************************
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum--Lucretius, 1st c. BC
"So vast is the sum of the iniquities that religion has induced."
****************************************************************
Jeff/addesign
>Our Founding Fathers specifically rejected democracy as a form of
>government because it has always lead to dictatorship in the end and
>instead put in place a Limited Consitutional Republic, the common law
>based upon, reformed and always reforming to the Gospel of Jesus Christ
>upon which this Republic rests.
Were this Republic founded upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ, we would
be Socialist and Communal, as were the followers of Jesus.
>James Madison the principle architect of the Constitution considered the
>united States of America as a Christian nation
Cite?
James Madison worried about "the old error, that without some sort of
alliance or coalition between Government and Religion neither can be
duly supported. Religion and government will both exist in greater
purity, the less they are mixed together."
>Joseph Story [Justice of the Supreme Court 1811 appointed by Madison] -
>The real object of the [First A]mendment was not to countenance, must less
>to advance, mahomentanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating
>Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to
>prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment.
Too bad. That's not what Jefferson and Madison had in mind.
". . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely
between man and his God, that one owes account to none other for his
faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach
actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with soverign reverence
that act of the whole American people which declared that their
legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a
wall of separation between Church and State. . . ."
Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to A Committee of the Danbury Baptist
Association, in the State of Connecticut, January 1, 1802.
<snip more suspect quotes>
>The Trinity Decision 1892 These, and many other matters which might be
>noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic
>utterances that this is a Christian nation.
Is that SC case whose purpose was to limit the influx of Irish and
Italian Catholics, who would have been considered Papists, rather than
Christians?
>Thomas Jefferson - I have always said that a studious perusal of the
>sacred volume will make better citizens, better fathers, and better
>husbands (Mr. Jefferson as they call him at the University of Virginia or
>Young Tom as they call him at William and Mary, would be surprised to find
>that the importance of fatherhood has been almost censored out of some
>Christian dogma today.)
Doubtful quote.
In examining the fallibility of government in the affairs of religion
and science, Jefferson notes that "Galileo was sent to the Inquisition
for affirming that the earth was a sphere; the government had declared
it to be flat as a trencher, and Galileo was obliged to abjure his
error. This error, however, at length prevailed . . . . It is error
alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by
itself."
On the folly of trying to impose a single religion by coercion:
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction
of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet, we
have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect
of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half
hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."
Also worthy of note, is the following comment in a letter to James
Madison, regarding the necessity of the Bill of Rights:
"The declaration that religious faith shall be unpunished, does not
give impunity to criminal acts, dictated by religious error."
Regarding whether or not the united states was founded as a "Christian
nation," consider Jefferson's comments on the bill establishing
freedom of religion in Virginia, which served as a precursor to his
support of similar protection in the Bill of Rights.
"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."
>Jefferson, the so called guru of separation of church and state-understood
>the vital importance of religion to education. While President he served
>as Chairman of the board for education in Washington, District of
>Columbia. In that capacity, he made the Bible one of two required books
>in public schools. Todayąs flawed application of this concept of
>Jeffersonąs words would be rebuked by the man who wrote them.
I believe he made bibles available to the Indians, but I seriously
doubt your version.
<snipblahblahblah>.
>Abraham Lincoln. - I am profitably engaged in reading the Bible. Take all
>of this Book that you can by reason and the balance by faith, and you will
>live and die a better man. It is the best book which God has given to
>man.
Extremely doubtful. This is a man who once intended to publish a book
debunking the Bible as the holy word of god and Jesus as his only son.
Among countless references regarding Lincoln and religion, consider
the following:
Sandburg's 6 volume Lincoln (2vol. Prairie Years, 4vol. War Years) has
numerous indexed references to his religious views.
War Years Vol. III pg 367
Prairie Years, Vol. II pg170
Prairie Years Vol. I, p414:
"Close friends of Lincoln, such as his law partner Herndon, and
Matheny, who stood as best man at his wedding, and a notion that
Lincoln was a sort of infidel. They said Lincoln told them he did not
believe the Bible was the revelation of God, and in as little book
that he wrote in New Salem he tried to prove Jesus was not the son of
God. 'Lincoln did tell me that he did write a little book on
infidelity--I got it from Lincoln's mouth,' said Matheny.
'An infidel, a theist, a fatalist,' was Herndon's notion."
Also try Try William H. Herndon and Jesse W. Weik, _Herndon's
Lincoln,_ Belford, Clarke, 1889
>Neither the words nor the concept of separation of church and state can be
>found anywhere in the Constitution for the united States of America which
>has always placed its national trust in God.. Religious freedom, yes.
Jefferson explained it in the Danbury letter, for those of you who
don't understand English. Also see paragraph 3, Article VI of the U.S.
Constitution. I'll be happy to help you with the big words, like "no
religious test shall ever be required" . . .
<blahblahblahblah>
>Whether one believes or does not believe in God, it would be wise to honor
>the concept in public for if He does not exist, you have no soverignity,
>freedom.
Believe as you do, or you'll take my rights away? You'll die trying.
>In fact, the concept of separation of church and state does appear in one
>constitution at paragraph 52, of the constitution for the Union of Soviet
>Socialists Republics based upon the theology of Marx based upon the
>theology of Darwin and the theory of evolution. For the 100 million
>Christians and Jews put to the holocaust by Stalin bear testimony to the
>alienability of civil rights.
The government you envision would differ little from the Third Reich.
>Either as Christians and/or as Americans, heirs to the blessings and
>responsibilites of Godąs covenant with Abraham, we have a duty as a chosen
>people to fulfill the words our Creator calls His chosen people for
>service.
You haven't a clue about any covenant with Abraham, because those who
do see Christianity as nothing more than a compromise with idolatry.
<blahblahblahblah>
buc...@exis.net
>:|In article <eEJqOKj=4xcCBrY0rwz5Wk8Nk=K...@4ax.com>,
>:|RichardAS...@att.net wrote:
>:|
>:|To mscurtis:
>:|
>:|>
>:|> I'm sure if you put in the effort to rise to the intellectual level of
>:|> your opponents, you won't feel compelled to fall back on barnyard
>:|> epithets so often!
>:|
>:|Thus providing us with a perfect example of the "ad hominem" attack he
>:|accuses curtis of making on him. And, indirectly of a "special pleading"
>:|and an "argument from adverse consequences" (ie, if you do not agree with
>:|Schulman, you lack intellectual capacity).
>:|
AS IN:
[Gardiner wrote back in late Feb or early March 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:
******************************************************************************
***
[my comments to him about that]
You challenge a total stranger's integrity, saying that he will only have
integrity if he sees it as you call it and agrees with your assumption that
the six so called facts you present are indisputable.
Not only are these *ITEMS* indisputable, some are totally false.
But the above is rather pompous and self-righeous
Kenneth Childress
Jeff/addesign <adde...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>Jason Spaceman <I...@eat.spammers.for.breakfast> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Dec 1999 15:18:19 -0500, mike...@ix.netcom.com (Michael
>>Burton) wrote:
>
>>>Our Founding Fathers blahblahblah blah Gospel of Jesus Christ blah vlah blhah blah
>
><snip>
>>>Abraham Lincoln. - I am profitably engaged in reading the Bible. Take all
>>>of this Book that you can by reason and the balance by faith, and you will
>>>live and die a better man. It is the best book which God has given to
>>>man.
><snip>
>>Hmmmm, at least some of these quotes are suspect. After checking
>>"They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading
>>Attributions" I am pretty sure the Washington quote is a fake, as
>>well as the Jefferson one. Perhaps the claim about Madison and the
>>Lincoln quote too? Anyone else want to take a stab at these.
>
>Lincoln was more likely an atheist, who once wrote a booklet on why
>Christianity is a crock, but friends persuaded him not to publish it.
>Had he done so, he might never have been president. Jefferson was at
>best a Unitarian, who found Christian doctrine from Nicaea onward to
>be total nonsense.
Hmmm. Methinks you'd better go check out your facts some.
I have right in front of me a book titled "Lincoln's Devotionals". The
version I have was published in 1957 by Channel Press, with an
introduction by Carl Sandburg. Sandburg is probably the most famous of
Lincoln's biographers.
[...]
--
Rick Gardiner
>
> >Lincoln was more likely an atheist, who once wrote a booklet on why
> >Christianity is a crock, but friends persuaded him not to publish it.
Now how about looking at the words Lincoln DID publish:
Jeff/addesign
>In article <s6ivn4...@corp.supernews.com>,
>Jeff/addesign <adde...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>>Lincoln was more likely an atheist, who once wrote a booklet on why
>>Christianity is a crock, but friends persuaded him not to publish it.
>>Had he done so, he might never have been president. Jefferson was at
>>best a Unitarian, who found Christian doctrine from Nicaea onward to
>>be total nonsense.
>Hmmm. Methinks you'd better go check out your facts some.
>I have right in front of me a book titled "Lincoln's Devotionals". The
>version I have was published in 1957 by Channel Press, with an
>introduction by Carl Sandburg. Sandburg is probably the most famous of
>Lincoln's biographers.
I am not familiar with that book, nor does the fact that it includes
an introduction by Sandburg provide any corroboratoin.
I have Sandburg's 6 volume Lincoln (2vol. Prairie Years, 4vol. War
Years), which has numerous indexed references to his religious views.
For example:
War Years Vol. III pg 367:
"Two Quakeresses in a railway coach were overheard in a conversation:
'I think Jefferson [Davis] will succeed.'
'Why do you think so?'
'Because Jefferson is a praying man.'
'And so is Abraham a praying man.'
'Yes, but the Lord will think Abraham is joking.' "
Prairie Years, Vol. II pg170
"Lincoln . . . asked Villard, who was a German university graduate, if
it was true that most of the educated people in Germany were
'Infidels.' Villard replied they were not openly professed infidels,
but most of them were not churchgoers. 'I do not wonder at that,' was
Lincoln's rejoinder, as Villard heard it. 'My own inclination is that
way.' This brought Villard to saying that for himself he didn't
beleive in the existence of God or the divinity of Christ or the
immortality of the soul, as set forth in the doctrines of the
Christian Church."
" Lincoln put more questions to Villard and drew out his
anti-Christian ideas in full. And then, as Villard later told about it
later, 'Lincoln did not commit himself, but I received the impression
that he was of my way of thinking.' And when Villard later met the
opinions of Herndon and Lamon, who claimed Lincoln was an 'infidel,'
he said that he wasn't surprised and he felt that he had correctly
understood Lincoln . . ."
Prairie Years Vol. I, p414:
"Close friends of Lincoln, such as his law partner Herndon, and
Matheny, who stood as best man at his wedding, and a notion that
Lincoln was a sort of infidel. They said Lincoln told them he did not
believe the Bible was the revelation of God, and in as little book
that he wrote in New Salem he tried to prove Jesus was not the son of
God. 'Lincoln did tell me that he did write a little book on
infidelity--I got it from Lincoln's mouth,' said Matheny.
'An infidel, a theist, a fatalist,' was Herndon's notion."
I also have the 4 vol. Tarbell Lincoln (1895). You might look for
William H. Herndon and Jesse W. Weik, _Herndon's Lincoln,_ Belford,
Clarke, 1889. I don't have that one, as I believe only a few copies
survive. Apparently Christians attempted to burn all the copies,
because they showed Lincoln's anti-religious views.
c...@teleport.com
> Kenneth Childress wrote:
> >
> > >Lincoln was more likely an atheist, who once wrote a booklet on why
> > >Christianity is a crock, but friends persuaded him not to publish it.
>
> Now how about looking at the words Lincoln DID publish:
>
> http://www.universitylake.org/history/lincoln.html
Lincoln like all politicians worked to his audience. In 1850-1865 that
included seeming pious.
What we have is what the British call "a leg over relationship" between
politicians and religion.
For example of such look at the inclusion of "under god" in the Pledge of
Alegiance or the pandering of presidents at inaguration holding a bible
and adding "so help me god" at the end of the Constitutionally required
oath. Lately we have the jeasus frothing of the current candidates.
An excellent example is the recent pious rationalization by DeLay that
teaching evolution leads to teen age debauchry. (For Mr. Schulman, this
is an example of the "slipery slope" and a non sequitur."
Elf Sternberg
c...@teleport.com writes:
>In article <386ADE9B...@pitnet.net>, Gard...@pitnet.net wrote:
>
>> Kenneth Childress wrote:
>> >
>> > >Lincoln was more likely an atheist, who once wrote a booklet on why
>> > >Christianity is a crock, but friends persuaded him not to publish it.
>>
>> Now how about looking at the words Lincoln DID publish:
>>
>> http://www.universitylake.org/history/lincoln.html
>
>Lincoln like all politicians worked to his audience. In 1850-1865 that
>included seeming pious.
Indeed. One of the most egregious examples of this is a
speech he gave during his first run for the Illinois Senate seat. In
Chicago, which was an abolitionist town, he spoke about the equality
of all men. In the rural south of Illinois, however, two weeks later
his speech was about "the superiority of the white race."
G. H. Ambrose, who was a clerk with Lincoln's law firm, said
"Lincoln was an Infidel." The owner of the Springfield Hotel, in
which the law firm had its offices, wrote, "Reed tried to prove that
Lincoln was a church man; but everybody here knows that he was
not. Once in a great while, and only once in a great while, I saw him
accompany his wife and children to church. His attacks upon the church
were most bitter and sarcastic."
Indeed, of the letter Gardiner cited, Judge Stephen T. Logan
of Illinois said, "Are you so green as to believe that letter to be
Lincoln's real ideas? Lincoln was an Infidel of the most radical
type.'"
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, rational romantic mystic cynical idealist
MST3K - Help save the saving grace of television.
A.A 1493 http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
Robert Emmons
Benjamin Franklin:
"Some books against Deism fell into my hands ... They wrought an
effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the
arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to
me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I became a thorough
Deist." -- autobiography, published posthumously.
Thomas Jefferson:
"We discover [in the gospels] a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of
things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication." --
letter to Dr. Woods (Cardiff) (Noiyes)
Thomas Jefferson:
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the
world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity]
one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and
mythologies." -- letter to Dr. Woods (Cardiff) (Noiyes)
Thomas Paine:
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the
Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the
Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of." -- "The Age of
Reason", 1794.
Ethan Allen:
"I have generally been denominated a Deist, the reality of which I
have never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian, except
mere infant baptism makes me one; and as to being a Desist, I know
not, strictly speaking, whether I am one or not." -- "Reason, the
Only Oracle of Man", 1784, preface.
John Adams:
"God is an essence that we know nothing of ... Until this awful
blasphemy [incarnation] is got rid of, there will never be any liberal
science in the world." Ira D. Cardiff, "What Great Men Think of
Religion" (Christopher Publishing House, 1945; reprint New York: Arno
Press, 1972).
Abraham Lincoln:
"I am not a Christian." -- attributed to Lincoln by Rufus K. Noyes,
"Views of Religion" (Boston: L.K. Washburn, 1906).
Abraham Lincoln:
"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of
salvation and the human origin of the scriptures have become clearer
and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I
shall ever change them." -- 1862 letter to Judge J.S. Wakefield
I quote these items mostly second hand from the book "2000 Years of
Disbelief", Haught, James A., Prometheus Books, New York, 1996.
mike...@ix.netcom.com (Michael Burton) wrote:
>
> [various quotes from famoust Americans without citing sources]
>
--------------------------------------------------
Robert Emmons, Aurigen Inc., (973)228-9139
rem...@aurigen.com http://www.aurigen.com
Books and maps are usually read by those
who need them least.
Lorrill Buyens
Book of World Records, ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) ate
seventeen helpings of lutefisk, then belched:
>In article <83su65$1dio$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>,
>Michael J Nash <NASHMs...@prodigy.spamsux.net> wrote:
>>Kenneth Childress <ic...@best.com> wrote in message
>>news:38610463$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
>>> In article <83q1ep$49ra$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>,
>>> Michael J Nash <NASHMs...@prodigy.spamsux.net> wrote:
>>> >Presidents and their constituents are
>>> >entitled to believe and worship as they see fit, but their right to do so
>>> >ends where it crosses over into institutions that I, as an atheist
>>citizen,
>>> >pay for with my tax dollars.
>>>
>>> Please be more specific here. What do you mean?
>>
>>Specifically, I'm referring to the fact that we deem it necessary to pay for
>>chaplains to administer to the spiritual needs of theistic members of
>>Congress, which is a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
>
>Of course, this practice was put into place by the very people who
>drafted the Constitution and Bill of Rights. One would think they would
>know whether or not the practice was unconstitutional. That you
>consider this unconstitution puts your credibiity on the subject in
>serious doubt.
How `bout giving us a serious argument here instead of an appeal to
authority?
>>I'm
>>referring to the fact that some deem it necessary to open sessions of
>>Congress and other public events with organized prayer, a violation of the
>>First Amendment and an insult to those who lack theistic beliefs.
>
>Nonsense. Because you here religious speech IN NO WAY violates your
>rights. The insult is your advocating stopping them. You have no right
What about the right to equal time? If some Christian thinks it's
necessary for me or my (hypothetical) kids to sit through one of
their prayers at a *secular* event, then I want the right to make
them & their kids sit through a Wiccan blessing...
>>I'm
>>referring to the attempts by some to introduce voucher programs that would
>>fund religious indoctrination and the teaching of creationist pseudoscience
>>to our nation's schoolchildren, while at the same time reducing funding to
>>our already underfunded public schools.
>
>Public schools are not underfunded. You have really fallen for all the
>propoganda.
Have you ever even *seen* an inner-city school, let alone heard the
stories about lack of materials?
>>I'm referring to the attempts by
>>many in this country to interject religious indoctrination into our public
>>institutions; namely, the attempts by some to force the posting of the
>>Judeo-Christian 10 commandments in schools and courtrooms, and to force the
>
>You know, these things used to take place without any problem. What's
>your problem with it?
The tiny fact that not everyone is either Christian or Jewish?
>>I'm also referring to the official sanctioning of
>>heterosexual marriage, while homosexual marriage is disallowed due to the
>>religious sensibilities of the theist majority, and for no other logical
>>reason.
>
>There is not a single reason for sanctioning a sexually perverse union.
>You don't even want to get me started on this topic. I've read up on
>the homosexual advocates, their techniques and practices. They are
>probably the most dishonest, and dispicable group in this country. If
>same-sex marriages are so virtuous then why are the advocates tauting
>the virtuals? Why all the lies, victim playing, tactics to silence the
>opposition? Do tell me the virtues?
The legal & spiritual union of two people who love each other? The
right to have a say in each other's medical treatment, to receive
death benefits if their partner kicks the bucket, to raise any kids
they might have?
>>I could go on forever with this...
>
>Believe me, I've heard all the lies, propoganda, and mistruths that you
>might bring forth. Based on your list, which is nothing more than tired
>old atheist arguments, I can tell you need some education on the topics.
"Pot, this is Kettle. You're black."
>>> >The "vast majority" of people who worship gods
>>> >do not need the government to legitimize their beliefs, and we as
>>Americans
>>> >certainly don't need somebody's fairy tale sky-pixie to legitimize the
>>> >authority of any elected official. That's what the ballot box is for.
>>>
>>> How is the government being used to "legitimize" people's beliefs?
>>
>>See above.
>
>I didn't see a single item of substance above.
You might want to look harder next time...
--
| Doctor Fraud |Always believe six|
|Mad Inventor & Purveyor of Pseudopsychology |impossible things |
| Weird Science at Bargain Rates |before breakfast. |
Support the Jayne Hitchcock HELP Fund
http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/6172/helpjane.htm
buc...@exis.net
>:|In article <386ca967...@news.exis.net>, <buc...@exis.net> wrote:
>:|>mscu...@my-deja.com wrote:
>:|>
>:|>>:|In article <386A43C6...@pitnet.net>,
>:|>>:| Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>>:|> > > > as Madison's own radical advocacy
>:|>>:|> > >
>:|>>:|> > > Radical advocacy of what? A church-state distinction? The
>:|>>:|distinction he
>:|>>:|> > > credited to Luther? (Letter to F.L.Schaeffer, 1822)
>:|>>:|> >
>:|>>:|> > In what manner?
>:|>>:|>
>:|>>:|> In a letter. I think its your turn to go to the library.
>:|>>:|
>:|>>:|
>:|>>:|I'm asking for the citation and not the content of the letter. I don't
>:|>>:|have the book. So telling me that it is in one of thousands of Madison
>:|>>:|letters is telling me to find a nedle in the haystack.
>:|>>:|
>:|>>:|You should know better than to do this. At least I gave you volume and
>:|>>:|page and other information.
>:|>
>:|>
>:|>
>:|>Gardiner is playing games as usual.
>:|>
>:|>He could have provided the cite, because it is cited in the book
>:|>The book cites it as
>:|>Madison to Rev. F.L. Schaeffer, December 3, 1821, Congress Ed. Writings,
>:|>III, p 242.
>:|>James Madison on Religious Liberty, edited, with introductions and
>:|>interpretations by Robert Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) p
>:|>196
>:|>
>:|>The letter in full (which is not the case in the Alley book--a little at
>:|>the beginning and at the end is not included, nothing major-- is as
>:|>follows:
>:|>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>:|>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.
>:|>
>:|> Revd Sir,--I have received, with your letter of November 19th, the
>:|>copy of your address at the ceremonial of laying the corner-stone of St
>:|>Matthew's Church in New York.
>:|> It is a pleasing and persuasive example of pious zeal, united with
>:|>pure benevolence and of a cordial attachment to a particular creed,
>:|>untinctured with sectarian illiberality. It illustrates the excellence of a
>:|>system which, by a due distinction, to which the genius and courage of
>:|>Luther led the way, between what is due to Caesar and what is due God, best
>:|>promotes the discharge of both obligations. The experience of the United
>:|>States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened
>:|>minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of
>:|>persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and
>:|>civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found
>:|>most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political
>:|>prosperity.
>:|> In return for your kind sentiments, I tender assurances of my
>:|>estaeem and my best wishes.
>:|>(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)
>:|>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>:|>Childress isn't going to like the above letter.
>:|
>:|Why, pray tell, won't I like the letter?
>:|
>:|FYI, the letter in no way supports the view of the so-called "separation
>:|of church and state" that you support and promote with your propoganda.
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
What it does call for is very much in harmony with Madison's beliefs
regarding Sep C&S, which is very much in line with the separationist
viewpoint that you do so dislike.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It illustrates the excellence of a
system which, by a due distinction, to which the genius and courage of
Luther led the way, between what is due to Caesar and what is due God, best
promotes the discharge of both obligations.
The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so
long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well
as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal
incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported.
A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to
social harmony, and to political prosperity.
To F. L. Schaeffer from Madison, December 3, 1821.
============================================================
Direct references to separation to be found in the writings of James
Madison
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated
hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions
with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of
the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly
increased by the total separation of the church from the State."
(Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation
between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have
no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done,
in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity
the less they are mixed together"
(Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case,
to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the
civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and
doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or
the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be
best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from
interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public
order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by
others".
(Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina
I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to
the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem
Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the
practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to
the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United
States, I could not have other wise discharged my duty on the occasion
which presented itself"
(Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).
==============================================================
The only President in American History to veto acts of Congress because
they violated the establishment clause of the U S Constitution.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEBRUARY 21, 1811
VETO MESSAGES.
FEBRUARY 21, 1811.
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An act
incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of Alexandria, in
the District of Columbia," I now return the bill to the House of
Representatives, in which it originated, with the following objections:
Because the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which
governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and
religious functions, and violates in particular the article of the
Constitution of the United States which declares that "Congress shall make
no law respecting a religious establishment.''
[snip]
Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church an authority
to provide for the support of the poor and the education of poor children
of the same, an authority which, being altogether superfluous if the
provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for
giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into
effect a public and civil duty.
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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEBRUARY 28, 1811
VETO MESSAGE
February 28, 1811.
To the House of Representatives of the United States.
Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An act for the
relief of Richard Tervin, William Coleman, Edwin Lewis, Samuel Mims, Joseph
Wilson, and the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, in the Mississippi
Territory, " I now return the same to the House of Representatives, in
which it originated, with the following objection:
Because the bill in reserving a certain parcel of land of the
United States for the use of said Baptist Church comprises a principle and
precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use
and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the
Constitution which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting a
religious establishment."
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 denouncements of the New England States that still had established
religions:
Ye States of America, which retain in your Constitutions or Codes, any
aberration from the sacred principle of religious liberty, by giving to
Caesar what belongs to God, or joining together what God has put asunder,
hasten to revise & purify your systems, and make the example of your
Country as pure & compleat, in what relates to the freedom of the mind and
its allegiance to its maker, as in what belongs to the legitimate objects
of political & civil institutions.
(Detached Memoranda)
====================================================================
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.
Orange May 29 1785.
It gives me much pleasure to observe by 2 printed reports sent me
by Col. Grayson that, in the latter Congress had expunged a clause
contained in the first for setting apart a district of land in each
Township for supporting the Religion of the majority of inhabitants. How a
regulation so unjust in itself, foreign to the Authority of Cong", so
hurtful to the sale of the public land, and smelling so strongly of an
antiquated Bigotry, could have received the countenance of a Committee is
truly matter of astonishment. In one view it might have been no
disadvantage to this State in case the Gen' Assess' should take place, as
it would have given a repellent quality to the new Country in the
estimation of those whom our own encroachments on Religious Liberty would
be calculated to banish to it. But the adversaries to the assess' begin to
think the prospect here flattering to their wishes, The printed Bill has
excited great discussion and is likely to prove the sense of the Comunity
to be in favor of the liberty now enjoyed. I have heard of several Counties
where the late representatives have been laid aside for voting for the
Bill, and not of a single one where the reverse has happened. The
Presbyterian Clergy too who were in general friends to the scheme, are
already in another tone, either compelled by the laity of that sect, or
alarmed at the probability of further interferences of the Legislature, if
they once begin to dictate in matters of Religion,
I am, Dr Sir, Yours affecly.
James Madison
====================================================================
Mentioning the general assessment, that is, the use of public monies to
fund the teachers of a religion, any religion, (which he defined as an
establishment of religion) he opposed, worked against same in Virginia,
wrote his famous **James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance** against.
I am not going to repeat it here, there are several on line sources for it.
You won't bother to read it anyways.
Would you like some quotes of his from letters talking about the separation
of religion and education?
What current jurisprudence exists that one cannot find the roots of in
Madison or Jefferson?
>:|If you think the current implementation of church/state relations is
>:|"most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to
>:|political prosperity", you are in a dream world.
Why did you alter the sentence? Is that the only way you can make it come
out the way you want it to be?
You deleted two words--mutual independence.
A*** mutual independence*** is found most friendly to practical Religion,
to social harmony, and to political prosperity.
Mutual independence, that means separation of religion and government.
He is talking separation between government and religion, something you had
to take out of the sentence in order to try and make point that was not the
point Madison was making. That is why I said you wouldn't like what he
said.
You just proved me right. You didn't like it, so you altered it to make it
acceptable to you.
I do think that separation does aid religion and government and even more
importantly it creates religious freedom for all, those of the majority
religion (sect, denomination, religious society, religion) of any area,
those of any and all minority religions (sects, denominations, societies,
religions) of any given area and those who are non believers as well.
IN SHORT:
[ William Lee Miller, who has made a special study of the
role of religion in the nation's founding, summarized the
conclusion of that study in these striking words:
Did "religious freedom" for Jefferson and Madison extend
to atheists? Yes. To agnostics, unbelievers, and pagans? Yes. To
heretics and blasphemers and the sacrilegious? Yes. To "the
Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohametan, the
Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination?" Yes. To Papists?
Yes. To "irreligion"? Yes. To people who want freedom from
religion? Yes. To people who want freedom against religion?
Yes.(9)
(9) William Lee Miller, "The Ghost of freedoms Past," in The Washington
Post National Weekly Edition (13 October 1886), p. 23. ]
buc...@exis.net
MARCH 19, 1823
*NOTE: Everett was a Professor at Harvard University. He complained in his
letter to Madison about one sect monopolizing theological positions in his
school.
Our University has lately recd a further loan from the Legislature
which will prepare the Buildings for ten Professors and about 200
Students. Should all the loans be converted into donations, at the next
Session, as is generally expected, but for which no pledge has been given,
the Visitors, with an annuity of $15,000 settled on the Institution, will
turn their thoughts towards opening it, and to the preliminary engagement
of Professors.
I am not surprised at the dilemma produced at your University by
making theological professorships an integral part of the System. The
anticipation of such an one led to the omission in ours; the Visitors being
merely authorized to open a public Hall for religious occasions, under
impartial regulations; with the opportunity to the different sects to
establish Theological schools so near thatthe Students of the University
may respectively attend the religious exercises in them. The village of
Charlottesville also, where different religious worships will be held, is
also so near, that resort may conveniently be had to them. A University
with sectarian professorships, becomes, of course, a Sectarian Monopoly:
with professorships of rival sects, it would be an Arena of Theological
Gladiators. Without any such professorships, it may incur for a time at
least, the imputation of irreligious tendencies, if not designs. The last
difficulty was thought more manageable than either of the others.
On this view of the subject, there seems to be no alternative but
between a public University without a theological professorship, and
sectarian Seminaries without a University.
I recollect to have seen, many years ago, a project of a prayer, by
Gov: Livingston father of the present Judge, intended to comprehend &
conciliate College Students of every X" denomination, by a Form composed
wholly of texts & phrases of scripture. If a trial of the expendient was
ever made, it must have failed, notwithstanding its winning aspect from the
single cause that many sects reject all set forms of Worship.
The difficulty of reconciling the Xn mind to the absence of a
religious tuition from a University established by law and at the common
expence, is probably less with us than with you. The settled opinion here
is that religion is essentially distinct from Civil Gov' and exempt from
ire cognizance; that a connexion between them is injurious to both; that
there are causes in the human breast, which ensure the perpetuity of
religion without the aid of the law; that rival sects, with equal rights,
exercise mutual censorships in favor of good morals; that if new seas arise
with absurd opinions or overheated maginations, the proper remedies lie in
time, forbearance and example; that a legal establishment of religion
without a toleration could not be thought of, and with a toleration, is no
security for public quiet & harmony, but rather a source itself of discord
& animosity; and finally that these opinions are supported by experience,
which has shwen that every relaxation of the alliance between Law &
religion, from the partial example of Holland, to its consummation in
Pennsylvania Delaware N.J., &, has been found as safe in practice as it is
sound in theory. Prior to the Revolution, the Episcopal Church was
established by law in this State. On the Declaration of independence it was
left with all other sects, to a self-support. And no doubt exists that
there is much more of religion among us now than there ever was before the
change; and particularly in the Sect which enjoyed the legal patronage.
This proves rather more than, that the law is not necessary to the support
of religion.
With such a public opinion, it may be expected that a University
with the feature peculiar to ours will succeed here if anywhere. Some of
the Clergy did not fail to arraign the peculiarity; but it is not
improbable that they had an eye to the chance of introducing their own
creed into the professor's chair. A late resolution for establishing an
Episcopal school within the College of William & Mary, the' in a very
guarded manner, drew immediate animadversions from the press, which if they
have not put an end to the project, are a proof of what would follow such
an experiment in the University of the State, endowed and supported as this
will be, altogether by the Public authority and at the common expense.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: TO EDWARD EVERETT FROM MADISON, MARCH 19, 1823.
Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in Four Volumes, Published by
Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott & Co. Philadelphia, (1865),
pp 305-309. *James Madison on Religious Liberty, Robert S.Alley, Prometheus
Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 83-84
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUGUST 16, 1824
TO THOMAS JEFFERSON
MONTPELLIER, Aug. 16, 1824
I will endeavour to make out a list of theological works, but am
less qualified for the task then you seem to think; and fear, also, that my
catalogues are less copious than might be wished. There is a difficulity in
marking the proper limit to so inehaustible a chapter, whether with a view
to the Library in its infant or more mature state.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt of letter from James Madison to Thomas
Jefferson Aug. 16, 1824. Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 447-448).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEPTEMBER 20, 1824
TO THOMAS JEFFERSON
MONTPELLIER, Sept. 20, 1824
Dear sir, --On the receipt of yours of August 8, I turned my
thoughts to its request on the subject of a theological catalogue for the
Library of the University; and not being aware that so early anwas wished,
as I now find was the case, I had proceeded very leisurely in noting
such authors as seemed proper for the collection. Supposing, also, that
although theology was not to be taught in the University, its Library ought
to contain pretty full information for such as might voluntarily seek it in
that branch of learning. I had contemplated as much of a comprehensive and
systematic selection as my scanty materials admitted, and had gone through
the five first centuries of Christianity when yours of the 3d instant came
to hand, which was evening before the last. This conveyed to me more
distinctly the limited obeject your letter had in view, and relieved me
from a task which i found extremely tedious; especially considering the
intermixture of the doctrinal and constroversal part of Divinity with the
moral and metaohysical part, and the immense extent of the whole. I send
you the list I had made out, with an addition on the same paper of such
books as a hasty glance of a few catalogues and my recollection suggested.
Perhaps some of them may not have occurred to you, and may suit the blank
you have not filled. I am sorry I could not make a fair copy without
failing to comply with the time pointed out.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter to Thomas Jefferson from James Madison,
Sept. 20, 1824. Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in Four
Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott & Co.
Philadelphia, (1865), pp 450-451).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DECEMBER 22, 1824
TO THE REVd. FREDRICK BEASLEY
MONTPELLIER, Va. Dec 22,
1824
The peculiarity in the Institution which excited at first most
attention, and some animadversion, is the omission of a theological
professorship. The public opinion seems now lo have sufficiently yielded to
its incompatibility with a STATE [emphasis in original] Institution,
which necessarily excludes sectarian preferences. The best provision which
occurred was that of authorizing the Visitors to open the public rooms for
Religious uses, under IMPARTIAL [emphasis in original] regulations (a task
that may occasionally involve some difficulitites,) and admitting the
establishment of Theological Seminaries by the respective sects contiguous
to the precincts of the University, and within the reach of a familiar
intercourse disticnt from the obligatory pursuits of the students. The
growing villiage of Charlottesville, also, is nopt distant more than a
mile, anc contains already congregations and clergymen of the sects to
which the students will mostly belong.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt of letter to Rev. Frederick Beasley from
James Madsion, December 22, 1824. Letters and Other writings of James
Madison, in Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B.
Lippincott & Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 474- 475).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
buc...@exis.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOVEMBER 20, 1825
*NOTE: Beasley had written to Madison requesting that he offer his opinion
on a pamphlet, Vindication of the Argument a prior in Proof of the Being
and Attributes of God.
DEAR SIR I have duly reed the copy of your little tract on the proofs
of the Being & Attributes of God. To do full justice to it, would require
not only a more critical attention than I have been able to bestow on it,
but a resort to the celebrated work of Dr. Clarke, which I read fifty
years ago only, and to that of Dr. Waterland also which I never read.
The reasoning that could satisfy such a mind as that of Clarke, ought
certainly not to be slighted in the discussion. And the belief in a God All
Powerful wise & good, is so essential to the moral order of the World & to
the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from
too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different
characters & capacities to be impressed with it.
But whatever effect may be produced on some minds by the more abstract
train of ideas which you so strongly support, it will probably always be
found that the course of reasoning from the effect to the cause, "from
Nature to Nature's God," Will be the more universal 6r more persuasive
application.
The finiteness of the human understanding betrays itself on all
subjects, but more especially when it contemplates such as involve
infinity. What may safely be said seems to be, that the infinity of time &
space forces itself on our conception, a limitation of either being
inconceivable; that the mind prefers at once the idea of a self-existing
cause to that of an infinite series of cause & effect, which augments,
instead of avoiding difficulty; and that it finds more facility in
assenting to the self-existence of an invisible cause possessing infinite
power, wisdom & goodness, than to the self-existence of the universe,
visibly destitute of those attributes, and which may be the effect of them.
In this comparative facility of conception & belief, all philosophical
Reasoning on the subject must perhaps terminate. But that I may not get
farther beyond my depth, and without the resources which bear you up in
fathoming efforts, I hasten to thank you for the favour which has made me
your debtor, and to assure you of my esteem & my respectful regards. . . .
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: TO FREDERICK BEASLEY FROM MADISON, NOVEMBER 20,
1825. Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in Four Volumes,
Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott & Co.
Philadelphia, (1865), pp 503- 504) *James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 84-85)
Kenneth Childress
You like that phrase, eh? Mr. Carey must have made an impression on
you.
>What it does call for is very much in harmony with Madison's beliefs
>regarding Sep C&S, which is very much in line with the separationist
>viewpoint that you do so dislike.
No, I tend to agree with Madison, Jefferson, etc. I don't agree with
you, the ACLU, AUSC&S, PFAW, jokes like Boston and Lynn, on the
separationist viewpoint. As I say constantly, you don't understand my
viewpoint from a hole in the wall.
[Usually, massive, extraneous material snipped]
>You won't bother to read it anyways.
When you are cutting and pasting, you're not discussing. I gave up
discussing with books long ago.
>Would you like some quotes of his from letters talking about the separation
>of religion and education?
>
>What current jurisprudence exists that one cannot find the roots of in
>Madison or Jefferson?
ROTFLMAO. The roots maybe, but these men would be calling you a liar if
they were present to listen to your using them as justification for the
current state of church/state relations.
>>:|If you think the current implementation of church/state relations is
>>:|"most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to
>>:|political prosperity", you are in a dream world.
>
>Why did you alter the sentence? Is that the only way you can make it come
>out the way you want it to be?
I didn't alter it. Are you calling me a liar? Be careful now, I've
shown on at least two occasions in the past where you deliberately lied
about my position. You didn't even have the courage to admit your
errors.
>You deleted two words--mutual independence.
No I didn't. What I quoted, and what I said is not modified in the
least by those additional words.
>A*** mutual independence*** is found most friendly to practical Religion,
>to social harmony, and to political prosperity.
>
>Mutual independence, that means separation of religion and government.
Yes. It does not mean your view of hostility towards religion, nor your
gross extrapolation of what you think separation means.
>He is talking separation between government and religion, something you had
>to take out of the sentence in order to try and make point that was not the
>point Madison was making. That is why I said you wouldn't like what he
>said.
Now you are lying. Do you have the guts to read above and retract this
lie? I doubt it, but I'm always glad to be proven wrong.
>You just proved me right. You didn't like it, so you altered it to make it
>acceptable to you.
You are a liar. I'll expect your apology.
>I do think that separation does aid religion and government and even more
>importantly it creates religious freedom for all, those of the majority
>religion (sect, denomination, religious society, religion) of any area,
>those of any and all minority religions (sects, denominations, societies,
>religions) of any given area and those who are non believers as well.
Separation does. The current jurisprudence in the matter does not. The
two are entirely different things. I'm all for separation. I totally
against the current implementation of this "concept" of separation.
They are not the same thing.
>IN SHORT:
>
>[ William Lee Miller, who has made a special study of the
>role of religion in the nation's founding, summarized the
>conclusion of that study in these striking words:
>
> Did "religious freedom" for Jefferson and Madison extend
> to atheists? Yes. To agnostics, unbelievers, and pagans? Yes. To
> heretics and blasphemers and the sacrilegious? Yes. To "the
> Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohametan, the
> Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination?" Yes. To Papists?
> Yes. To "irreligion"? Yes. To people who want freedom from
> religion? Yes. To people who want freedom against religion?
> Yes.(9)
I agree.
Now, where in this viewpoint do you extrapolate out statements by
teachers in the public schools being unconstitutional because they
offend some twit who doesn't respect the religious beliefs of others?
Where do you find in the above the position that a city cannot even
acknowledge a nation holiday with a display on the courthouse lawn?
Where do you find in the above that some school graduation or sports
team cannot have a prayer before their ceremony or game if they choose?
You can't. I agree with the above, I don't agree with you. I agree
with Madison and Jefferson (for the most part), I don't agree with you.
Now, I expect an apology from you for your claims of my dishonesty. I
don't expect to get one, so you'll probably be relegated to the twit
basket again.
--
Kenneth Childress
Lorrill Buyens <buyensl@prime*SPAMMERS.GO.HOME*net.com> wrote:
>On 24 Dec 1999 04:59:29 GMT, in an attempt to get into the Guinness
>Book of World Records, ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) ate
>seventeen helpings of lutefisk, then belched:
Of course, if I was Mr. Curtis I would whine about name-calling. I'll
just let the readers decide if this aids your credibility or not.
>>In article <83su65$1dio$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>,
>>Michael J Nash <NASHMs...@prodigy.spamsux.net> wrote:
>>>Kenneth Childress <ic...@best.com> wrote in message
>>>news:38610463$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
>>>> In article <83q1ep$49ra$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>> Michael J Nash <NASHMs...@prodigy.spamsux.net> wrote:
>
>>>> >Presidents and their constituents are
>>>> >entitled to believe and worship as they see fit, but their right to do so
>>>> >ends where it crosses over into institutions that I, as an atheist
>>>citizen,
>>>> >pay for with my tax dollars.
>>>>
>>>> Please be more specific here. What do you mean?
>>>
>>>Specifically, I'm referring to the fact that we deem it necessary to pay for
>>>chaplains to administer to the spiritual needs of theistic members of
>>>Congress, which is a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
>>
>>Of course, this practice was put into place by the very people who
>>drafted the Constitution and Bill of Rights. One would think they would
>>know whether or not the practice was unconstitutional. That you
>>consider this unconstitution puts your credibiity on the subject in
>>serious doubt.
>
>How `bout giving us a serious argument here instead of an appeal to
>authority?
There wasn't a serious statement that deserved a reply more than what I
gave. IOW, the claim made by Mr. Nash is simply stupid.
>>>I'm
>>>referring to the fact that some deem it necessary to open sessions of
>>>Congress and other public events with organized prayer, a violation of the
>>>First Amendment and an insult to those who lack theistic beliefs.
>>
>>Nonsense. Because you here religious speech IN NO WAY violates your
>>rights. The insult is your advocating stopping them. You have no right
>
>What about the right to equal time? If some Christian thinks it's
>necessary for me or my (hypothetical) kids to sit through one of
>their prayers at a *secular* event, then I want the right to make
>them & their kids sit through a Wiccan blessing...
Funny, I wasn't aware that there was a "right to equal time". That
argument is just stupid.
In order to adress your stupid statement, if most of the participants
are Wiccan and choose to have a blessing, so be it. As long as it
doesn't violate common standards of decency, what's the problem?
>>>I'm
>>>referring to the attempts by some to introduce voucher programs that would
>>>fund religious indoctrination and the teaching of creationist pseudoscience
>>>to our nation's schoolchildren, while at the same time reducing funding to
>>>our already underfunded public schools.
>>
>>Public schools are not underfunded. You have really fallen for all the
>>propoganda.
>
>Have you ever even *seen* an inner-city school, let alone heard the
>stories about lack of materials?
I've seen private schools put public schools to shame with less than
half the budget of public schools. The problem isn't money, it's
bureacracy and unions.
>>>I'm referring to the attempts by
>>>many in this country to interject religious indoctrination into our public
>>>institutions; namely, the attempts by some to force the posting of the
>>>Judeo-Christian 10 commandments in schools and courtrooms, and to force the
>>
>>You know, these things used to take place without any problem. What's
>>your problem with it?
>
>The tiny fact that not everyone is either Christian or Jewish?
So?
>>>I'm also referring to the official sanctioning of
>>>heterosexual marriage, while homosexual marriage is disallowed due to the
>>>religious sensibilities of the theist majority, and for no other logical
>>>reason.
>>
>>There is not a single reason for sanctioning a sexually perverse union.
>>You don't even want to get me started on this topic. I've read up on
>>the homosexual advocates, their techniques and practices. They are
>>probably the most dishonest, and dispicable group in this country. If
>>same-sex marriages are so virtuous then why are the advocates tauting
>>the virtuals? Why all the lies, victim playing, tactics to silence the
>>opposition? Do tell me the virtues?
>
>The legal & spiritual union of two people who love each other? The
>right to have a say in each other's medical treatment, to receive
>death benefits if their partner kicks the bucket, to raise any kids
>they might have?
I didn't think anyone would chime in with benefits. I see you didn't
either. Why do you think kids should be raised without a mother or a
father? Where your parents irrelevant?
Besides, the issue isn't about death benefits and you know it.
[Remaining drivel snipped]
--
buc...@exis.net
Answer to this post to be found in thread
Re: Religion and the Early American Republic
**********************************************
Kenneth Childress
>ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
>
>
>Re: Religion and the Early American Republic
Why not post it here where it belongs?
I don't see any response from you yet. I'll check tomorrow.
--
buc...@exis.net
A explanation of Madison's MEMORIAL & REMONSTRANCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The substance of Madison's doctrine of the free conscience is justly
famous and has been carefully developed by many eminent authorities.(51) It
was brilliantly and most completely enunciated by Madison in his Memorial
and Remonscrance against Religious Assessments in 1785. In objecting to a
bill to pay teachers of religion out of public funds, Madison stated that
we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, that religion, or the
duty we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be
directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence (Virginia
Declaration of Rights, 1776). The religion then of every man must be left
to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the tight of
every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature
an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men
depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds, cannot
follow the dictates of other men.... We maintain, therefore, that in
matters of religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil
Society, and that religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance.(52)
Madison then proceeded to marshal other arguments in support of liberty of
conscience.
2. Since Civil Society itself had no eight to meddle in religious
beliefs and practices, certainly the legislature which is its creature, has
no such right.
3. "Who does not see that the same authority which can establish
Christianity [or any other Christianity, or non-religion] in exclusion of
all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect
of Christians, in exclusion of all other sectsl"
4. "Equal title to the free exercise of Religion" implies the right to
believe in no religion at all, as well as the right to believe and worship
as one chooses.
5. Civil Magistrates can neither be competent judges of religious truth,
nor should they bolster civil policy with official religious sanction.
6. The Christian religion does not need civil support. Its truth and
power are prior to human society and do not require laws in their behalf.
7. History records that "ecclesiastical establishment" serves to corrupt
and stultify true religion, not promote its purity and efficacy,
8. History further testifies that civil governments do not need religion
for their support; on the contrary, religious establishments had often
served as oppressors of the peoples' liberty.
9. The assessment marks a first step in the direction of persecution and
bigotry departing from the generous policy of offering asylum for the
oppressed, and leads to "the Inquisition from which it differs only in
degree."
10. Good citizens will be driven from the state if required to pay a
religious tax.
11. Religious strife and violence will be encouraged by laws which
meddle with religion.
12. "The policy of the bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of
Christianity." It sets up walls of separation between Christianity and
regions of darkness, thus preventing dissemination of the light of the
former.
13. An attempt to enforce a religious assessment, obnoxious to many
citizens, will weaken the support for the rest of the laws of society.
14. There is no clear evidence that a majority of the people support the
assessment. In fact, the burden of the evidence points in the opposite
direction.
15. Finally the right of freedom of conscience "is held by the same
tenure with all our other rights. . . . Either we must say that the will of
the legislature is the only measure of their authority; and that in the
plenitude of this authority, they may sweep away all our fundamental
rights; or, that they are bound to leave this particular right untouched
and sacred. . . ."(53)
The arguments presented in the Memorial and Remonstrance were an
important part of the battle to enact Jefferson's famous statute
establishing religious freedom in Virginia, a fight which Madison led and
master-minded throughout. The Episcopalians, strong in the tidewater
countries, and the Presbyterians, traditionally dominant in the Piedmont
and Shenandoah Valley, had temporarily joined forces in 1784 to secure
passage of a bill to pay teachers of religion out of public funds. Such
eminent men as Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, John Marshall, and Philip
Barbour favored the bill. Madison, backed by the Nicholases, Archibald
Stuart, Spencer Roane, and others, fought the bill with the arguments
Madison summarized in the Memorial and Remonscrance. By making articulate
the public opinion which opposed the religious assessment and by shrewdly
sowing dissention between the Episcopalians and Presbyterians, Madison
managed to defeat the bill and secure the passage of Jefferson's statute in
its place."(54) Writing to Jefferson, Madison, in a rare mood of
exaltation, stated that: "I flatter myself [that] this country [has]
extinguished forever the ambitious hope of making laws for the human
mind."(55)
FOOTNOTES
(51). See Stuart Getty Brown, "Plural Values and the Neutral State: The
American Doctrine of the Free Conscience," Syracuse Law Review (Fall,
1953): 28-41. Also Brant, I, pp. 128-31, 241-50; II, pp. 343, 356, relates
Madison's part in the development of doctrine.
(52). Hunt, II, pp. 184-85.
(53). Ibid., II, pp. 185-91.
(54). Brant, II, pp. 343-55.
(55). Madison to Jefferson, Richmond, January 22, 1786, Hunt, II, p. 216.
(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 186-87, 195)
buc...@exis.net
JUNE 1785
James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance
To the Honorable the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia
Memorial and Remonstrance We the subscribers, citizens of the said
Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by
order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill
establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and
conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will
be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free
State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are
determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,
1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that
religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of
discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force
or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction
and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise
it as these may dictate.
This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable,
because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by
their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable
also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the
Creator.
It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such
only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both
in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil
Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he
must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe: And if a
member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the
Universal Sovereign.
We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is
abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly
exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists. by which
any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but
the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may
trespass on the rights of the minority.
2. Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large,
still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter
are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is
both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate
departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the
constituents.
The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes
and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably
maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to
overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The
Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from
which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit
to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority
derived from them, and are slaves.
3. Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our
liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens,
and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men
of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by
exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all the
consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying
the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it.
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity,
in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any
particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the
same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of
his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to
conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
4. Because the Bill violates the equality which ought to be the basis of
every law, and which is more indispensable, in proportion as the validity
or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If "all men are by
nature equally free and independent," all men are to be considered
as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and
therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights,
Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the
free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience." Whilst
we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the
Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an
equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence
which has convinced us.
If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man:
To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. As the
Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it
violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions. Are
the Quakers and Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of
their Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable? can their piety alone be
entrusted with the care of public worship? Ought their Religions to be
endowed above all others with extraordinary privileges by which proselytes
may be enticed from all others?
We think too favorably of the justice and good sense of these denominations
to believe that they either covet pre-eminences over their fellow citizens
or that they will be seduced by them from the common opposition to the
measure.
5. Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent
Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of
Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the
contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world:
the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.
6. Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the
support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to
the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence
on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known
that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the
support of human laws , but in spite of every opposition from them, and not
only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left
to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence.
Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human
policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established
by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this
Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of
its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that
its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own
merits.
7. Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments,
instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a
contrary operation.
During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity
been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride
and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both,
superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of
Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest luster;
those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with
Civil policy.
Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers
depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its
downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when
for or when against their interest?
8. Because the establishment in question is not necessary for the support
of Civil Government. If it be urged as necessary for the support of Civil
Government only as it is a means of supporting Religion, and it be not
necessary for the latter purpose, it cannot be necessary for the former. If
Religion be not within the cognizance of Civil Government how can its legal
establishment be necessary to Civil Government? What influence in fact have
ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society?
In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the
ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen
upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been
seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to
subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient
auxiliaries.
Ajust Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such
a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the
enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his
person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect,
nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another.
9. Because the proposed establishment is a departure from the generous
policy, which, offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every
Nation and Religion, promised a luster to our country, and an accession to
the number of its citizens. What a melancholy mark is the Bill of sudden
degeneracy? Instead of holding forth an Asylum to the persecuted, it is
itself a signal of persecution.
It degrades from the equal rank of Citizens all those who see opinions in
Religion do not bend to those of the Legislative authority. Distant as it
may be in its present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in
degree. The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of
intolerance. The magnanimous sufferer under this cruel scourge in foreign
Regions, must view the Bill as a Beacon on our Coast, warning him to seek
some other haven, where liberty and philanthrophy in their due extent, may
offer a more certain respose from his Troubles.
10. Because it will have a like tendency to banish our Citizens. The
allurements presented by other situations are every day thinning their
number. To superadd a fresh motive to emigration by revoking the liberty
which they now enjoy, would be the same species of folly which has
dishonored and depopulated flourishing kingdoms.
11. Because it will destroy that moderation and harmony which the
forbearance of our laws to intermeddle with Religion has produced among its
several sects. Torrents of blood have been split in the old world, by vain
attempts of the secular arm, to extinguish Religious disscord, by
proscribing all difference in Religious opinion. Time has at length
revealed the true remedy. Every relaxation of narrow and rigorous policy,
wherever it has been tried, has been found to assuage the disease.
The American Theater has exhibited proofs that equal and complete liberty,
if it does not wholly eradicate it, sufficiently destroys its malignant
influence on the health and prosperity of the State. If with the salutary
effects of this system under our own eyes, we begin to contract the bounds
of Religious freedom, we know no name that will too severely reproach our
folly. At least let warning be taken at the first fruits of the threatened
innovation.
The very appearance of the Bill has transformed "that Christian
forbearance, love and charity, which of late mutually prevailed, into
animosities and jealousies, which may not soon be appeased. What mischiefs
may not be dreaded, should this enemy to the public quiet be armed with the
force of a law?
12. Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light
of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought
to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the
number of those who have as yet received it with the number still
remaining under the dominion of false Religion s; and how small is the
former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion?
No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of
revelation from coming into the Region of it; and countenances by example
the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might
convey it to them. Instead of Leveling as far as possible, every obstacle
to the victorious progress of Truth, the Bill with an ignoble and
unchristian timidity would circumscribe it with a w all of defense against
the encroachments of error.
13. Because attempts to enforce by legal sanctions, acts obnoxious to go
great a proportion of Citizens, tend to enervate the laws in general, and
to slacken the bands of Society. I f it be difficult to execute any law
which is not generally deemed necessary or salutary, what must be the case,
where it is deemed invalid and dangerous? And what may be the effect of so
striking an example of impotency in the Government, on its general
authority?
14. Because a measure of such singular magnitude and delicacy ought not to
be imposed, without the dearest evidence that it is called for by a
majority of citizens, and no satisfactory method is yet proposed by which
the voice of the majority in this case may be determined, or its influence
secured.
The people of the respective counties are indeed requested to signify their
opinion respecting the adoption of the Bill to the next Session of
Assembly." But the representatives or of the Counties will be that of the
people. Our hope is that neither of the former will, after due
consideration, espouse the dangerous principle of the Bill. Should the
event disappoint us, it will still leave us infull confidence, that a fair
appeal to the latter will reverse the sentence against our liberties.
15. Because finally, "the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise
of his Religion according to the dictates of conscience" is held by the
same tenure with all our other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is
equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less
dear to us; if we consult the "Declaration of those rights which pertain to
the good people of Virginia, as the basis and foundation of Government," it
is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis. Either
then, we must say, that the Will of the Legislature is the only measure of
their authority; and that in the plenitude of this authority, they may
sweep away all our fundamental rights; or, that they are bound to leave
this particular right untouched and sacred: Either we must say, that they
may control the freedom of the press, may abolish the Trial by Jury, may
swallow up the Executive and Judiciary Powers of the State; nay that they
may despoil us of our very right of suffrage, and erect themselves into an
independent and hereditary Assembly or, we must say, that they have no
authority to enact into the law the Bill under consideration.
Conclusion:
We the Subscribers say, that the General Assembly of this Commonwealth have
no such authority: And that no effort may be omitted on our part against so
dangerous an usurpation, we oppose to it, this remonstrance; earnestly
praying, as we are in duty bound, that the Supreme Lawgiver of the
Universe, by illuminating those to whom it is addressed, may on the one
hand, turn their Councils from every act which would affront his holy
prerogative, or violate the trust committed to them: and on the other,
guide them into every measure which may be worthy of his [blessing, may
re]bound to their own praise, and may establish more firmly the liberties,
the prosperity and the happiness of the Commonweath.
buc...@exis.net
>:|In article <38e38441...@news.exis.net>, <buc...@exis.net> wrote:
>:|>ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
>:|>
>:|>Answer to this post to be found in thread
>:|>
>:|>Re: Religion and the Early American Republic
>:|
>:|Why not post it here where it belongs?
Because since most of what you had to say had nothing to do with Madison,
it didn't belong here.
That is the subject of this thread.
>:|
>:|I don't see any response from you yet. I'll check tomorrow.
Oh it's there.
Actually there are three or four responses to various comments of yours.
But this one particular one is 389 lines 1/2/0 12:34 pm
If by some chance you can't find it I can send it again :o)
Michael Burton
<rem...@aurigen.com> wrote:
> Benjamin Franklin:
> "Some books against Deism fell into my hands ... They wrought an
> effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the
> arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to
> me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I became a thorough
> Deist." -- autobiography, published posthumously.
Benjamin was no pillar of morality either.
>
> Thomas Jefferson:
> "We discover [in the gospels] a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of
> things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication." --
> letter to Dr. Woods (Cardiff) (Noiyes)
Funny, why would he bother to edit the Jefferson Bible?
>
> Thomas Jefferson:
> "I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the
> world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity]
> one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and
> mythologies." -- letter to Dr. Woods (Cardiff) (Noiyes)
Doubt that he said that as it is contrary to his Declaration of Independence.
>
> Thomas Paine:
> "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the
> Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the
> Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of." -- "The Age of
> Reason", 1794.
I don't always believe in all of the creeds professed by my church all of
the time either. So What?
>
> Ethan Allen:
> "I have generally been denominated a Deist, the reality of which I
> have never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian, except
> mere infant baptism makes me one; and as to being a Desist, I know
> not, strictly speaking, whether I am one or not." -- "Reason, the
> Only Oracle of Man", 1784, preface.
Sounds like he should stick to making furniture.
>
> John Adams:
> "God is an essence that we know nothing of ... Until this awful
> blasphemy [incarnation] is got rid of, there will never be any liberal
> science in the world." Ira D. Cardiff, "What Great Men Think of
> Religion" (Christopher Publishing House, 1945; reprint New York: Arno
> Press, 1972).
I agree, incarnation is a blasphemy and unChristian. Most of the
scientists of the era (as well as prior and post to the era) were
Christian sons and daughters of God.
>
> Abraham Lincoln:
> "I am not a Christian." -- attributed to Lincoln by Rufus K. Noyes,
> "Views of Religion" (Boston: L.K. Washburn, 1906).
Funny, I have sat in the pew he regularly sat in. What was he doing
wasting his time in church?
>
> Abraham Lincoln:
> "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of
> salvation and the human origin of the scriptures have become clearer
> and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I
> shall ever change them." -- 1862 letter to Judge J.S. Wakefield
I have many doubts on the unsoundness of what is proposed as some
Christian doctrine today, however, that has nothing to do with
Christianity.
>
>
>
> I quote these items mostly second hand from the book "2000 Years of
> Disbelief", Haught, James A., Prometheus Books, New York, 1996.
May God Bless You
Michael
John Hattan
>In article <unin6scjreun110ch...@4ax.com>, Robert Emmons
><rem...@aurigen.com> wrote:
>
>> Thomas Jefferson:
>> "We discover [in the gospels] a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of
>> things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication." --
>> letter to Dr. Woods (Cardiff) (Noiyes)
>
>Funny, why would he bother to edit the Jefferson Bible?
Have you ever *read* the Jefferson Bible?
Miracles, resurrection, and anything else that would suggest the
divinity of Jesus are gone. Jesus is basically put on a par with Aesop
and Confuscious as a man with good ideas, but just a man.
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john-...@home.com http://www.freespeech.org/shatner
Pastor Stevo Levitson & His Lovely Wife Dottie
John Hattan wrote:
> mike...@ix.netcom.com (Michael Burton) wrote:
>
> >In article <unin6scjreun110ch...@4ax.com>, Robert Emmons
> ><rem...@aurigen.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Thomas Jefferson:
> >> "We discover [in the gospels] a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of
> >> things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication." --
> >> letter to Dr. Woods (Cardiff) (Noiyes)
> >
> >Funny, why would he bother to edit the Jefferson Bible?
>
> Have you ever *read* the Jefferson Bible?
>
> Miracles, resurrection, and anything else that would suggest the
> divinity of Jesus are gone. Jesus is basically put on a par with Aesop
> and Confuscious as a man with good ideas, but just a man.
>
Oh? And what "good ideas" were those? Is the one about turning your cheek
when someone is beating you up or the one about being poor by choice
because no sooner can a rich man enter the gates of ...blah, blah, blah?
Pastot Stevo
Kenneth Childress
>ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
>
>>:|In article <38e38441...@news.exis.net>, <buc...@exis.net> wrote:
>>:|>ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
>>:|>
>>:|>Answer to this post to be found in thread
>>:|>
>>:|>Re: Religion and the Early American Republic
>>:|
>>:|Why not post it here where it belongs?
>
>
>Because since most of what you had to say had nothing to do with Madison,
>it didn't belong here.
>
>That is the subject of this thread.
I'm most interested in your justification of your lies, or an apology
for making them. I suspect your changing the thread is a dodge to bury
your lies in the noise.
>>:|
>>:|I don't see any response from you yet. I'll check tomorrow.
>
>
>Oh it's there.
>
>Actually there are three or four responses to various comments of yours.
>
>But this one particular one is 389 lines 1/2/0 12:34 pm
>
>If by some chance you can't find it I can send it again :o)
Still no go. All I've seen is a re-posting of Madison's "Memorial and
Remonstrance".
--
buc...@exis.net
>:|I'm most interested in your justification of your lies, or an apology
>:|for making them. I suspect your changing the thread is a dodge to bury
>:|your lies in the noise.
Go to the thread it appears in and read it stupid.
>:|
>:|>>:|
>:|>>:|I don't see any response from you yet. I'll check tomorrow.
>:|>
>:|>
>:|>Oh it's there.
>:|>
>:|>Actually there are three or four responses to various comments of yours.
>:|>
>:|>But this one particular one is 389 lines 1/2/0 12:34 pm
>:|>
>:|>If by some chance you can't find it I can send it again :o)
>:|
>:|Still no go. All I've seen is a re-posting of Madison's "Memorial and
>:|Remonstrance".
Interesting, because it is there, plain as can be. But no problem, I just
sent it again and also sent it to you via email, now I know you will see
it.
Kenneth Childress
>ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
>>:|I'm most interested in your justification of your lies, or an apology
>>:|for making them. I suspect your changing the thread is a dodge to bury
>>:|your lies in the noise.
>
>Go to the thread it appears in and read it stupid.
Whose been whining about name calling and now throws out names? Go
figure.
>>:|>>:|I don't see any response from you yet. I'll check tomorrow.
>>:|>
>>:|>
>>:|>Oh it's there.
>>:|>
>>:|>Actually there are three or four responses to various comments of yours.
>>:|>
>>:|>But this one particular one is 389 lines 1/2/0 12:34 pm
>>:|>
>>:|>If by some chance you can't find it I can send it again :o)
>>:|
>>:|Still no go. All I've seen is a re-posting of Madison's "Memorial and
>>:|Remonstrance".
>
>Interesting, because it is there, plain as can be. But no problem, I just
>sent it again and also sent it to you via email, now I know you will see
>it.
Thank you for the email of the post. I still haven't seen the news post
on my server.
It was as I expected. You are so dishonest in a head to head
conversation now, that I'm not going to deal with you any more. I
cannot respect one who will lie about my statements, and refuse to
acknowledge that lie. It could be an honest mistake, but you have done
it several times now, so I believe it to be intentional. By making
false statements about what I wrote, you show no interest in
understanding what I said. You could ask for clarification, but you
don't. You assume and proceed with a faulty assumption, which makes you
a liar when you refuse to acknowledge the mistake when pointed out.
I'm sure you'll now respond with your own personal critique as you
always do, but so be it. Honest people will see you for what you are.
--
buc...@exis.net
>:|
>:|Thank you for the email of the post. I still haven't seen the news post
>:|on my server.
>:|
>:|It was as I expected. You are so dishonest in a head to head
>:|conversation now, that I'm not going to deal with you any more.
Bye
LOL
Elf Sternberg
mike...@ix.netcom.com (Michael Burton) writes:
>> Thomas Jefferson:
>> "We discover [in the gospels] a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of
>> things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication." --
>> letter to Dr. Woods (Cardiff) (Noiyes)
>Funny, why would he bother to edit the Jefferson Bible?
Ever read it? It is a book wholly without superstition,
fanaticism, or fabrication, as far as Jefferson was able to determine.
The book is basically the sayings and events of Jesus' life put into a
wholly secular context without miracles or the ressurrection. It would
seem to me that Jefferson was trying to save the character of Jesus from
its assassination at the hands of Christians.
>> Thomas Jefferson:
>> "I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the
>> world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity]
>> one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and
>> mythologies." -- letter to Dr. Woods (Cardiff) (Noiyes)
>Doubt that he said that as it is contrary to his Declaration of Independence.
The letter exists and the handwriting is pretty hard to fake.
And looking at the Declaration, I don't see anything in it to indicate
that he thought highly of Christianity.
>I agree, incarnation is a blasphemy and unChristian.
*ROFL* That's the first time I've heard someone say the
Ressurrection story is blasphemy and unchristian!
>> Abraham Lincoln:
>> "I am not a Christian." -- attributed to Lincoln by Rufus K. Noyes,
>> "Views of Religion" (Boston: L.K. Washburn, 1906).
>Funny, I have sat in the pew he regularly sat in. What was he doing
>wasting his time in church?
The same thing Bill Clinton does? Appealing to voters? Making
his wife happy, since she was a firm believer? Staying in touch with
the average man? Who knows? The fact is Lincoln's *supporters*
referred to him regularly as an "infidel."
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, rational romantic mystical cynical idealist
e...@halcyon.com: A Decade of Usenet: On-line since August 18, 1988
http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
I have looked into the abyss, and the abyss has looked into me.
Neither liked what we saw.
--- Brother Theodore
Robert L. Johnson
wondered what it was that the founders had that is lacking today - it's
DEISM!
Sincerely, Robert L. Johnson
http://www.deism.com
Robert Emmons wrote:
> Benjamin Franklin:
> "Some books against Deism fell into my hands ... They wrought an
> effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the
> arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to
> me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I became a thorough
> Deist." -- autobiography, published posthumously.
>
> Thomas Jefferson:
> "We discover [in the gospels] a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of
> things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication." --
> letter to Dr. Woods (Cardiff) (Noiyes)
>
> Thomas Jefferson:
> "I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the
> world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity]
> one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and
> mythologies." -- letter to Dr. Woods (Cardiff) (Noiyes)
>
> Thomas Paine:
> "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the
> Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the
> Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of." -- "The Age of
> Reason", 1794.
>
> Ethan Allen:
> "I have generally been denominated a Deist, the reality of which I
> have never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian, except
> mere infant baptism makes me one; and as to being a Desist, I know
> not, strictly speaking, whether I am one or not." -- "Reason, the
> Only Oracle of Man", 1784, preface.
>
> John Adams:
> "God is an essence that we know nothing of ... Until this awful
> blasphemy [incarnation] is got rid of, there will never be any liberal
> science in the world." Ira D. Cardiff, "What Great Men Think of
> Religion" (Christopher Publishing House, 1945; reprint New York: Arno
> Press, 1972).
>
> Abraham Lincoln:
> "I am not a Christian." -- attributed to Lincoln by Rufus K. Noyes,
> "Views of Religion" (Boston: L.K. Washburn, 1906).
>
> Abraham Lincoln:
> "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of
> salvation and the human origin of the scriptures have become clearer
> and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I
> shall ever change them." -- 1862 letter to Judge J.S. Wakefield
>
> I quote these items mostly second hand from the book "2000 Years of
> Disbelief", Haught, James A., Prometheus Books, New York, 1996.
>
Rick Gardiner
>
> Thank you very much for these great quotes! They are a gift! I often
> wondered what it was that the founders had that is lacking today - it's
> DEISM!
>
> Sincerely, Robert L. Johnson
> http://www.deism.com
WRONG!!
The Founding Fathers, Deism, and Unitarianism
Thomas Paine and Deism
Thomas Paine is sometimes grouped with the Founding Fathers. During the
Revolution he wrote very important tracts which unquestionably fueled the
Revolutionary spirit in the colonies. Among these tracts were Common Sense and
The American Crisis. Neither of these tracts gave the readers any reason to
believe that Paine's religion was unorthodox in any way. Long after the
Revolution, Paine wrote a book in which he identified himself as a "Deist."
The book was published in 1794 and entitled The Age Of Reason.
What is seldom noted about this book is that most of the Founding Fathers
disapproved of it. Even those who held unorthodox religious views like
Benjamin Franklin and the "Unitarians" denounced Paine's book.
Before Paine published his Age of Reason, he sent a manuscript copy to
Benjamin Franklin, seeking his thoughts. Notice Franklin's strong and succinct
reply:
"I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains
against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you
strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a
Providence that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor
particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his
displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any
discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it. At present I
shall only give you my opinion that . . . the consequence of printing this
piece will be a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and
no benefit to others. He that spits into the wind, spits in his own face. But
were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? . . .
[T]hink how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and
women and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes who have need of
the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue .
. . . I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but
to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person . . . . If men are so
wicked with religion, what would they be without it? I intend this letter
itself as proof of my friendship."
Samuel Adams was not quite as cordial as Franklin:
"[W]hen I heard you had turned your mind to a defence of infidelity, I felt
myself much astonished and more grieved that you had attempted a measure so
injurious to the feelings and so repugnant to the true interest of so great a
part of the citizens of the United States. The people of New England, if you
will allow me to use a Scripture phrase, are fast returning to their first
love. Will you excite among them the spirit of angry controversy at a time
when they are hastening to amity and peace? I am told that some of our
newspapers have announced your intention to publish an additional pamphlet
upon the principles of your Age of Reason. Do you think your pen, or the pen
of any other man, can unchristianize the mass of our citizens, or have you
hopes of converting a few of them to assist you in so bad a cause?"
Others among the founders were just as antagonistic toward Paine:
John Adams declared that "the Christian religion is, above all the religions
that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of
wisdom, virtue equity and humanity, let the Blackguard [scoundrel] Paine say
what he will."
Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence, wrote to his friend
and signer of the Constitution John Dickinson that Paine's Age of Reason was
"absurd and impious."
Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration, described Paine's work as
"blasphemous writings against the Christian religion."
John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration and mentor to many other Founders,
said that Paine was "ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy to the
Christian faith."
John Quincy Adams declared that "Mr. Paine has departed altogether from the
principles of the Revolution."
Elias Boudinot, President of Congress, even published the Age of Revelation --
a full-length rebuttal to Paine's work. In a letter to his daughter, Susan,
Boudinot described his motivations for writing that rebuttal:
"I confess that I was much mortified to find the whole force of this vain
man's genius and art pointed at the youth of America. . . . This awful
consequence created some alarm in my mind lest at any future day, you, my
beloved child, might take up this plausible address of infidelity; and for
want of an answer at hand to his subtle insinuations might suffer even a doubt
of the truth, as it is in Jesus, to penetrate your mind. . . . I therefore
determined . . . to put my thoughts on the subject of this pamphlet on paper
for your edification and information, when I shall be no more. I chose to
confine myself to the leading and essential facts of the Gospel which are
contradicted or attempted to be turned into ridicule by this writer. I have
endeavored to detect his falsehoods and misrepresentations and to show his
extreme ignorance of the Divine Scriptures which he makes the subject of his
animadversions -- not knowing that "they are the power of God unto salvation,
to every one that believeth [Romans 1:16]."
Patrick Henry, too, wrote a refutation of Paine's work which he described as
"the puny efforts of Paine." However, after reading Bishop Richard Watson's
Apology for the Bible written against Paine, Henry deemed that work sufficient
and decided not to publish his reply.
When William Paterson, signer of the Constitution and a Justice on the U.S.
Supreme Court, learned that some Americans seemed to agree with Paine's work,
he thundered:
"Infatuated Americans, why renounce your country, your religion, and your God?
Oh shame, where is thy blush? Is this the way to continue independent, and to
render the 4th of July immortal in memory and song?"
Zephaniah Swift, author of America's first law book, warned:
"[W]e cannot sufficiently reprobate the beliefs of Thomas Paine in his attack
on Christianity by publishing his Age of Reason . . . . He has the impudence
and effrontery [shameless boldness] to address to the citizens of the United
States of America a paltry performance which is intended to shake their faith
in the religion of their fathers . . . . No language can describe the
wickedness of the man who will attempt to subvert a religion which is a source
of comfort and consolation to its votaries [devout worshipers] merely for the
purpose of eradicating all sentiments of religion."
John Jay, co-author of the Federalist Papers and the original Chief Justice of
the U.S. Supreme Court, was comforted by the fact that Christianity would
prevail despite Paine's attack:
I have long been of the opinion that the evidence of the truth of Christianity
requires only to be carefully examined to produce conviction in candid minds,
and I think they who undertake that task will derived advantages. . . . As to
The Age of Reason, it never appeared to me to have been written from a
disinterested love of truth or of mankind."
Many other similar writings could be cited, but these are sufficient to show
that Paine's views were strongly rejected even by the least religious
Founders. In fact, Paine's views caused such vehement public opposition that
-- as Franklin predicted -- he spent his last years in New York as "an
outcast" in "social ostracism" and was buried in a farm field because no
American cemetery would accept his remains.
Franklin called himself a "deist," but used the word in a sense quite
different from the way most Americans think of that term today. Noah Webster's
1828 American Dictionary of the English Language shows how "deism" came to be
equated with "infidelity":
DE'ISM, n. [Fr. deisme; Sp. deismo; It. id; from L. deus, God.]
The doctrine or creed of a deist; the belief or system of religious opinions
of those who acknowledge the existence of one God, but deny revelation: or
deism is the belief in natural religion only, or those truths, in doctrine and
practice, which man is to discover by the light of reason, independent and
exclusive of any revelation from God. Hence deism implies infidelity or a
disbelief in the divine origin of the scriptures.
Webster then quotes Patrick Henry, from Wirt's Sketches, to the effect that
"deism . . . is but another name for vice and depravity. . . . " A "deist,"
thus, is one who believes in the existence of a God, but denies revealed
religion: one who professes no form of religion, but follows the light of
nature and reason, as his only guides in doctrine and practice; a freethinker.
Far from disavowing the truths of scriptural revelation, many founders
defended the Bible as the best basis for government:
"Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only
law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there
exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance,
frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow
men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God.... What a Eutopia,
what a Paradise would this region be."
Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813:
"The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the
only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could
Unite....And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general
Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: . . . Now I
will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles
of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes
of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human
Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System."
Deists, also known as "infidels" were under severe legal restrictions in the
years immediately following the ratification of the Constitution. There is
little evidence that the Founding Fathers intended to minimize those
restrictions. Black's Law Dictionary defines an "infidel" as "One who does not
recognize the inspiration or obligation of the Holy Scriptures, or generally
recognized features of the Christian religion. Gibson v. Ins. Co., 37 N.Y.
580." John Adams said that infidelity should be harshly denounced:
"The idea of infidelity cannot be treated with too much resentment or too much
horror. The man who can think of it with patience is a traitor in his heart
and ought to be execrated as one who adds the deepest hypocrisy to the
blackest treason."
The Founders believed that the teaching of Deism and infidelity is ruinous to society:
"I anticipate nothing but suffering to the human race while the present
systems of paganism, deism and atheism prevail in the world."
-Benjamin Rush
"The attempt by the rulers of a nation [France] to destroy all religious
opinion and to pervert a whole people to atheism is a phenomenon of profligacy
[an act of depravity] . . . . [T]o establish atheism on the ruins of
Christianity [is] to deprive mankind of its best consolations and most
animating hopes and to make it a gloomy desert of the universe."
-Alexander Hamilton
"[T]he rising greatness of our country . . . is greatly tarnished by the
general prevalence of deism which, with me, is but another name for vice and
depravity. . . . I hear it is said by the deists that I am one of their
number; and indeed that some good people think I am no Christian. This thought
gives me much more pain than the appellation of Tory, because I think religion
of infinitely higher importance than politics . . . . [B]eing a Christian . .
. is a character which I prize far above all this world has or can boast."
-Patrick Henry
"[I] have a thorough contempt for all men . . . who appear to be the
irreclaimable enemies of religion."
-Samuel Adams
"[T]he most important of all lessons [from the Scripture] is the denunciation
of ruin to every State that rejects the precepts of religion."
-Gouverneur Morris
"[S]hun, as a contagious pestilence . . . those especially whom you perceive
to be infected with the principles of infidelity or [who are] enemies to the
power of religion. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call
him an enemy to his country."
-John Witherspoon
Rick Gardiner
> wondered what it was that the founders had that is lacking today - it's
> DEISM!
>
> Sincerely, Robert L. Johnson
> http://www.deism.com
WRONG!
The bias against the United States of America's Christian roots is evident in
current histories and textbooks. Henry May admits that most historians are
"partisans of the Enlightenment; of liberalism, progress, and rationality".
Invariably they stress the influence of the Enlightenment and make Jefferson,
Paine, and Franklin, the least orthodox of the revolutionary generation,
representative of the era's thought. They either ignore Christianity and
Christian leaders or cast truly Christian leaders as Enlightenment thinkers.
Attempts to correct this bias are met with the sharpest censure.
In reality, the American revolutionaries were part of a culture that was
predominantly Christian and largely Reformed and Calvinistic. Though not all
American leaders would be considered true believers, they were all rooted in a
Christian tradition and steeped in a theistic world-view. The few
representatives of the period who abandoned the Biblical faith were not openly
hostile to the faith at the time. Either they disguised and muted their
theological peculiarities to avoid alarming their constituencies, or became
famous for heterodox positions embraced later in life. Accusations that
Christian leaders, such as John Witherspoon, were deeply influenced and
essentially compromised by the Enlightenment are false.
The United States in the revolutionary period was the beneficiary of a century
and a half of Christian development. Historians often overlook the political
contributions of the Puritans, whose intense Biblical faith produced uniquely
American conceptions of liberty and covenant. The Puritans were champions of
jury trials, broad suffrage, a written bill of rights, and the notions of "no
taxation without representation" and "due process of law" - political ideals
associated with the American Revolution.[2]
Donald Lutz, a Constitutional historian at the University of Houston, argued
that "The Pedigree of the Bill of Rights" could be found in the bills of
rights in colonial charters, primarily authored by ministers. Three-fourths of
the provisions from the U.S. Bill of Rights, in fact, were outlined in the
1641 Massachusetts Body of Liberties, a Puritan document that came complete
with Bible verses attached to each of the rights. (Conference participants
gasped in horror when they realized that for their cherished liberties they
were indebted to the hated Puritans, folks they considered repressive,
religious zealots.) Note that this Biblically-oriented Puritan document was
adopted a half century before the English Glorious Revolution and John Locke's
Second Treatise , the supposed primary influences on the Revolution. Keep this
as a handy fact to shock liberals with: the roots to our Bill of Rights are in
New England Puritanism.[3]
Of course, the Revolutionary generation was not as shocked by public religion
as are people today. Nearly half of the British colonies had been founded by
religious sectarians with explicitly Christian visions for society. Two thirds
of the original thirteen colonies had established state churches at the time
of the Constitutional Convention. Colonies mandated religious test oaths,
requiring that officeholders be theists, Christians, or Trinitarians. After
independence, virtually all the new state charters had references to Almighty
God as the source of power, authority, and legitimacy.[4]
Even in colonies not noted for Reformed convictions Christian influences were
evident. Maryland is an excellent example. Originally founded as a haven for
Roman Catholics by George Calvert, Puritan settlers poured in and launched a
civil war in retaliation for the persecution they received as Protestants. The
matter was settled by the Act of Toleration (1649), the first colonial act to
guarantee religious freedom. To soothe aroused combatants and ensure religious
tranquility, the Act forbade the use of inflammatory terms: "heretick,
Scismatick, Idolator, puritan, Jesuite, papist, ... or any other name or terme
in a reproachfull manner." But the Act left no doubt that the colony was a
"Christian Common Wealth", mandating the forfeiture of property and death for
anyone who would "blaspheme God", "deny our Saviour Jesus Christ to bee the
sonne of God", "deny the holy Trinity", or challenge the "Godhood of any of
the Three persons of the Trinity or the Unity of the Godhead". Strong stuff;
especially for a Toleration Act, especially in a colony not noted for its
religious fervor.[5]
Or consider the case of Virginia. Though perhaps the most secular of the
colonies, the Dominion's laws were still very "puritanical". Virginia had
statutes against gaming with cards and dice, bastardy, adultery (including
requiring offenders to wear the scarlet 'A'), witchcraft, and sodomy (a
capital crime). Blasphemy was also illegal; a 17th century crusade against
"wicked oaths" in Henrico County netted 122 indictments, including one against
a spry-tongued woman for sixty-five separate offenses, and one against a man
eventually imprisoned for "oaths innumerable". Skipping church could bring
serious consequences: fines, corporal punishment, and death. Yes, in the
"secular" colony of Virginia, under Governor Dale, the third offense of
Sabbath-breaking brought the death penalty. A 1705 law, in force for over
eighty years - through the Revolution - enacted stiff penalties, including
disqualification from office, loss of civil liberties, and three years
imprisonment, for denying the existence of God, the Trinity, the Christian
faith, or the divine inspiration of the scriptures.[6]
Nor was the disestablishment of the church in Virginia a purely secular
movement. For Jefferson, it might have been. But the real challenge to the
state church came from evangelical dissenters, who opposed the use of their
taxes to support the aristocracy's stuffy Anglicanism. Patrick Henry, for
example, established a reputation in Virginia in the "Parson's Cause" (1763),
by defending the colony from a preacher suing for additional money. For Henry,
the greedy preacher was not only a "rapascious harpie", but also "unpatriotic"
for appealing to England to overturn the laws of his "country", Virginia.
Recent historians have underscored the evangelical contribution to
disestablish-ment, noting that persistent Baptists "transformed" the Virginia
through their unceasing assault on the state church and the established order.
In short, it was the pressure of committed, if iconoclastic evangelicals that
prompted the celebrated collapse of Virginia's religious establishment, not
the machinations of a few infidels.[7]
Of course, the most visible symbol of America's Christian heritage in the
pre-Revolutionary period was the Great Awakening of the 1740s. The Awakening
revitalized American religion, touching all the colonies and uniting
Christians from diverse denominations. Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield,
and Gilbert Tennent, representing Congregational, Anglican, and Presbyterian
communions, reveal the ecumenical vigor of the movement. For Edwards the
movement had eschatological significance; he believed that the new world,
providentially discovered on the eve of the Reformation, would be the catalyst
of a world-wide revival initiating a millennial age, of which the Great
Awakening was a harbinger.[8]
The Awakening also challenged the liberalism of its day, as revivalists
opposed lukewarm and proto-Unitarian colonial ministers. Gilbert Tennent's
most famous sermon was against the "Unconverted Clergy". Nineteenth century
Presbyterian theologian Charles Hodge, incidentally, argued that the Awakening
had a negative impact on colonial Christianity by encouraging emotionalism,
challenging the church's authority, and undermining its ability to exact
discipline. (Following Hodge, some modern Reconstructionists have criticized
the Awakening for its antinomian and anti-ecclesiastical tendencies. Their
squeals about schism might be taken more seriously if the congregations they
are associated with had not split from their parent church, the pca., and
started little maverick denominations of their own.) In short, while some
Awakening leaders were stubborn and divisive, and perhaps contributed to the
erosion of ecclesiastical authority, they faithfully and vigorously fought the
apostasy of their time.[9]
The Great Awakening also paved the way for the American Revolution through its
emphasis on individualism and democratization. Concerned about established
churches, England's desire to establish an American bishopric, and the
resulting loss of religious liberty, revivalists and their progeny tended to
be deeply suspicious of the mother country. One historian described the
Awakening's socio-political impact on Connecticut as a movement "from Puritan
to Yankee". Leaders of the Awakening were prominent supporters of the
Revolution. It is significant that when American patriots began their invasion
of Canada in 1775, they stopped for prayers at the tomb of George Whitefield,
the great evangelist of the Awakening. It should be stressed that on the eve
of the War for Independence, the American colonies experienced a profound
pan-colonial revival.[10]
The concern for the Bible and Christianity in the Revolutionary era was not
restricted to preachers. Most Americans were firmly grounded in the
scriptures. Requirements for college entrance included the ability to read in
Greek and Hebrew. Quotations from the patriot leaders came more frequently
from the Bible than any other source. In the 1770s, for instance, 44% of all
quotations used by the founders came from Holy Writ, while 20% came from
Whiggish authors, 18% from Enlightenment writers, and 11% from the classics.
M.E. Bradford's A Worthy Company has shown the religious roots of the American
founders. Though expecting to find a large percentage of deists among the
fifty-five members of the Constitutional Constitution, Bradford discovered
that the vast majority were "orthodox members" of established Christian
churches, who sincerely believed they were perpetuating a Christian order.
Most of the churches of the time had Calvinistic roots and Reformed creeds. As
the great American historian George Bancroft put it, John Calvin was the
"father of America". As late as 1839, Alexis de Tocqueville noted that
"America is still the place where the Christian religion has the greatest real
power over men's souls", and that Christianity reigned by "universal consent"
(because people either believed its dogmas or were afraid to appear not
believe them).[11]
In the late 18th century America had a Christian heritage; many colonies had
been established specifically to create a Christian civil order. Its citizens
were self consciously Christian. The nation's leaders universally sought to
establish a Christian code of morality and civic virtue. And finally, the
Awakening had left a legacy of revival, evangelism, and evangelical fervor.
Theories of Christian Resistance
The 'un Christian historians' further charge that the War for Independence was
proof of the Enlightenment's influence. Since Christians are commanded to be
submissive to the civil government, the argument goes, the impetus for the
Revolution had to be unbiblical. If Christians did support the patriotic
movement, it was because they were children of the era's rationalism. As one
of these historians asks: "[D]o we praise American patriots for their defense
of 'natural law' and 'unalienable rights', or condemn them for failing to heed
Paul's injunction in Romans 13 to honor their legitimate rulers?" The only
consistent Christians, according to this theory, were Quaker pacifists and
Anglican loyalists. But this approach ignores a long Christian tradition of
legitimate resistance, articulated well in advance of the Enlightenment. (It
is surprising and disappointing that advocates of the 'un Christian' America
theory have Reformed connections, such as at Calvin College, and should be
better versed in Reformed history.) Christian pietists, modern day
Anabaptists, and evangelical wimps might argue that these theories of
resistance violate the ethic of Christ, but in no way can claim that
resistance to tyranny is an intrinsically rationalistic ideal or was
necessarily spawned by the political philosophy of the Enlightenment.[14]
The Bible records numerous examples of the elect resisting civil government:
Abraham, Moses, Ehud, Jael, David, Obadiah, Daniel, Jesus Christ, Paul, etc.
The idea is best expressed in Acts 5: 29 - "We must obey God, rather than
men". Christian theologians traditionally argued that believers were bound to
submit to political leaders, unless they were compelled into idolatry or
immorality, which would require them to disobey God to whom they owed their
highest allegiance. Calvin said if kings "command anything against Him, let us
not pay the least regard to it..." Calvin, in fact, concluded his Institutes
with the following admonition: "we are redeemed by Christ at the great price
which our redemption cost him, in order that we might not yield a slavish
obedience to the depraved wishes of men, far less do homage to their impiety."
In short, then, the Bible and Protestant theology provided Christians ample
justification for participation in the American War of Independence.[15]
Another factor for Christian participation in the War was the historical
example of resistance. John Adams said that one of the most influential works
of the Revolutionary era was A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants , by Junius
Brutus, a Protestant who experienced bloody religious persecution in 16th
century France. Thoroughly Biblical and Calvinistic in approach, Against
Tyrants directly challenged the presumptions of royal absolutism and the
divine right of kings, arguing that one must not obey the king when his
commands violated God's law, ruined His church, or harmed the nation.[16]
The Scottish covenanting tradition was another religio-historical precedent
for the War of Independence. In 1633, the Scots formed the "Solemn League and
Covenant" to resist English tyranny and the imposition of the Anglicanism in
Scotland. (During the same period of English tyranny Puritans fled to
Massachusetts.) The best example of the covenanter's philosophy of resistance
was Samuel Rutherford's Lex, Rex , which challenged royal power by arguing
that the law was king. Though Rutherford was not often quoted in the colonies,
and the extent of his direct influence is unknown, the ideas of the
covenanters were familiar to colonists. In Common Sense , for instance, in
true Rutherfordian fashion, Thomas Paine insisted that "In America, THE LAW IS
KING". John Witherspoon, a native Scot and a signer of the Declaration of
Independence, frequently invoked the example of the Scottish covenanters
during the Revolution as people who bonded together to resist British tyranny.
For Witherspoon, the Covananter tradition was an horizon for the American
Revolution.[17]
By the time of the War for Independence there was ample Christian theory
justifying resistance to a corrupt and tyrannical king. Jonathan Mayhew's 1750
sermon, "A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission", foreshadowed preaching
on the topic. During the war New England preachers were called the "Black
Regiment" because of the color of their clerical robes and their fervent
support of the Revolutionary cause. Though some have charged them with
politicizing the gospel and preaching up "the sacred cause of liberty", these
ministers were able to distinguish between secular and sacred causes. They did
see political and religious issues as being interrelated, believing that
British political tyranny would eventually destroy religious freedom. As John
Witherspoon put it "there is no instance in history in which civil liberty was
destroyed, and the rights of conscience preserved entire". Yet as my own study
has shown, even at the height of political and civil strife, these ministers
gave the greatest priority to spiritual struggles, the need for salvation, and
eternal destiny of all.[18]
Classical Influence
The legacy of classical antiquity also had a powerful influence on the
American patriots, who were steeped in the literature of Greece and Rome. For
the revolutionary generation, which shared what historian Page Smith has
called the "classical-Christian consciousness", the lessons of antiquity
tended to corroborate and confirm the Christian world view.[19]
Their view of human nature, for example, was rooted in the Biblical idea of
Original Sin and buttressed by generally negative classical notions of human
motives and conduct. These convictions about human depravity led to sometimes
hysterical concerns about corruption in government and a passionate commitment
to cultivating civic virtue. The history of the Roman Republic, especially
when read from the perspective of Machiavelli's "Discourses" or the pessimism
of "Catos' Letters", showed how immorality, licentiousness, and greed
ultimately produced despotism. English Whiggish authors further argued that
man's natural corruption led to self-interest in government and eventual
tyranny. Hence the idea that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts
absolutely. Hence also the constant pleading for limited government, public
morality, and most importantly, 'virtue', ideals outlined in the classics.
Classical texts, then, reinforced both the doctrine of human depravity and the
need for Christian morality in society and society's leaders.
These concerns are clearly seen in the U.S. Constitution. The framers,
following Montesquieu, outlined a network of checks and balances to guarantee
a republican government. Given their fears that politicians would usurp power,
the framers insisted on a division of power to prevent tyranny. The commitment
to a balance of powers and factions, growing from the convictions about human
depravity, was especially keen in James Madison, the "Father of the
Constitution". He learned this from Witherspoon, the leading colonial
Presbyterian, who directed Madison's graduate program at the College of New
Jersey. In short, the classical-Christian consciousness, with its emphasis on
human corruption and the need to insure public virtue, was the foundation for
the colonists' world view and was enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.[20]
Notes
1. Henry May, The Enlightenment in America (N.Y.: Oxford, 1976), p. xii.
Francis Fitzgerald, America Revised: History Schoolbooks in the Twentieth
Century (N.Y.: Vintage, 1980). Though Fitzgerald discusses many revisionists,
there is special antipathy for fundamentalists and creationists.
2. Ralph Barton Perry, Puritanism and Democracy (N.Y.: Harper & Row, 1944) is
a good introduction to this theme.
3. See Charles Hyneman and Donald Lutz, American Political Writing During the
Founding Era, 1760-1805 (Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1983). Unfortunately,
Lutz interprets the 1641 Body of Liberties from a "rights consciousness"
perspective, thus de-emphasizing the Biblical roots of the document.
4. See Pat Brooks, et.al., Freedom or Slavery? (Fletcher, N.C.: New Puritan
Library, 1990), pp. 159-166, for references to God that still remain in the 50
state constitutions.
5. See Avery Craven, et.al., A Documentary History of the American People
(N.Y.: Ginn, 1951), pp. 51-53.
6. Samuel Eliot Morrison, The Oxford History of the American People (N.Y.: New
American Library, 1965), I:136-137. For the text of Dale's Laws, see Jack
Greene, ed., Settlements to Society: 1607-1763 (N.Y.: Norton, 1975), pp.
39-42. For the 1705 law, see Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia
(N.Y.: Norton, [1787] 1972), pp. 158-159.
7. See Rhys Issac, The Transformation of Virginia, 1740-1790 (N.Y.: Norton,
1988).
8. See Jospeh Tracy, The Great Awakening (1843; Banner of Truth, 1976); and
Jonathan Edwards, Some Thoughts Concerning the Present Revival of Religion in
New England (1742), section 2.
9. Charles Hodge, Constitutional History of the Presbyterian Church
(Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1851).
10. For the influence of the Great Awakening, particularly on the Revolution,
see Alan Heimert, Religion and the American Mind From the Great Awakening to
the Revolution (Cambridge: Harvard, 1966). See also Robert Bushman, From
Puritan to Yankee (Cambridge: Harvard, 1967); Ruth Bloch, Visionary Republic.
11. M.E.Bradford, A Worthy Company (Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1982; Reprint
edition, Plymouth Rock Foundation). For a breakdown of the quotations of the
founders and the Bancroft citation, see John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the
Constitution (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), pp. 18,52. See also Lorraine
Boettner's good overview in The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination
(Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1932), pp. 382-399. Even the
Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican Church had Calvinistic leanings. See also
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 2 vol., Ed. J.P. Mayer (Garden
City, N.Y.: Doubleday/Anchor, [1848] 1966), pp. 291-292.
12. See Mark Noll, et. al., The Search for Christian America (Westchester,
Illinois: Crossway Books, 1983), p. 22.
13. For a discussion on civil religion in the South and the region's cultural
Christianity, see Charles Reagan Wilson, Baptized in Blood: The Religion of
the Lost Cause (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1980).
14. Noll, Search for Christian America, p. 20; For other examples of this, see
Mark Noll, Christians in the American Revolution (Washington: Christian
College Consortium, 1977), and Raymond Cowan, "Evangelical Christianity and
the American Revolution", Paper presented at the Mid-America Conference on
History (Fayetteville, Arkansas, 13 September 1986).
15. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV: 32. For an
excellent treatment of this theme, see Gary North, ed., Tactics of Christian
Resistance (Tyler, Texas: Geneva Divinity School, 1983).
16. Junius Brutus, A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants (1689; Edmonton,
Alberta: Still Waters Revival, 1989).
17. Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex (1644; Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle
Publications, 1982); and Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776; Garden City, NJ:
Dolphin, 1960), p.41.
18. John Witherspoon, "A Pastoral Letter From the Synod of New York and
Philadelphia" (June 29, 1775) and "The Dominion of Providence Over the
Passions of Men" (May, 1776). See also Carl Bridenbaugh, Mitre and Sceptre
(Oxford University Press, 1962), and Nathan Hatch, The Sacred Cause of Liberty
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977). For a study of Witherspoon's
thought, see Roger Schultz, "Covenanting in America: The Political Theology of
John Witherspoon", The Journal of Christian Reconstruction 12:1
(1988):179-289. For an excellent anthology of sermons in the era, see Ellis
Sandoz, ed., Political Sermons of the American Founding Era, 1730-1805
(Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1991).
19. Page Smith, The Shaping of America, v.3, A People's History of the Young
Republic (NY: McGraw-Hill, 1980), pp. 19-22.
20. James H. Smylie, "Madison and Witherspoon: Theological Roots of American
Political Thought", The Princeton University Library Chronicle (Spring
1961):118-132.
Rick Gardiner
> wondered what it was that the founders had that is lacking today - it's
> DEISM!
>
> Sincerely, Robert L. Johnson
> http://www.deism.com
WRONG!!
The religion of the European Enlightenment, deism, was very rare in America.
First, it is important to distinguish between 18th century classical deism and
radical deism. Today, deism, or radical deism, is synonymous with a belief
that God made the world and then left. In this view, God is a sort of an
absentee landlord. Or to use the metaphor of a watch, God created the world
like a watch, wound it up, and left it to run without any intervention. But to
even the freest 18th century American thinker, this radical deism would have
seemed strange and extreme. Classical deism, on the other hand, which did have
adherents in colonial America, was more of a "generic theism". It had five
principal ideas: 1) God exists, 2) God created and governs the world, 3) God
should be worshipped, 4) God has moral laws which people are bound to obey,
and 5) there is a future state of reward and punishment. Classical deism was
clearly not atheistic, agnostic, or even "deistic", according to its radical,
modern definition. 18th century American deists saw their religion as a pure,
simple monotheism in the Judeo-Christian tradition - a type of moralistic,
utilitarian Unitarianism.
The critical differences between classical deism and orthodox Christianity
were over the nature of authority, salvation, and Christ. Deists stressed
"general revelation", seeking a "religion within the bounds of reason alone",
and tended to overlook or minimize the special revelation of scripture. Deists
saw Christ as a great and perfect man, but rejected, ignored, or were
"doubtful" about his claim to be the divine son of God. Furthermore, deists
had no concept of salvation and atonement, stressing instead moral duties and
ethical responsibilities. They did not, however, deny the operation of God in
history. It is arguable, in fact, given their stress on how God superintended
the direction of history that classical deists had a keener sense of God's
providence than modern evangelicals. In any event, deism, even in this
moderate form, was rare in 18th century America.
Deism has been a blind spot in American historiography. Some partisans, eager
to show the influence of the European Enlightenment and tuned for
rationalistic arguments, find deists under every rock. Others, writing from a
Christian perspective and looking for radical deists, find nary a one. The
real problem is that people have failed to understand the type of deism
articulated in the colonies. The next section of this essay will examine the
beliefs of three such "classical deists" to explain the parameters of their
world view. To begin, Jefferson, Franklin, and Paine were not Christians and
their views were unBiblical. Yet, their ideas were not as radical as usually
assumed; in fact, they often protested that they were religious and were
Christians. Furthermore, recognizing that the rabble were not as sophisticated
about religious questions, these men were very cautious about publicizing
their ideas. And finally, even their cautious, moderate version of deism was
very rare in the colonies.[26]
Benjamin Franklin
Ben Franklin was an excellent symbol of the American Enlightenment, since the
rustic, provincial philosopher had an international reputation. Franklin was
so popular that when he served as a diplomat during the American Revolution,
the French decorated commemorative items with his chubby visage, including
chamber pots (which Franklin thought was a bit extreme).
In the area of religion, Franklin was a perfect example of a moderate,
classical deist. He confessed that he became a "thorough deist" at an early
age, but resented the labels of infidel and atheist, acquired because of his
"indiscrete disputations". Throughout his life he was dubious of orthodox
dogmas. During a dispute in his Presbyterian church, he opined that "Original
sin was as ridiculous as imputed righteousness". Though he admired the ethical
teachings of the Bible, he refused to accept the inspiration of the Old
Testament, because of the "abominably wicked and detestable action of Jael".
He tried, probably without much success, to comfort his mother and persuade
her that his soul was eternally safe when she became frantic about her sons'
flirtations with Arianism and Arminianism. But Franklin eventually tired of
deism for pragmatic reasons, saying "I began to suspect that this doctrine,
though it might be true, was not very useful".[27]
Franklin was very cautious about his beliefs, skirting around sensitive
religious issues to avoid trouble, which is a good indicator of public
religious sensibilities in America. One must read Franklin carefully, because
he systematically tried to avoid the impression of heresy. Franklin began his
Autobiography by giving thanks to "God's providence" in the following fashion:
"I attribute the mentioned happiness of my past life to his divine providence,
which led me to the means I used and gave the success". It is unclear whether
Franklin is sincerely thanking God for his success or is lauding his own
diligence. Franklin's Autobiography concluded with a letter home after a 1757
voyage to England. Upon arrival, passengers immediately went to church and
"with hearts full of gratitude returned sincere thanks to God for the mercies
we had received". But it is not certain that he shared these sincere thanks.
As a non-Catholic, he wouldn't vow to build a chapel, and, if inclined to vow
at all, Franklin said he would build a lighthouse. One wonders if Franklin was
most thankful for God's mercies or the ship captain's navigational skill.
Franklin's ambiguous relationship with established religion is seen in his
career as a Pennsylvania officeholder. The colony required all civil officials
to take a Trinitarian oath, guaranteeing, at least in theory, godly
leadership. Here is the oath Franklin took: "I.... solemnly and sincerely
profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ his Eternal Son, the true
God, and the Holy Spirit, one God, blessed forevermore." Civil officials also
swore that the Holy Scriptures were written "by divine inspiration". Clearly,
Franklin was not completely candid in taking this oath. (In 1776, he led the
movement to modify the oath to refer only to the existence of God and the
authority of the Bible.) Yet, at the same time, Trinitarian orthodoxy was not
so repugnant to him as to preclude governmental service. There is a lesson
here, too, for enthusiasts of modern religious oaths, who believe that these
test oaths will secure a righteous republic. They didn't work in the past. And
we might ask of evangelicals, who see Franklin's squeamishness about test
oaths as a sign of apostasy, how many would be willing to support even
Franklin's simple vow about God and the Bible as a civic test oath?[28]
But Franklin also felt that religion was important and insisted that he had
always possessed religious principles. While he rarely attended divine
services, either because he studied on Sundays, or disliked the preaching, or
was angry that the congregation ran off a favorite minister, Franklin
faithfully supported the Presbyterian church in town. He had an intense Yankee
moralism that was reminiscent of the Puritans. Indeed, he praised Cotton
Mather's Essays to do Good as one of the most influential works he had read.
During one intensely moralistic phase, he kept a notebook to chart progress in
his personal life, revolving around virtues such as temperance, silence,
order, resolution, frugality, industry, sincerity, justice, moderation,
cleanliness, tranquility, chastity, and humility, hoping to attain moral
perfection, though he discovered that this was a more "arduous" task than
anticipated. Though he did not see the Bible as authoritative, Franklin
believed it was useful and contained solid advice. Franklin's writings,
especially Poor Richard's Almanac , often sound like devotional literature
because they are filled with scriptural quotations and allusions, usually from
the Proverbs.[29]
Franklin's moralistic commitments were especially strong in the area of public
ethics and virtue. According to Franklin, "You can not legislate morality, but
you must regulate behavior". People who use the first half of the quote to
deny the civil government's ability to maintain public standards of morality
have unwittingly perverted Franklin's sense. Franklin echoed the convictions
of the Revolutionary generation that virtue was imperative for the success of
the new country. Reportedly asked about what was the best form of government,
he responded, "A republic, if you can keep it", revealing his fear that
corruption and immorality might eventually destroy a nation.
Concerned about civic virtue, Franklin often supported public expressions of
religion to strengthen society. He proposed a public fast day in New York "to
promote reformation and implore the blessing of Heaven on our undertaking".
While such a petition for God's favor would embarrass evangelicals today,
during the Revolution it was supported by the young nation's most famous
freethinker. Franklin was also a friend to George Whitefield, published his
material, gave him favorable press coverage during the Great Awakening, and
seemed sympathetic with the evangelist's aims, particularly as they tended to
improve the public moral climate. Franklin even outlined a way of increasing
the chapel attendance in the local militia. When the militia chaplain, a
"zealous Presbyterian", complained that soldiers were more prompt in receiving
rum rations than in attending church, Franklin suggested the chaplain
distribute the refreshments after prayers. Franklin noted that the chaplain
liked the idea and undertook the task, and that "never were prayers more
generally and punctually attended".[30]
What Franklin disliked about religion was its dogma and sectarianism. Though
"religiously educated as Presbyterian", Franklin said that "some of the dogmas
of the persuasion, such as the eternal decrees of God, election, reprobation,
etc., appeared to me unin-telligible, others doubtful..." He complained that
the end of preaching was "to make us good Presbyterians rather than good
citizens ". Later, as a member of the Anglican church, Franklin deleted
theological material from the prayerbook. His Revised Prayerbook dropped
everything from the catechism except the duty to honor God and serve man, and
purged from the Psalter all imprecatory psalms. Franklin omitted all
potentially divisive doctrinal material since he believed that the differences
of denominations only served "to divide us".[31]
Franklin developed his own religious creed, including the doctrines he
believed were central to all religions. He expressed it simply as:
That there is one God, who made all things. That he governs the world by his
providence. That he ought to be worshipped by adoration, prayer, and
thanksgiving. But that the most acceptable service to God is doing good to
man. That the soul is immortal. And that God will certainly reward virtue and
punish vice, either here or hereafter.[32]
These tenets are the essence of classical deism. They closely paralleled the
doctrines of Freemasonry, an organization to which Franklin belonged, and
nascent American Unitarianism. While Franklin's creed is not orthodox, it is
strongly theistic. It is, in fact, very similar to the mainstream liberalism
of 20th century American Christianity.
Notice how this creed differs from the radical deism which is often attributed
to Franklin. Franklin clearly believed in God's providence, the existence of
heaven and hell, and the possibility of God's blessing and retribution in the
present life. Franklin's idea of providence bears further consideration,
especially since he believed that prayer was a human duty. In his private
religious devotions, Franklin said that since God was "the fountain of
wisdom", he thought it was "right and necessary to ask God's assistance for
attaining it". He was disturbed by Thomas Paine's religious heresies, telling
Paine that a belief in "particular providence" was essential to religion. And
at the Constitutional Convention, Franklin sought prayers for God's blessing
on the new nation, arguing that "if a sparrow cannot fall without God's
notice, a nation cannot rise without his assistance".[33]
Franklin maintained this theology until the end of his life. In response to a
question six weeks before his death, Franklin repeated his old creed, focusing
on the familiar themes of one Creator God, his providential governance of the
world, the obligation to worship him and do good to his children, the
immortality of the soul, and the future life. He also added his view of Jesus
of Nazareth, whose religion and system of morals were "the best the world ever
saw", but of whose divinity Franklin had "some doubts". But on Christ's deity
he quickly added - and this is vintage Franklin - that "it is a question I do
not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy
myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth
with less trouble". He believed there was "no harm" in the doctrine,
especially if it made Christ's doctrines "more respected and more observed".
Franklin concluded that, "having experienced the goodness of that Being in
conducting me prosperously through a long life, I have no doubt of its
continuance in the next, though with the smallest conceit of meriting such
goodness".[34]
In conclusion, while Franklin was not a orthodox Christian, neither was he a
radical deist. According to current definitions Franklin might easily be
considered a conservative activist because he believed in God's providential
involvement in human affairs and the need for public morality and religious
observances. It is hard to imagine Franklin being enthusiastic about current
National Endowment for the Arts projects or the types of public expression
made famous by the Kitty Kat Lounge. If we are looking for symbols of the
liberal, secularized Enlightenment in America, we must look elsewhere.
Thomas Paine
The most notorious infidel during the Revolutionary period was Thomas Paine.
Contemporaries saw Paine as an odious creature, infamous for his drunkenness,
bankruptcy, scandalous moral behavior, and strange beliefs. Though an icon for
future libertines, Paine had only limited influence on the early revolutionary
movement, and the influence he did have, through Common Sense , was not of a
radical nature. Paine was a latecomer to the colonies, not arriving til
November, 1774, after the First Continental Congress convened, and thus had no
influence on the early colonial resistance movement. Furthermore, Paine's
radical phase came in the 1790s, long after the American Revolution. In the
interim he traveled to France, joined its Revolution, proclaimed himself a
"citizen of the world", and picked up additional nutty, radical ideas. (He
became interested in Freemasonry, for instance, believing it embodied the sun
worship of ancient Druidism and could be an occult alternative to
Christianity.) When the French Revolution turned nasty, Paine returned to the
safety of the United States to propagate his kookery. But such ideas were
absent from Paine's Common Sense (1776), an anonymously published pamphlet
which largely owed its popularity to its Biblical orientation.[35]
No Revolutionary period work is better known than Common Sense , the 1776
pamphlet that helped push colonists from resisting Great Britain to
independence. What is often forgotten is that Common Sense is full of Biblical
quotations and allusions and urged colonists to oppose monarchy because it was
unscriptural. Noting that Gideon refused Israel's crown, Paine charged the
king-coveting Hebrews with "disaffection to their proper Sovereign, the King
of heaven". Turning to the institution of the Hebrew monarchy in I Samuel 8,
Paine quoted the entire chapter with its warning about the inevitable tyranny
of monarchy and statist government. Then he commented: "These portions of
scripture are direct and positive. They admit of no equivocal construction.
That the Almighty hath here entered his protest against monarchial government,
is true, or the scripture is false". It is doubtful that any evangelical would
so strongly argue that the Bible addresses the nature of government.[36]
Paine used the same Biblical and religious terminology in calling for an early
American constitution. Of this charter Paine said : "let it be brought forth
and placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon,
by which the world may know, that so far we approve of monarchy, that in
America, THE LAW IS KING". Paine explicitly notes the divine origin of law,
and implicitly refers to Rutherford's great work. Again, it is difficult to
imagine a politician using such religious language today.[37]
Paine's early works included many religious allusions. American independence
was made possible, Paine argued, because of God's unique providence, seen in
the discovery of the new world at the time of the Reformation and the distance
from the mother country which allowed for political autonomy. In the early
numbers of the Crisis , Paine employed religious language in virtually every
paragraph. He explained, for example, that "I am as confident, as I am that
GOD governs the world, that America will never be happy til she gets free of
foreign domination".[38]
It is possible that Paine was not entirely honest about his religious
convictions in these passages. But even so, his constant use of Biblical
motifs suggests that colonists were responsive to that type of argument. If
Common Sense 's religious language does not reveal the true nature of Paine's
beliefs, it does reveal a great deal about the intellectual climate in
America. Common Sense was successful, in part, because Christians found it
persuasive. It is noteworthy that the most influential work of America's most
notorious infidel has a strong religious tone.
And even then, Christian clergymen were perceptive enough to recognize that
the author of Common Sense was not wholly orthodox. They complained about
Paine's naīve concept of human goodness and his distasteful comparison of
original sin and hereditary monarchy. Though a proponent of independence
himself, John Witherspoon sharply criticized the anonymous author's weak
conception on human depravity.
Thomas Jefferson
As a revolutionary leader, primary author of the Declaration of Independence,
U.S. president, and planter-philosopher, Thomas Jefferson was the era's most
famous freethinker and an icon of the American Enlightenment. Those
denigrating the Christian influence in American history inevitably raise up
the Virginia slaveholder and his neutered Bible with miracles and the
supernatural expunged as an examples of the liberal and secular bent of the
American mind. But the extent and influence of Jefferson's religious views
have been overemphasized. To begin with, Jefferson believed in God, claimed to
take the teachings of Jesus seriously, and considered himself a Christian.
While his beliefs were not orthodox, they were very similar to Franklin's
moralistic theism and the Unitarianism emerging in the 19th century. Further,
Jefferson was a very prudent infidel, revealing the heterodox notions
developed later in life only in private correspondence to trusted friends, and
then only after they were made fashionable by the Unitarian movement.
Jefferson's reluctance to reveal his true heretical views is a good barometer
of American religious convictions at the time.
Jefferson's most famous work, the Declaration of Independence, was filled with
religious imagery. Gary Amos's recent Defending the Declaration clearly shows
the Judeo-Christian orientation of the Declaration. Terms like Creator, God,
Providence, self-evident truths, and Supreme Judge had specific religious
connotations. A deist could use such language, but so could orthodox
Christians. While the language of the Declaration was broad, it was
intentionally theistic. Though scholars might dispute Jefferson's intentions
and the etymology of the legal and political terms employed in the
Declaration, the references to God and appeals to divine standards in the
document are inescapable. Such language today, appearing in a valedictorian's
address, would undoubtedly prompt an outcry from the ACLU.[40]
Most neglected about Jefferson's religious views is that he considered himself
a Christian. Indeed, he believed that he alone practiced a pure form of the
Christianity. His religious ideas were summed up in "A Syllabus of the
Doctrines of Jesus", in 1803, a privately circulated manuscript designed to
correct "libels" against him. Jefferson said of his religious views:
They are the result of a life of inquiry & reflection, and very different from
the anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my
opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to
the genuine precepts of Jesus himself; I am a Christian, in the only sense he
wished any to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all
others; ascribing to him every human excellence; & believing he never claimed
any other.[41]
Note Jefferson's insistence that he was a true follower of Christ, and that
his reputation for infidelity had been manufactured by detractors.
His main argument in the "Syllabus" was with the Bible and ecclesiastical
tradition, which had distorted the teachings of Jesus. According to Jefferson,
traditions about Jesus were written down long after the events by "the most
unlettered and ignorant men". Established religions then transmitted the
ideals of Jesus in a "mutilated, misstated, and often unintelligible" form,
and "schismatizing" clerics further corrupted, perverted, and disfigured the
simple ethic of Jesus by grafting them into "mysticisms of a Grecian sophist".
All this sounds like the standard liberal jargon disseminated by mainline
denominational seminaries.
Jefferson's greatest invective was leveled at the systematic Biblical theology
of Calvinism. In an 1813 letter to John Adams, he said of Calvin:
He was indeed an atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was
dæmonism. If ever a man worshipped a false God, he did. The God described in
his five points [sic] is not the God whom you acknowledge and adore, the
Creator and benevolent Governor of the world, but a dæmon or malignant
spirit.[42]
In Jefferson's view, then, Calvinism, and probably most of orthodox
Christianity, was a perversion of the true religion of Christ and a false,
demonic religious system. (This hostility to Calvin is not restricted to
professed deists. John Wesley would probably have concurred with Jefferson.)
In short, Jefferson claimed that he was a true follower of Jesus, whose
teachings were misrepresented in the Bible and the traditional doctrines of
the established church.
Jefferson described his religion as deism: he called himself a Deist, and said
he wanted to encourage a "pure deism", defining it as "pure monotheism". He
said of the Jews that "their system was Deism; that is the belief of one only
God". He prudently avoided questions of the divinity of Christ and the
inspiration of the Bible, insisting that they did not interest him, trying to
avoid the central rub between deism and Christianity. In almost every
instance, certainly in public pronouncements, Jefferson tended to stress the
common ground he had with Christians by stressing the existence of God, his
governance of the world, and the need to honor him.
His exuberant use of religious language is apparent in the 1786 "Act for
Establishing Religious Freedom", the act disestablishing the Anglican church
in Virginia, which Jefferson considered one of his greatest contributions. The
first sentence of the Act has four specific references to God (Almighty God,
the Lord, the Holy Author of our faith, etc.) In public documents, even those
with the reputation for being hostile to Christianity, Jefferson
self-consciously used religious terms to maintain common ground with the
evangelical dissenters who were his allies.[43]
Though Jefferson despised traditional theology and opposed the established
church, he strongly emphasized the need for Christian morality in private and
public behavior. In the 1803 "Syllabus" Jefferson described Christ's moral
system the "most eloquent and sublime" ever taught. Or as he told Adams in
1817, true religion was constituted by the "sublime doctrines of
philanthropism and deism taught us by Jesus of Nazareth, in which we all
agree". The whole purpose of the New Testament was to "reform ...moral
doctrines" and to "inculcate the belief of a future state". Though it is not
part of Jefferson's standard persona, he believed the doctrine of the future
life was a major contribution of Jesus and was essential for encouraging
morality; in other words, it was important to teach about heaven and hell to
get people to behave themselves.[44]
Finally, it must reemphasized that Jefferson was secretive about his beliefs.
His 1803 "Syllabus" was privately circulated to a three or four close friends,
with careful instructions not to reveal the contents. Jefferson told one: "he
could make any use of it his discretion would approve, confident as Th: J. is
that his discretion would not permit him to let it be copied lest it should
get into print". In other words, this was not for public consumption.
(Jefferson was afraid that "every priest" in the land would attack the
syllabus if it leaked out.) Jefferson sent the "Syllabus" to another friend
with this warning: "Th:J. would thank Mr.L. not to put his name on the paper
in filing it away, lest in case of accident to Mr.L. it should get out."
Jefferson's reticence about the Syllabus is a good indication of the Christian
temper of the American mind and the type of public backlash he could expect if
his deist notions became public.[45]
Jefferson at least partially succeeded in disguising his beliefs. While some
Christians bitterly attacked him during the election of 1800, some likening
him to the Antichrist, others came to his defense, arguing that enemies had
trumped up stories of Jefferson's infidelity. Tunis Wortman, for instance,
argued that one attack on Jefferson was "a base and ridiculous falsehood" and
dedicated his "A Solemn Address to Christians and Patriots" to the ninth
commandment. Arguing that "we have every reason to believe him (Jefferson), in
sincerity, a christian", Wortman claimed that the charge of deism was "false,
scandalous, and malicious" and that there was not a single passage in
Jefferson's writings "repugnant to christianity, but on the contrary, in every
respect, favourable to it".[46]
In conclusion, the most famous infidels in the Revolutionary generation,
Franklin, Paine, and Jefferson, were ambiguous representatives of the
Enlightenment. While not true, orthodox Christians, they believed in God and
God's providential governance of the world, stressed the need for Christian
morality, defined themselves as Christians, showing the greatest respect for
Jesus and his teachings, and filled their works with religious terminology and
allusions. Knowing the orthodox religious climate in America, they
intentionally disguised and under communicated their heretical opinions. And
these heterodox views evolved late, after the American Revolution. And even
then, they felt constrained to reveal those views privately to trusted
friends. The writings of these leaders do not substantiate a wide influence of
the radical Enlightenment in America.
John Witherspoon
Originally a native of Scotland and a Presbyterian minister, Witherspoon came
to America to assume the presidency of the what is now Princeton, became a
resistance leader in New Jersey and a member of Congress, and was a signer of
the Declaration of Independence, the only clergyman to do so. According to a
probably apocryphal legend, Witherspoon delivered the critical
pro-independence speech at the Continental Congress, after a mud-soaked,
all-night ride to Philadelphia. His contemporaries did not overlook his
efforts in behalf of the revolutionary cause, especially since many of them
considered Scots troublemakers and viewed the Revolution as a "Presbyterian
Rebellion". At the start of the revolution, Horace Walpole opined that "Cousin
America has run off with a Presbyterian parson". Adam Ferguson, secretary of
the British Peace Commission to America in 1778, charged that Witherspoon was
at the "head" of the rebellion (Witherspoon was on the Continental Congress
committee to evaluate the British proposal), but hoped that if proper measures
were taken "we should reduce Johnny Witherspoon to the small support of
Franklin, Adams, and two or three of the most abandoned villians in the world,
but I tremble at the thought of their cunning and determination against us".
Even the first French foreign minister to the United States saw Witherspoon as
the "soul of his party" in Congress.[47]
In addition to his personal contribution to the Independence movement,
Witherspoon deeply influenced the direction of the early republic as an
educator. His graduates from Princeton included the following: a president of
the United States, a vice- president, ten cabinet members, six members of the
Continental Congress, 39 U.S. representatives, 21 U.S. senators, 12 governors,
56 state legislators, 30 judges, three U.S. Supreme Court judges, and six
members of the Constitutional Convention. A number of his students became
educators, particularly in the South, of which 13 were college presidents,
including founding presidents of seven colleges. And many Princeton graduates
became ministers. Of the 188 ministers on the General Assembly roster in 1789,
52 had studied under Witherspoon.[48]
Despite a stellar transatlantic ecclesiastical and political career, John
Witherspoon is one of the most neglected of the Revolutionary leaders. What
attention he does receive is usually unflattering. Liberal historians often
depict him as a stuffy, straightlaced parson. And now, Christian historians
are attacking Witherspoon. "Un Christian America" historians, through either
sloppy scholarship or deliberate misrepresentation, allege that Witherspoon
was shaped by the Enlightenment and was hyper-patriotic, subordinating
religious values to political goals. Borrowing from these neo-evangelicals as
well as liberal Presbyterian historians, Gary North calls Witherspoon an
apostle of "Apostate Covenantalism", who signed a two hundred year "jail
sentence for the American church" as a "covenantal agent for the Whig-Patriot
churches". While other historians charitably allow that Witherspoon was
ignorant of the way the Enlightenment compromised his Christianity, North
charges he deliberately conspired to create an apostate, pluralistic,
Mason-dominated religious and civil order.[49]
The problem with these contemporary accounts is that they neglect
Witherspoon's formative Scottish career, which is the key to understanding his
thought. Witherspoon's forged his basic political commitments as leader of the
Popular Party, a evangelical group contesting the dominance of the Church of
Scotland by the liberal Moderate Party. Witherspoon was committed to basic
democratic ideals, since he and his party insisted that the people of a parish
must vote on the calling of ministers, rather than allowing the parish's
patron and ancient heritor alone to make the decision. Since he was fighting
against what he described as "ecclesiastical tyranny", Witherspoon also
emphasized the "freedom of conscience", arguing that the church's liberal
bureaucracy could not compel ministers to do what they believed was wrong, as
in ordaining or installing ministers to whom the people of a parish objected.
In short, the stands Witherspoon took on freedom of conscience and the
oppressive nature of tyranny during the Revolution evolved from the
ecclesiastical struggles of the Popular-Moderate controversy in Scotland.[50]
The controversy also crystallized Witherspoon's orthodox convictions and
forced him to challenge the growing liberalism of the church. The best example
of his confrontational approach to the "enlightened" wing of the church is his
Ecclesiastical Characteristics , a superb piece of satire on the order of C.S.
Lewis' Screwtape Letters . In the Ecclesiastical Characteristics , a Moderate
leader gives advice to a fledgling minister on how to be a good liberal
through a series of maxims. The first maxim says that all suspected heretics
"are to be esteemed men of great genius, vast learning, and uncommon worth;
and are ... to be supported and protected". Witherspoon's second
tongue-in-cheek maxim is that the actions of the loose and immoral should be
described as "good humored vices". The true moderate man, according to maxim
three, must speak of the Confession of Faith "with a sneer; to give sly hints,
that he does not thoroughly believe it; and to make the word orthodox a term
of contempt and reproach". In other maxims, the moderate preacher is told to
quote pagan authors, not scripture, use "rational considerations" in sermons,
have "great charity" for Atheists and Deists, and to despise all learning but
the system of Leibnitz and Shaftesbury, which has been so well licked into
form and method by the late Mr. H__n". The Moderate Party, incidentally,
included Francis Hutcheson, Thomas Reed, and other representatives of the
Common Sense Philosophy which was supposed to have influenced Witherspoon. In
the Moderate controversy, then, Witherspoon clearly attacked the rationalism
of the Enlightenment.[51]
Witherspoon's sermons show that he was thoroughly orthodox and evangelical.
His communion sermons always had evangelistic appeals for people to be "born
again" and experience a saving faith. He vigorously endorsed and propagated
the Reformed faith, which for Witherspoon included postmillennial expectations
of the triumph of Christ's kingdom and the idea of national blessing and
cursing from God's hand.[52]
Witherspoon did use reason, but only in apologetic sense of appealing to
general revelation. Referring to scripture as the "unerring standard",
Witherspoon stressed: "Let not human understanding be put in the balance with
divine wisdom." Reason, always subordinate to the Word of God, had value in
corroborating the Bible and in "inducing men to believe the other truths in
scripture". As Witherspoon in one sermon:
If the testimony of God in scripture is to be rested on, this one passage is
sufficient; but the unbelieving heart is ready to challenge and call into
question every such scripture declaration. Therefore, I shall, first, briefly
lay before you some of the scripture declaration on this subject; and
secondly, confirm them from experience, the visible standard of the world, and
the testimony of our own hearts.[53]
And Witherspoon did attack Enlightenment philosophers, including
representatives of Scottish Realism, of which Witherspoon is alleged to be an
unwavering disciple. He warned against mixing philosophy and the gospel, and
was very critical of "nominal Christians" who "disguise or alter the gospel in
order to defend it". As he explained in one sermon:
Hence the unnatural mixture often seen of modern philosophy with ancient
Christianity. Hence the fundamental doctrines of the gospel are softened,
concealed, or denied; as, the lost and guilty state of man by nature, his
liableness to everlasting misery, and the ransom which was paid by our
Redeemer when he died on the cross.[54]
Witherspoon, selected as Princeton's president precisely because of his
evangelical enthusiasm, maintained these orthodox commitments throughout his
career in America. He was not guilty, as some have charged, of subordinating
the gospel to political activity or fashioning a new gospel of "the sacred
cause of liberty". In all of his political sermons, delivered before, during,
and after the conflict, Witherspoon stressed that the patriot's greatest
concern should be his soul's salvation. Political concerns, the revolutionary
cause, and nation's destiny, though important, were of little consequence
compared to the individual's eternal destiny.[55]
Nor is the charge accurate that Witherspoon was a hyper-nationalist who
confused political and religious issues. Witherspoon did believe that America
was unique and had been uniquely blessed by God because of its strong
religious heritage. But he developed and articulated this idea of American
exceptionalism while still in Scotland, long before he came to America. This
notion, right or wrong, was not a product of the Independence movement.
Furthermore, Witherspoon believed that political and religious issues were
intertwined and inseparable. Since there was no instance in history where
"civil liberty was lost and religious liberty preserved entire", he argued,
"if we yield up our temporal property, we at the same time deliver the
conscience into bondage". Like many Americans, Witherspoon feared the
expansion of the Anglican establishment, and those fears were exacerbated by
his Scottish heritage. In his sermons during the War for Independence, he
reminded listeners of the Scottish covenanters and Oliver Cromwell, Christians
who resisted English political and religious tyranny in their own day. Though
he was a "true son of liberty", as John Adams put it, Witherspoon's ultimate
reasons for resisting the crown were not Whiggish, but inherently
religious.[56]
Witherspoon's reputation as an apostle of the American Enlightenment arises
from his Lectures in Moral Philosophy , an influential set of lectures dealing
with ethics, epistemology, and political philosophy. Witherspoon compiled the
lectures shortly after arriving in America, and delivered them in essentially
unaltered form to each year's senior class for the rest of his teaching
career. It is often the only work cited by historians, who ignore his other,
voluminous writings. And it is one work Witherspoon refused to publish,
believing it was poorly written and organized. There is something strange
about outlining a person's philosophy from a work he did not want in print,
and it is questionable how representative the "Lectures" were of Witherspoon's
thought.[57]
By misconstruing his intent in the "Lectures", arguing that since he uses
rational arguments and quotes little scripture, Witherspoon had become a
follower of the Enlightenment, historians have misread Witherspoon's basic
philosophy. They fail to realize that in talking about natural philosophy or
general revelation, for apologetic reasons, Witherspoon was not abandoning the
authority of scripture or Christian orthodoxy. This does not mean that
Witherspoon was unaffected by his age - he did use the philosophy of Scottish
Realism to combat the radical Enlightenment. But no honest historian can claim
that Witherspoon was an Enlightenment enthusiast or the apostle of "Apostate
Covenantalism".
In short, Witherspoon is an excellent example of a Christian in the
Revolutionary period. His career was built upon defending the faith once
delivered, both by stressing evangelism and combating liberalism in the
church. He was an excellent example of the Reformed faith, true to the
confessional standards of the church, stressing God's providential movement in
history, confident in the ultimate triumph of the cause of Christ and the
gospel. His activity in the American Revolution provides a solid model of how
a devout Christian balances concerns about the salvation of souls, the
security and freedom of the church, and the temporal freedoms guaranteed
American citizens. Let us hope that contemporary Christians will become more
familiar with this Christian patriot, from his own writings and responsible
biographies, and not through the jaundiced interpretations of Witherspoon's
current detractors.
During the twentieth century, historians have increasingly minimized the
influence of Christianity on the War for American Independence. Sometimes it
is accidental, sometimes intentional. The historian who used Jefferson's 1822
quote about the "delirium" of Christian dogma still uses that quote to prove
the influence of the Enlightenment on the Revolutionary generation to his
classes. Apparently constrained by neither fear of exposure nor canons of
objectivity, he still catechizes youngsters with his celebration of infidels.
Unfortunately, Christian students must not only beware of these modern-day
infidels, which is to be expected, but also of neo-evangelical historians,
who, anxious to pronounce the shibboleths of the liberal university,
perpetuate its myths. Perhaps, someday, a truly Christian historian will
explain the Revolution the way Witherspoon did at the time, as an example of
"The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men".
--
21. See Henry May, The Enlightenment in America (NY: Oxford, 1976).
22. Gordon Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787 (NY: Norton,
1969), pp. 10-12. For an excellent treatment of America's conservative
tradition, see Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order (La Salle, Illinois:
Open Court, 1974).
23. George Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), p. 118.
24. Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967), pp.28-30.
25. Gary North, Political Polytheism (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian
Economics, 1989), pp. 402-3.
26. John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Baker, 1987), p. 228. Though Jefferson called himself a deist, Eidsmoe says of
Jefferson work: "These are not the words of a deist. Nor would a deist speak
of submission to God and thankfulness to God the way Jefferson did." Eidsmoe
correctly argues that Jefferson was not a radical deist, but fails to note the
different nuances of deism.
27. Paul Ford, The Many Sided Franklin (N.Y.: Century Co., 1915), pp. 131-176.
28. Ibid, pp. 147-150.
29. Cotton Mather, Bonifacius: An Essay Upon the Good (Cambridge: Harvard,
1966), pp. viii-ix; and Benjamin Franklin, Autobiography (N.p.: Spenser
Publishing, n.d.), chapter 6. For an example of the thoroughly orthodox
religious literature Franklin printed, see John Thompson, The Poor Orphan's
Legacy (1733). My thanks to Dan Witcher for introducing me to this work by his
great.... grandfather.
30. Franklin, Autobiography, p. 196 and chapter 7. See also Eidsmoe,
Christianity and the Constitution, p 205. Franklin's Gazette gave very
favorable coverage of Whitefield's revival, with six times as much friendly
treatment as other papers.
31. Franklin, Autobiography, chap 7, and Ford, The Many Sided Franklin,
pp.163-164.
32. Franklin, Autobiography, p. 119.
33. Ford, The Many Sided Franklin, pp. 174-175.
34. Ibid., pp. 164-167.
35. James Billington, Fire in the Minds of Men (NY: Basic Books, 1980), p.
103.
36. Thomas Paine, Common Sense (Garden City, N.Y.: Dolphin/ Doubleday, [1976]
1960), pp. 20-22. For more nonsense on Paine, see Marsden, Understanding
Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, p. 131.
37. Ibid., p. 41.
38. Thomas Paine, The Crisis (Garden City, N.Y.: Dolphin/ Doubleday, [1776]
1960), p. 73.
39. John Witherspoon, "The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men",
in Political Sermons of the American Founding Era, Ed. Ellis Sandoz, p. 539.
40. See Gary Amos, Defending the Declaration, (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth &
Hyatt, 1989).
41. Thomas Jefferson, "A Syllabus of the Doctrines of Jesus", The Writings of
Thomas Jefferson, Ed. Paul L. Ford (N.Y.: G.P. Putnams, 1897), III:223-228.
42. Gilbert Chinard, Thomas Jefferson: Apostle of Americanism (Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Paperbacks, 1957), pp.522-523.
43. Thomas Jefferson, "An Act for the Establishment of Religious Freedom
(1786)", in Notes on the State of Virginia (N.Y.: Norton, 1982), pp
223-225.That first sentence is a whopper, running some 57 lines; theological
terminology is in the first few lines. See also Chinard, pp. 100-105.
44. Chinard, Thomas Jefferson, pp. 522-523.
45. Jefferson, "A Syllabus", p.226n.
46. Tunis Wortman, "A Solemn Address to Christians and Patriots", in Political
Sermons of the American Founding Era, Ed. Ellis Sandoz, p. 1483.
47. Varnum Lansing Collins, President Witherspoon, 2v. (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1925), II:35-37; and James Smylie, "Introduction" Journal of
Presbyterian History 54 (Spring 1976): 5. See also Boettner, Reformed Doctrine
of Predestination, p. 383. Boettner incorrectly states that Horace Walpole was
the prime minister (his father had been), though Walpole maintained an active
correspondence about the war. See "Letters of Horace Walpole", in The American
Revolution Through British Eyes, eds. Martin Kallich and Andrew MacLiesh
(N.Y.: Harper and Row, 1962), pp.146-155.
48. Collins, President Witherspoon, II: 223, 229; Collins, Princeton (N.Y.:
Oxford, 1914), p. 46; and Gary North, Political Polytheism, pp. 317-320. North
makes a big deal of Witherspoon's influence on the General Assembly of the
Presbyterian Church, but the numbers are deceiving. The percentages of G.A.
delegates that were Witherspoon students are as follows: 1789 (13%), 1790
(26%); 1791 (44%), 1792 (22%).
49. For a neo-evangelical look at Witherspoon, see Mark Noll, Christians in
the American Revolution, and Noll, et.al., The Search for a Christian America.
See also North, Political Polytheism, pp.318-319, 409. For a liberal's view of
Witherspoon, see Willard Randall, A Little Revenge (Boston: Little, Brown and
Company, 1984). Randall is clearly miffed that Witherspoon referred to William
Franklin, New Jersey's royal governor and Benjamin Franklin's illegitimate
son, as a "base-born bastard". For a balanced consideration of Witherspoon's
ideas, see Rousas Rushdoony, This Independent Republic (Fairfax, Virginia:
Thoburn, 1978), p. 3.
50. Gordon Talt, "John Witherspoon: The Making of a Patriot", The Ohio Journal
of Religious Studies 4 (October,1976) :54-63; Margaret Stohlman, John
Witherspoon (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), p. 99; Ralph Ketcham, "John
Madison at Princeton", p. 40; Wayne Witte, "John Witherspoon: Servant of
Liberty - A Study in Doctrinal and Political Calvinism" (Th.D. thesis,
Princeton Theological Seminary, 1954); and George Rich, "John Witherspoon: His
Scottish Intellectual Background" (Ph.D. dissertation, Syracuse, 1964).
51. John Witherspoon, Ecclesiastical Characteristics: or, the Arcana of Church
Policy, being a Humble Attempt to open up the mystery of Moderation (Glasgow,
1753).
52. See Witherspoon's sermons "Prayer for National Prosperiety", "The Glory of
the Redeemer in the Perpetuity of His Work", and "The Absolute Necessity of
Salvation Through Christ", for these themes. In Works of John Witherspoon
(Philadelphia: Woodward, 1804) and cited in Roger Schultz, "Covenanting in
America: The Political Theology of John Witherspoon" Journal of Christian
Reconstruction 12:1 (1988): 179-289.
53. Cited in Schultz, p. 227. Witherspoon's sermons, "All Mankind Under Sin"
and "Man in His Natural State" for the best treatment of this theme.
54. Cited in Schultz. p. 231.
55. For Witherspoon's sermons during the Revolution, see Schultz, pp. 232-241.
56. When Witherspoon eulogized the faith and diligence of the people of New
England in "The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men", he added, in
a rare footnote, that "lest this be thought a temporizing comment", that he
had copied the whole paragraph verbatim from a 1758 sermon from Scotland. For
more on Witherspoon's affection for the Covenanters and Cromwell, see Jack
Scott, ed., An Annotated Edition of Lectures on Moral Philosophy (University
of Delaware, 1982), p. 46. But Witherspoon was not always a zealous rebel; he
fought on behalf of George II, against the Young Pretender in 1745.
57. See Scott, An Annotated Edition of the Lectures on Moral Philosophy; and
May, The Enlightenment in America, p.63.
Jeff/addesign
>In article <unin6scjreun110ch...@4ax.com>, Robert Emmons
><rem...@aurigen.com> wrote:
>> Thomas Jefferson:
>> "We discover [in the gospels] a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of
>> things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication." --
>> letter to Dr. Woods (Cardiff) (Noiyes)
>Funny, why would he bother to edit the Jefferson Bible?
Why don't you ask Jefferson. Oh Tom, . . . Tom . . .
To John Adams Monticello, October 13, 1813
“. . . In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should
have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been
muffled by priests, who have travastied them into various forms, as
instruments of riches and power to themsleves. . . . There will be
found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which
has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my
own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and
arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is easily
distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an octavo of
forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines, such as were
professed and acted on by the «unlettered» Apostles, the Apostolic
Fathers, and the Christians of the first century. Their Platonizing
successors, indeed, in after times, in order to legitimate the
corruptions which they had incorporated in the doctrine of Jesus,
found it necessary to disavow the primitive Christians, who had taken
their principles from the mouth of Jesus himself, of his Apostles, and
the Fathers contemporary with them. They excommunicated their
followers as heretics, branding them as the opprobrious name of
Ebionites or Beggars . . . .”
>> Thomas Jefferson:
>> "I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the
>> world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity]
>> one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and
>> mythologies." -- letter to Dr. Woods (Cardiff) (Noiyes)
>Doubt that he said that as it is contrary to his Declaration of Independence.
How so? Where in the DoI does he in any wayaddress the question of
Christianity as a perverted myth?
>> Thomas Paine:
>> "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the
>> Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the
>> Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of." -- "The Age of
>> Reason", 1794.
>I don't always believe in all of the creeds professed by my church all of
>the time either. So What?
You should read the book. _Age of Reason_ demonstrates that the Bible
proves itself to be false.
>> Ethan Allen:
>> "I have generally been denominated a Deist, the reality of which I
>> have never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian, except
>> mere infant baptism makes me one; and as to being a Desist, I know
>> not, strictly speaking, whether I am one or not." -- "Reason, the
>> Only Oracle of Man", 1784, preface.
>Sounds like he should stick to making furniture.
Firearms.
>> Abraham Lincoln:
>> "I am not a Christian." -- attributed to Lincoln by Rufus K. Noyes,
>> "Views of Religion" (Boston: L.K. Washburn, 1906).
>Funny, I have sat in the pew he regularly sat in. What was he doing
>wasting his time in church?
previously posted by me in this thread:
From Sandburg's 6 volume Lincoln
(2vol. Prairie Years, 4vol. War Years)
Prairie Years Vol. I, p414:
"Close friends of Lincoln, such as his law partner Herndon, and
Matheny, who stood as best man at his wedding, and a notion that
Lincoln was a sort of infidel. They said Lincoln told them he did not
believe the Bible was the revelation of God, and in as little book
that he wrote in New Salem he tried to prove Jesus was not the son of
God. 'Lincoln did tell me that he did write a little book on
infidelity--I got it from Lincoln's mouth,' said Matheny.
'An infidel, a theist, a fatalist,' was Herndon's notion."
Jeff/addesign a.a #1063
****************************************************************
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum--Lucretius, 1st c. BC
"So vast is the sum of the iniquities that religion has induced."
****************************************************************
The DataRat
"In reality, the American revolutionaries were
part of a culture that was predominantly Christian
and largely Reformed and Calvinistic..."
Exactly.
The liberal elite which control the media today
-including history textbooks and public education-
emphasize the participation of the 18th. Century
liberal elite.
The overwhelming majority of Americans in the
17th. Century were Reformed and Calvinistic.
The DataRat
Robert Emmons
>In article <unin6scjreun110ch...@4ax.com>, Robert Emmons
><rem...@aurigen.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thomas Jefferson:
>> "We discover [in the gospels] a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of
>> things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication." --
>> letter to Dr. Woods (Cardiff) (Noiyes)
>
>Funny, why would he bother to edit the Jefferson Bible?
I don't know. I'm an atheist, but I'm fascinated by the Bible, it's
inconsistencies, and the outrageous conduct it condones for both god
and the Israelites.
mike...@ix.netcom.com (Michael Burton) wrote:
>In article <unin6scjreun110ch...@4ax.com>, Robert Emmons
><rem...@aurigen.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thomas Jefferson:
>> "I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the
>> world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity]
>> one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and
>> mythologies." -- letter to Dr. Woods (Cardiff) (Noiyes)
>
>Doubt that he said that as it is contrary to his Declaration of Independence.
In what way? The Declaration of Independence contains no reference to
Jesus. As I understand it, Deists believe in a creator who set up the
natural law, and left the world to function according to its
principles. The phrase "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" seem
to me to be clear references to the Deist concept of god.
mike...@ix.netcom.com (Michael Burton) wrote:
>In article <unin6scjreun110ch...@4ax.com>, Robert Emmons
><rem...@aurigen.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thomas Paine:
>> "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the
>> Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the
>> Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of." -- "The Age of
>> Reason", 1794.
>
>I don't always believe in all of the creeds professed by my church all of
>the time either. So What?
Have you read any of Paine's works? "The Age of Reason" is a detailed
100 plus page attack on Christianity and the inconsistencies and
outrageous conduct condoned in the Bible.
mike...@ix.netcom.com (Michael Burton) wrote:
>In article <unin6scjreun110ch...@4ax.com>, Robert Emmons
><rem...@aurigen.com> wrote:
>>
>> John Adams:
>> "God is an essence that we know nothing of ... Until this awful
>> blasphemy [incarnation] is got rid of, there will never be any liberal
>> science in the world." Ira D. Cardiff, "What Great Men Think of
>> Religion" (Christopher Publishing House, 1945; reprint New York: Arno
>> Press, 1972).
>
>I agree, incarnation is a blasphemy and unChristian. Most of the
>scientists of the era (as well as prior and post to the era) were
>Christian sons and daughters of God.
I don't know what you mean. It is my understanding that all
Christians believe in the incarnation of God as Jesus.
-----------------------------
Robert Emmons, Aurigen Inc.
Email: rem...@aurigen.com
Web Site: http://www.aurigen.com
I prefer a scientific abstraction
to an invisible superbeing.
Kenneth Childress
Finally found this on another server.
[...]
Most of the message is usual the Allison, but this part warrants
comments.
>>:|Now, I expect an apology from you for your claims of my dishonesty. I
>>:|don't expect to get one, so you'll probably be relegated to the twit
>>:|basket again.
>
>Nope no apologies. Dishonest in your eyes, who cares what opinions you
>have?
I didn't think you had the courage. You are such a coward. Think for a
minute. If my intent was to alter what Madison wrote in my reply, why
would I have left the entire context in the message? I merely didn't
quote the entire sentence. Call it lazy if you want, but to call it
dishonest is rather cowardly, especially when it made no difference to
what I was saying. You chose to pick on that rather than what I said.
Why?
One of the previous lies you have been guilty of was when you used a
comment of mine, and placed it completely out of context in another
message in an attempt to imply that I supported the treatment the
Herdahl's were receiving. That was even more dispicable than you are
guilty of here. Yet, back then, you cowardly ran away from
acknowledging your error. You see, honest people, and people of
character apologize when they make a mistake. Dishonest cowards like
you, obfuscate and dodge.
>I don't.
Then why do you respond so much? You obviously do care, and quite a bit
considering the extent you go through with your petty posts, as is
evidenced by the two or three with my name in the header. That is also
the sign of a petty poster, when they resort to using names in the
headers. Your actions belie your words. In most circles, that is the
sign of a hypocrit. In yours, I guess it is a mark of honor. NOT!!
>Hell, there are so many of your foes from your usual news groups
>that point out your bigotry,
I suppose this depends on how you define the term. But, the way you are
using the term here, there isn't a single person alive that wouldn't
qualify as bigoted. Basically, what you are doing is disagreeing with
my position on certain issues. That doesn't make me bigoted. The
accusations of bigotry generally come from people who don't like my
moral stance on issues. Mostly because they don't like the guilt from
people viewing their actions as immoral.
>your dishonesty,
One thing I am not is dishonest. You cannot show a single post from me
that is dishonest. You can disagree with me. I have been guilty of
misunderstandings or making faulty assumptions. I certainly have made
mistakes in the past, and when I do, I'll apologize as I have done with
you and many others many times.
>your biases,
Everyone is biased. You especially. But, essentially, all this means
is that I refuse to come around to yourside of the issue. How many
times have you said there is evidence to both sides of the issue, yet
you are firmly rooted in your viewpoint? I view the evidence and see a
different picture, as do many people.
>your prejudices,
And these would be what, exactly?
>your closed mindedness,
How so? Actually, I am more openminded on issues than most of the
people who claim to be open minded. One thing I do hold to is high
moral standards of conduct, though I am quite guilty of violating rules
of civility in newsgroups at times. At least I admit to that, and don't
pretend to be virtuous or hide behind "he did it first" as you and so
many others do.
>etc.
As you like to say now, your unsubstantiated claims are noted.
>I can survive your labels of me quite nicely.
Good. But, at least honest people will see you for what you are. I
think most of the honest lurkers out there can see the true Mr. Allison
shining through of late. Of course, there are those that will agree
with you that will turn a blind eye to your tactics, as is common among
ideological allies.
There was a time when you would discuss issues without all this petty
crap. What happened? It can't all be your dislike of me, because you
do it with every person who I've seen that disagrees with you of late.
--
buc...@exis.net
>:|In article <3873f3f8...@news.exis.net>, <buc...@exis.net> wrote:
>:|
>:| You obviously do care,
CARE? Actually I don't.
I do however enjoy playing with you and helping you trap yourself, which
you keep doing over and over again. Now, that I truly do enjoy. You are fun
to play with.
Just look at what is going on here.
You have managed in a very short period of time to become a total liability
to Gardiner. You have managed, single handed, to bring names into this
thread I have never seen here, along with a couple I have before. But all
have come to show you how silly you are in what you have said.
Hell, in all the months that Gardiner, Mike, Paul, Jeff, Robert Johnson,
myself, and whomever else that might have popped in here and out again,
that I no longer recall, have never managed to achieve that feat. LOL
There have been some times when a person or two, maybe even three have
shown up to spar a bit with one of us, but that has been it. You have
managed to bring in about 9 people all jumping your case. LOL Hey, that is
an achievement. But then, you have done that in some of your usual threads
as well.
Your posts, by and large are all fluff, and even at that you manage to make
a total fool of yourself over and over. That's why I respond to you posts,
they are fun, and in time I know you are going to blunder and make a fool
of yourself again. You know, the old saying, give a fool enough rope and
sooner or later they will hang themselves.
Well, you do prove that to be a fact, over and over again.
Playing with your posts is like being on vacation. It doesn't take any
great amount of time or effort.
hennecke
Windows. It's called Bible Maps by MANNA and it has over 150 full-color,
printable maps of the Bible lands, over 200 full color photographs, many
timelines, genealogies, chronologies, etc. It also has a full
concordance and a metrology feature that allows you to convert Bible
measures to modern day equivalents. Bible based information is provided
on over 500 cities and sites and there is over 400 pages of text
imbedded in the program.
It was 5 years in development and its developers consulted over 200
scholarly texts in its development. You can check it out at their
website:
Matt Hennecke
Michael Burton
> mike...@ix.netcom.com (Michael Burton) writes:
>
>>> "We discover [in the gospels] a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of
>>> things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication." --
>>> letter to Dr. Woods (Cardiff) (Noiyes)
>
>>Funny, why would he bother to edit the Jefferson Bible?
>
>fanaticism, or fabrication, as far as Jefferson was able to determine.
>The book is basically the sayings and events of Jesus' life put into a
>wholly secular context without miracles or the ressurrection. It would
>seem to me that Jefferson was trying to save the character of Jesus from
>its assassination at the hands of Christians.
Yes, I have read it. I disagree with your characterization of it and the
anti Christian bigotry implied in the phrase "assassination [of Christ] at
the hands of Christians.* I agree with you that it is without superstition,
fanaticism, or fabrication as is the original.
>
>>> Thomas Jefferson:
>>> "I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the
>>> world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity]
>>> one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and
>>> mythologies." -- letter to Dr. Woods (Cardiff) (Noiyes)
>
>>Doubt that he said that as it is contrary to his Declaration of Independence.
>
> The letter exists and the handwriting is pretty hard to fake.
>And looking at the Declaration, I don't see anything in it to indicate
>that he thought highly of Christianity.
Nothing in the Declaration to indicate that he though too highly of diests
either. Superstition in 1700's is not necessarily the same connotation as
the term carries in the 1900's. If you study the Elizabethian of the AV,
what some people want to define some English words in denotation today are
not the same denotation that they carried in 1600.
The AV translates the 6th commandment as *Thou Shalt not kill (Hebrew
ratsach)*. All Elizabethians and those who understand either the meaning
of words at the time they were used or the Hebrew manuscripts themselves
know that kill means premeditated cold blooded murder, not self defense.
Yet many today misintrepret the AV to mean that Christians should not
defend themselves when confronted with evil intent to do bodily harm to
them which is absurb. They assume, falsly, that not to kill means to
become defensless from an attack by a murderer.
Jefferson also wrote
the phrase separation of church and state, and he would be amazed at how
his words are twisted today. They bear no resemblance to each other and
are, in fact, 180 degrees out of phase.
>
>>I agree, incarnation is a blasphemy and unChristian.
>
> *ROFL* That's the first time I've heard someone say the
>Ressurrection story is blasphemy and unchristian!
Nor did you hear me say it. That the Ressurrection story is blasphemy and
unChristian is your spin, not mine.
I was responding to your words ***Until this awful
> blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal
> science in the world.**
Where is the ressurection story in those words? In fact, no where inthe
exerpt is Christ even mentioned, and certainly not the resurection.
Incarnation has nothing to do with resurection. Seems to be a leap of
logic on your part. The words being responded to do not indicate that you
are talking about resurection. Only the inserted words relate to
incarnation, and as you must know, bracketed
words are not there in legal terms. Either this quote is out of context
as Jefferson's separation of church and state is usually used, or a bait
and switch is in progress.
BTW, I apologize for misreading the posting, I read re-incarnation instead
of incarnation. RE-incarnation is the blasphemy.
>
>>> Abraham Lincoln:
>>> "I am not a Christian." -- attributed to Lincoln by Rufus K. Noyes,
>>> "Views of Religion" (Boston: L.K. Washburn, 1906).
>
>>Funny, I have sat in the pew he regularly sat in. What was he doing
>>wasting his time in church?
>
> The same thing Bill Clinton does? Appealing to voters? Making
>his wife happy, since she was a firm believer?
Hillary a Christian? You must be kidding!!!!
Staying in touch with
>the average man?
Of course you are right, the average man is a Christian.
Who knows? The fact is Lincoln's *supporters*
>referred to him regularly as an "infidel."
So what, Clinton's regularly refer to him as a Christian. Only the
Biblically illiterate would could make such a statement, in my opinion.
Gardiner
>
> ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) wrote:
>
> >:|In article <3873f3f8...@news.exis.net>, <buc...@exis.net> wrote:
> >:|
>
> >:| You obviously do care,
>
> CARE? Actually I don't.
>
> I do however enjoy playing with you and helping you trap yourself, which
> you keep doing over and over again. Now, that I truly do enjoy. You are fun
> to play with.
This is pretty telling about Alison's maturity and bad attitude. I have seen a
number of junior high school boys take this approach to "an easy mark," and it
usually indicates a problem with the self-esteem of the person taking the
approach.
This exchange between Alison and Mr. Childress has turned into nothing but a
"your mamma wears combat boots" fight. And the record will clearly show that Mr.
Childress has indeed carried himself honorably, while Alison has opted for the
adolescent approach.
What's next Jim? Perhaps you want to criticize Mr. Childress for the tennis
shoes he is wearing? Maybe a little "kick me" sign posted to Mr. Childress'
back?
For God's sake, Jim, stop "playing." Grow up. Try to develop a little sense of
self-esteem. I know that insulting an "easy mark" is your way of making yourself
feel better, but you really should get therapy for this problem.
RG
buc...@exis.net
>:|Of course, the most visible symbol of America's Christian heritage in the
>:|
INVENTING THE "GREAT AWAKENING."
BY FRANK LAMBERT
REVIEWED BY HELENA M. WALL
" A refreshing addition to the historiographical debate about the Great
Awakening...a skillful and original analysis of American religion's early
engagements with the market economy."
---Kirkus Reviews
If the Great Awakening were a movie, it would be Rasbomon. Few events-- if
we can even call it an event--in Colonial American history have elicited so
many clashing perceptions and irreconcilable interpretations as this series
of religious revivals, occurring primarily in New England and NewJersey, in
the late 1730s and early 1740s. To revivalists, the Awakening was "an
extraordinary and mighty Work of God's Special Grace," a "shower of divine
blessing." Its fruits were "wonderful," in every sense of that term,
transforming society and saving souls. "When once the Spirit of God began
to be so wonderfully poured out in a general way through the Town,"
Jonathan Edwards wrote of the Northampton revival, "People had soon done
with their old Quarrels, Backbitings, and Intermeddling with other men's
Matters." To judge the power of the Awakening, Edwards thought, one need
only observe that "it was no longer the Tavern" that drew local crowds,
"but the Minister's House, that was thronged Ear more than ever the Tavern
had been wont to be.
''A dangerous sham"
But to its opponents, the so-called Awakening was a dangerous sham, a
delusion that generated "enthusiastic Heat" and "Commotion in the
Passions," while failing to reform hearts or minds. "'Tis not evident to
me," wrote Charles Chauncy, one of the most influential anti-revivalists,
"that Persons... have a better Understanding of Religion. a better
Government of their Passions, a more Christian Love to their
Neighbour, or that they are more decent and regular in their Devotions
toward God." Indeed, evangelical ministers seemed to their opponents to be
no more than snake-oil salesmen. A "Sett of Rhapsodists -- Enthusiasts --
Bigots -- Pedantic, illiterate, impudent Hypocrites," Charles Woodmason,
the Anglican missionary, called them, "Straining at Gnats, and swallowing
Camels, and making Religion a Cloak for Covetousness Detraction, Guile,
Impostures and their particular Fabric of Things."
Historians have generally been kinder to the revival movement,
beginning with the minister-scholar, Joseph Tracy, who first used the
term "Great Awakening" in the 1840s; in fact, several modem historians
have seen the Awakening as an engine of social change and an important
influence on the American Revolution. Then in 15)82, Jon Butler shook
things up by suggesting that the Awakening was an "interpretive fiction,"
one conceived by Tracy, improperly read back into the 18th century, and
credulously adopted by later historians. To Butler, the term "Great
Awakening" erroneously conferred coherence and significance on a set of
scattered local revivals. Another scholar, Joseph Conforti, agreed with
Butler that the Awakening was an invention--but an invention of 19th-
century evangelicals, revival promoters eager to establish a legitimating
line of descent for their own religious movement.
Promoting the work of God
Now Frank Lambert returns our attention to the 18th-century
promoters of the Great addition to the Awakening, the revivalists
themselves. As he observes in this highly interesting and original book,
"invention" held two meanings in the 18th century, both of which apply
here." First, the revivalists "discovered a thing hidden," in this case a
genuine "work of God"; second, they were active instruments in promoting
that work, designing a program intended to spur a spiritual awakening, and
significantly, spreading the news of that awakening. Revivalists shrewdly
used pamphlets, broadsides, conversion narratives, and newspapers to
transform accounts of local revivals into a larger, unified story a single
intercolonial "general Awakening." Edwards's 1737 A Faitful Narrative of
Northampton's experience offered a"model script" for subsequent conversion
narratives, and when 'Thomas Prince began collecting and publishing these
narratives in1743. his solictation letter provided helpful hints to
would-be authors: "This comes therefore to intreat you...to send me as
cautious and exact an Account as may be, of the Rise, Progress and Effects
of this Works among you to theprexnt Day as also to excite other suitable
Persons to do the like; And send the same,free of Charge." As Lambert
shows, the invention of the Great Awakening was a highly contested process,
with revivalists and anti-revivalists struggling to control its
interpretation. It was also a continuing process, as later evangelicals
reinterpreted the Awakening for their own purposes. Although Edwards and
his brethren invented the "cultural formation" we call the Great Awakening,
It has remained subject to reinvention ever since--a process Lambert's book
permits us to follow in close detail.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: FRANK LAMBEHT is Associate Professor of History at
Purdue University and the author of "Pedlar in Divinity":George Whitefield
and the Transatlantic Revivals, 1731-1770.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER: HELENA M. WALL is Professor of History at Pomona
College and the author of Fierce Communiont Family & Community in Early
America.
HISTORY BOOK CLUB FLYER MIDSUMMER 1999, #H-9911-A
buc...@exis.net
>:|The concern for the Bible and Christianity in the Revolutionary era was not
>:|restricted to preachers. Most Americans were firmly grounded in the
>:|scriptures. Requirements for college entrance included the ability to read in
>:|Greek and Hebrew. Quotations from the patriot leaders came more frequently
>:|from the Bible than any other source. In the 1770s, for instance, 44% of all
>:|quotations used by the founders came from Holy Writ, while 20% came from
>:|Whiggish authors, 18% from Enlightenment writers, and 11% from the classics.
[You phrased this a bit differently back in March 1999]
>:| 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.
>:|
[and I responded to the above as follows back in March, 1999]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You had better go back and read those people's findings again. You are
leaving out a very large part of what they discovered.
On page 17 of Mr. Eidsmoe's advidavit [the advidavit that he wrote to be
presented to the Alabama Supreme Court in the Judge Moore case in that
state in Early 1997] he mentions the work of Dr. Donald S Lutz and Dr.
Charles Hyneman. In Feb past, Tom Peters was preparing for a debate with
some Fundamentalists in Louisville, Ky over one of David Barton's
commercial videos claiming this is a Christian nation, separation is a
myth, etc. On the Video in question which was going to be used as the focus
of the debate, David Barton had made mention of this same material. Tom
Peters asked me via email what I (Jim Allison) knew about this information,
and the following was my answer back to him in regards to that matter.
Uncensored I might add, :-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ok here we go, CHRISTIANITY AND THE CONSTITUTION, The Faith of Our
Founding Fathers, by John Eidsmoe with forward by D. James Kennedy
Page 51
"Two professors (now u know you can't trust professors, LOL) [Tom Peters
was a Ph. D type professor at the U of Louisville, so this was a joke
between us] Donald S Lutz, and Charles S Hyneman have reviewed an
estimated 15,000 items, and closely read 2,200 books (these must be two
really old people 2,200 books closely read? ) pamphlets, newspaper
articles, and monographs with explicitly political content printed between
1760 and 1805. They reduced this to 916 items, about 1/3 of all public
political writings longer than 2000 words.
From these items, Lutz and Hyneman identified 3,154 references to other
sources. The source most often cited by the founding fathers was the bible,
which accounted for 34 percent of all citations. The Fifth book of the
bible, Deuteronomy, because of its heavy emphasis on biblical law, was
referred to frequently.
At the top of page 52 there is a chart and the first line of the chart
shows the percentage the bible was referred to
1760's 24%
1770's 44%
1780's 34%
1790's 29%
1800 - 05 38% for an over all average of 34%
Next in line was enlightenment and it carries an overall average of 22%
Whig is next with an overall average of 18%
Next is Common Law which is listed at 11% followed by
classical at 9% peers at 4% and others at 2%
Where this was published is suppose to have been Donald S Lutz, THE
RELATIVE INFLUENCE OF EUROPEAN WRITERS ON LATE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY POLITICAL
THOUGHT." AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW 189 (1984) 189-197.
Ok that's it, there are some other charts listing individual people like
Blackstone, Locke, Hume, Coke Milton etc in the order he claims they were
cited and Blackstone came in second at 7.9% with Montesquieu leading among
individuals with 8.3%..
I have some problems with the above information. All the numbers seems like
just that a lot of numbers but I am not sure any real bridges are
established between them definning exactly what all is considered. We also
are covering a 45 year period of time and only the vague term founding
fathers used. Lower case letters at that for founding fathers so how many
people and who exactly are these people. How many were fire and brimstone
New England preachers of the time frame 1760 to 1780 are there using
speeches delivered from Sunday Pulpits prior to and during the war of
Independence.
How many of these people were the people who really were Founders and were
considered for the time frame of the creation of this government.
Now to be fair he lists 216 items were examined for the 1760s, 544 for the
1770's, 1306 for the 1780's 674 for the 1790's, and 414 for the 1800-05
But again no way of knowing just what those items are or who said them or
wrote them etc.
But here is what I have to offer as rebuttal show and tell again.
if you want to go to which ever one of your libraries (regular or law) that
has them and look at the 12 published volumes of THE DOCUMENTARY HISTORY
OF THE RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION. (Don't be fooled by the numbering,
the books aren't published in a proper order. The published volumes thus
far are 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
if you look at volume 13 you will find on page 601 of the index the heading
Biblical References and it contains 24 page numbers listed for it. Volume
13 contains at least 579 pages of material from the people of those times.
For the three Virginia volumes you will find in the index under Biblical
References 46 page numbers which contain Biblical references on them. These
three books contain at least 1692 pages of historical material from the men
of those times.
So what we find is 67 pages listed as containing some reference to the
Bible out of a total of at least a total of 2271 pages of actual historical
documents, letters, newspaper articles, pamphlets, etc.
You can look at the remaining volumes there and you will find some indexes
don't even list Biblical references but the % doesn't change for the other
volumes that do contain such references.
If you take one of these book to your debate and let people see for
themselves I think the point will be made quite clearly.
Ok first level of stuff from Regent.
While there we found and copied the ten pages that make up the Lutz
article as it appeared when it was published in 1984 in the AMERICAN
POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW.
Some additional light is shed on the information. Some of the material
that was used is given after all and some of it was THE COMPLETE
ANTI-FEDERALIST,
I have researched those six volumes that make up THE COMPLETE
ANTI-FEDERALIST in the past, and am aware of the religious references that
are in those books and was not impressed with their quanity.
Some other anti-federalist material unnamed, and some federalist material
which is unnamed.
It does say that "the proceedings of legislatures and conventions were not
included." it doesn't say why.
Another point made was that, "a citation count need not distinguish between
positive and negative citations."
The bible could have been cited in a positive way or negative way, doesn't
matter it was counted both ways..
Weaknesses of this method is, "that it cannot distinguish among citations
that represent the borrowing of an idea, the adapting of an idea, the
approval of an idea, the opposition of an idea, or an appeal to authority."
The purpose of this research was to try and determine the influence
European writers etc had on American political thought and in regards to
the Bible no real effort was made to determine just why the results or the
actual meaning of the results. But the highest % in regards to the Bible
was in the 1760's to 1780's period, the period of time when the actual
Constitution and BOR was being written debated ratified etc had the lowest
Biblical citations the 1780's and 1790's were 34% and 29% respectively
which were the lowest citation periods. (we know from the experiment above
had that material been included it would have been even lower)
Much of the Bible citations were a result of sermons that were published in
pamphlet forms and handed out much of the pre war of Independence period.
In fact this form of publishing represented about 10% of the total
publishing done in this nation at that time. Of course we have 16 years of
this 45 year period of time (1760 to 1776) with 9 of the colonies still
being under various forms of establishments. This study may give some
insights into what influence the Europeans had on American Political
thought but it is a far cry from giving any meaning or insight as to what
if any accurate meaning the figures they came up with concerning the bible
citation indicated or really meant.
The pattern of citations during the years 1787 and 1788 was, "The Bible's
prominence disappears, which is not surprising since the debate centered
upon specific institutions which the bible had little to say. The
anit-federalists do drag it in with respect to basic principles of
government but the federalists inclination to enlightenment is most evident
here in their failure to consider the bible relevant."
They include a chart here that lists the total for citations for the bible
for 1780's at 34% a repeat of the other chart but it lists only federalists
and anti-federalits and list federalists at 0% and anti-federalists at 9%
apparently whomever made up the other 25% were neither federalists or
anti-federalists. So it makes one think who were they? They didn't appear
to be very political since the two named groups mad up the bulk of the
political thinking of the times.
There is no further additions to the Bible findings added in the conclusion
and that isn't surprising since it was just an interesting sidelight found
while conducting a study of something else totally different.
So depending on exactly what Barton tries to make of this information it
really isn't that important. I also don't particularly like the fact that
so much of the entire political debate as indicated in the 12 volume set of
books appears to have been left out. Those results would have lowered the
overall Bible citation % quiet a bit for that time period. I also cannot
for the life of me recall anything like one third of any possible
citations in the Complete anti federalist being religious in any form There
just wasn't that much in there and I made note of and checked out every
reference to religion that was given in the index for all six volumes.
Anyways that is that.
I just sent you the results of my work with this claim and have only one
more thing to add.
The selection process predetermines the outcomes.
While in the world of scholarship and academia the research that was done
might have been acceptable, I find that the lack of naming the source
material in any better way then they did and the total opposite results to
be found in the books I consulted is disturbing.
Of course there is also the issue of who cited anything and how often did
people cite anything.
That wasn't addressed and is important to know.
I suppose that cites on 67 pages out of roughly 2100 pages pertaining to
the bible might represent 34% of the total cites to be found in those 2100
pages. But what does it mean if that was the case. It means people didn't
cite anything much and the bible even less. No conclusions such as Barton
might be trying to form or might want to imply to others is gonna be
supported by that information.
(BTW one additional item. In those 67 pages the reference might have only
been ne single sentence on the entire page, it doesn mean all that was
contained on that page was about the Bible.)
******************************************************************************
***
And
Separation of Church and State Home Page
How often did the founders quote the Bible?
Research by Jim Allison and Tom Peters.
In the first version of his videotape, America 's Godly Heritage, David
Barton makes reference to two University of Houston researchers who studied
the most frequently cited authors in the writings of the founding fathers.
According to Barton, these researchers concluded that 94% of all the
citations found in these writings were either to the Bible, or to authors
who based their conclusions on the Bible. This, he concludes, demonstrates
the profound influence of the Bible on the Constitution.
While Barton doesn't name the researchers in his videotape, he refers to
them in his recent book, Original Intent. Barton's reference is to The
Origins of American Constitutionalism (hereafter, Origins), a 1988 book by
political scientist Donald Lutz. On pages 136-149 of Origins, Lutz
summarizes the results of a 1984 paper in which he and colleague Charles
Hyneman analyze some 15,000 items of American political commentary
published between 1760 and 1805 ("The Relative Influence of European
Writers on Late Eighteenth-Century American Political Thought," The
American Political Science Review, 78 (1984), pp. 189-197; hereafter,
Relative Influence). The purpose of the paper was to determine the sources
that most influenced the development of American political thought during
our nation's founding period.
Does Lutz's and Hyneman's research support Barton's conclusions about the
Bible and the Constitution? In some ways, the answer is "yes." In
particular, Lutz and Hyneman demonstrate that the Bible was the most
frequently quoted source between 1760 and 1805, and he concludes that
future research on the development of American political thought should
include increased attention to "biblical and common law sources" (Relative
Influence, p. 190). It is perfectly reasonable that Barton would use this
evidence to support his argument, and we have no quarrel with that aspect
of Barton's case.
But this isn't all that Lutz concludes. Lutz also devotes a full section of
his article to political writings about the Constitution, and these data
largely refute Barton's conclusions. Needless to say, Barton doesn't report
these data, despite their relevance to his argument. Additionally, Barton
attributes to Lutz and Hyneman conclusions they do not reach about the
importance of the Bible during the founding period. Accordingly, Barton's
treatment of Lutz's data is both selective and dishonest.
Let's begin with Barton's 94% figure. In the videotape, Barton breaks it
down as follows: 34% ofthe founder's quotations were taken directly from
the Bible, and 60% were from authors that base their conclusions on the
Bible. The 34% figure, at least, is accurate; this corresponds exactly to
Lutz's and Hyneman's conclusions with respect to the total percentage of
citations between 1760 and 1805. But where does the 60% figure come from?
Not from the paper; Lutz and Hyneman provide no category of citations that
even remotely corresponds to "authors that base their conclusions on the
Bible." Rather, the 60% figure is manufactured by Barton himself on the
basis of his own reading of other authors that scored highly in Lutz and
Hyneman's survey people like Montesquieu, Blackstone, and Locke. You would
not know this from the videotape, which reports the 60% figure as if it
were the conclusions of Lutz and Hyneman themselves. [Note: there are a
number of problems with this 60% figure. In particular, Barton overstates
the degree to which these authors used the Bible in reaching their own
conclusions. We'll do an article on this issue at a later time.]
Beyond this, what exactly does this 94% figure prove? Barton wants us to
think that because the founders quoted at length from the Bible, or people
that quoted the Bible, the Constitution must somehow embody Biblical law,
be "based" on the Bible. or otherwise have the Bible in mind. But this
doesn't follow; the fact that the Bible was frequently quoted is not the
same thing as saving it was quoted for the purpose of creating a legal code
or the Constitution, Indeed, Lutz's and Hyneman's data suggest that the
Bible was for the most part irrelevant to the Constitution, and that what
connections there were between the Bible and the Constitution are not of
the type that support Barton's claims.
First, Barton does not report the most relevant evidence from Lutz's
article: in addition to their general citation count from 1760 to 1805,
Lutz and Hyneman compile a count specific to political debate on the
Constitution between the years 1787 and 1788 (the years corresponding to
the drafting and ratification of the Constitution). According to Lutz, this
sample "comes close to exhausting" the literature written on the
Constitution during this period (Relative Influence, p. 194). If the
founders believed that the Bible was truly relevant to the Constitution,
Biblical citations should appear in abundance in this sample, but, they
don't. On the contrary, Biblical citations are virtually nonexistent in
this sample. According to Lutz, federalist (i.e., pro-Constitution) writers
never quoted the Bible in their political writings between 1 787 and 1 788.
Conversely. anti-federalist writers quoted the Bible only 9% of the time.
According to Lutz:
The Bible's prominence disappears, which is not surprising since the
debate centered upon specific institutions about which the Bible has little
to say. The Anti-Federalists do drag it in with respect to basic principles
of government, but the Federalist's inclination to Enlightenment
rationalism is most evident here in their failure to consider the Bible
relevant....The debate surrounding the adoption of the Constitution was
fought out mainly in the context of Montesquieu, Blackstone, the English
Whigs, and major writers of the Enlightenment (Relative /nfluence, pp.
194-195, emphasis ours).
Additionally, Barton omits Lutz's breakdown of sources for his 34% figure.
Three fourths of the Biblical citations in Lutz's 1760 to 1805 sample come,
not from secular sources, but from reprinted sermons (one of the most
popular types of political writing during these years). Conversely the
Bible accounts for only 9% of all citations in secular literature, about
equal to the number of citations from classical authors (Origins, p. 140).
Hence, were it not for the political activity of religious clergy, the
Bible would be tied for fourth place among source citations during 1760 and
1805.
Interestingly, Barton's reference to Lutz's work in Original Intent is not
to Lutz's article, but to Origins, Lutz's later book. Lutz's book reports
his 1984 data in abbreviated form, and does not refer to his citation count
for the years 1787 to 1788, or the conclusions he draws from that count. A
reader that simply follows Barton's citations, in other words, would be
ignorant of this data. At the same time, no reader of Lutz book would
likely come away with the feeling that the Constitution was written with
the Bible particularly in mind. As Lutz documents, by the time of the
Constitution, American political theory was a rich tapestry of ideas drawn
from many different sources; the Bible and colonial covenant theology were
simply two of many influences that played in the minds of the American
founders.
In the end, Lutz's work is far more supportive of separation than of
accomodationism. Did the founder's quote the Bible in their political
writings? Of course they did, and there is nothing remarkable about that
fact. Lutz's data suggest that, whatever the cultmal influence of the
Bible, it did not play much of a role in the construction of the
Constitution. On the contrary, the Constitution is a secular document
concerned with the nuts and bolts issues of how to create a workable nation
in a land of economic, cultural, and religious diversity. It simply did not
touch on matters relevant to the Bible.
TOM PETERS, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
******************************************************************************
All the above was left with the following exhcange in March 1999
[Gardiner]
>:|
>:|> >Does Lutz's and Hyneman's research support Barton's conclusions about the
>:|> >Bible and the Constitution? In some ways, the answer is "yes." In
>:|> >particular, Lutz and Hyneman demonstrate that the Bible was the most
>:|> >frequently quoted source between 1760 and 1805, and he concludes that
>:|> >future research on the development of American political thought should
>:|> >include increased attention to "biblical and common law sources" (Relative
>:|> >Influence, p. 190). It is perfectly reasonable that Barton would use this
>:|> >evidence to support his argument, and we have no quarrel with that aspect
>:|> >of Barton's case.
>:|
>:|I concede that the methodology and interpretation of Lutz and Hyneman are
>:|highly open ended and in some respects very suspect. Simply counting the
>:|number of citations doesnt seem to me to necessarily demonstrate the
>:|biases of the founders. For example, Lutz shows Hume as one of the most
>:|frequently cited sources. But what about context? In our generation, one might
>:|be able to show that O.J. Simpson and Monica Lewinsky are the among the names
>:|who are most often mentioned in the media. Does that mean that we approve of
>:|them? I will not become a defender of Lutz and Hyneman to make my point. I
>:|think there are much better approaches to arguing the same thesis.
>:|
[myself]
Well, I am very glad to hear that. it is not a position one can defend,
even more so since they set out to discover the influence Europeans had.
The references to the Bible was discovered by accident, but was not
followed up on. They also fully acknowledged that such references were
lacking during the very founding period. (Constitution and BOR's period)
buc...@exis.net
>:|In the late 18th century America had a Christian heritage; many colonies had
>:|been established specifically to create a Christian civil order. Its citizens
>:|were self consciously Christian. The nation's leaders universally sought to
>:|establish a Christian code of morality and civic virtue.
On Monday, August 20, Charles Pinckney submitted to the Convention a list
of proposals for referral to the Committee of Detail. Calling for such
protections of individual rights as habeas corpus--the right to be brought
before a court--freedom of the press, and a ban on religious tests for
national office, the list amounted to a partial bill of rights. Pinckney's
proposals, along with some from Gouverneur Morris, dealing chiefly with a
presidential cabinet, were referred to the committee .
George Mason then moved to enable Congress to enact sumptuary laws: acts
designed to regulate personal behavior on moral and religious grounds. "No
government can be maintained," Mason said, "unless the manners be made
consonant to it."
Connecticut's great consumer of snuff, Oliver Ellsworth, begged to differ.
"The best remedy," he said, "is to enforce taxes and debts. As far as the
regulation of eating and drinking can be reasonable, it is provided for in
the power of taxation." After Gouverneur Morris and Elbridge Gerry added
their own words of opposition, the Convention reiected Mason's motion.
One hundred and thirty-two years later, in 1919, the United States would
return to George Mason's idea with a vengeance. With the ratification of
the Eighteenth Amendment, the manufacture, sale, transportation,
importation, and exportation of intoxicating liquors was prohibited. As
Americans quickly divided into "drys," who saw Prohibition as a keystone of
American morality, and "wets," who made a ioke of the new law, the country
entered an era of unprecedented lawlessness. An army of smugglers,
rum-runners, moonshiners, and bootleggers sprang up in cities and towns
across the land. In the larger cities, armed gangs staked out territorial
claims to control the sale and distribution of illegal and sometimes lethal
whiskey, and gang wars quickly became a recognized feature of American
life.
The continuing battle between wets and drys produced predictable extremes.
In New York City, "speakeasies" made illegal drinking chic; in Michigan,
conviction of a fourth offense against the Prohibition law meant life
imprisonment. The "noble experiment" lasted only fourteen years, but it
left in its wake a generation of Americans for many of whom disrespect
for the law had become a daily reality. Prohibition ended in 1933 with the
ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment, which unceremoniously repealed
the Eighteenth.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: A more Perfect Union, The making of the United
States Constitution. William Peters, Crown Publishers, Inc. N Y (1987) pp
159-161)
buc...@exis.net
Amazing, a series of quotes and not a complete valid cite among them
In fact only one incomplete cite among the lot.
Now, I wonder why that is?
Also, commentary without any cites for it either, how interesting.
Rick Gardiner
>
> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >> Thank you very much for these great quotes! They are a gift! I often
> >> wondered what it was that the founders had that is lacking today - it's
> >> DEISM!
> >>
> >> Sincerely, Robert L. Johnson
> >> http://www.deism.com
>
> >WRONG!
>
> >Donald Lutz, a Constitutional historian at the University of Houston, argued
> >that "The Pedigree of the Bill of Rights" could be found in the bills of
> >rights in colonial charters, primarily authored by ministers. Three-fourths of
> >the provisions from the U.S. Bill of Rights, in fact, were outlined in the
> >1641 Massachusetts Body of Liberties, a Puritan document that came complete
> >with Bible verses attached to each of the rights.
>
> the time. And the Puritan intolerance led to the founding of Maryland
> and Rhode Island,
Is it your view that Catholics left Massachusetts as a result of Puritan
intolerance and went down and founded Maryland? That's a new one on me. Cite please.
> >Of course, the Revolutionary generation was not as shocked by public religion
> >as are people today. Nearly half of the British colonies had been founded by
> >religious sectarians with explicitly Christian visions for society. Two thirds
> >of the original thirteen colonies had established state churches at the time
> >of the Constitutional Convention. Colonies mandated religious test oaths,
> >requiring that officeholders be theists, Christians, or Trinitarians.
>
> Which was abolished by Article VI of the Constitution.
Interesting. Is it your view that the religious qualifications for state
officials required by state constitutions
(http://www.universitylake.org/history/state.html) were all abolished in 1787
as a result of Article VI? That is another new one on me. Cite please.
> The point is not whether a bunch of jeaolous Christian factions
> happened to set up various colonies in the New World. The point is
> that the framers had the wisdom to learn from the previous two hundred
> years of religious mischief, and strip religion of any power in
> government.
Do you deny that the Declaration of Independence ROOTED fundamental human
rights in the existence of a deity? I can give you a citation if you need to
see it.
> Personally, I don't care about the personal religious beliefs of
> anyone, including the founders. I do appreciate that they left
> religion out of government.
Not quite. The founders believed Vox Populi est Vox Dei (the voice of the
people is the voice of God), and thus, with Locke, they believed in the divine
right of the electorate. Furthermore, they believed that a government can only
succeed where the people are imbued with a religious conscience and sense of
morals. Here is a sample of sentiments from those who gave us the Declaration
and the Constitution--
"[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon
which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution
is pure virtue."
(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United
States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX,
p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)
"[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human
passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made
only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the
government of any other."
(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United
States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854),
Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)
"The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred
as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to
protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou
shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made
inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free."
(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United
States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James
Brown, 1851), Vol. VI, p. 9.)
"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore
who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure,
[and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured
to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals,
the best security for the duration of free governments."
(Source: Bernard C. Steiner, The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry
(Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers, 1907), p. 475. In a letter from Charles
Carroll to James McHenry of November 4, 1800.)
"[P]ublic utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the
Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the
punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of
divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone
secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and
constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain,
without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our
institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot
pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience."
(Source: James McHenry, in Bernard C. Steiner, One Hundred and Ten Years of
Bible Society Work in Maryland, 1810-1920 (Maryland Bible Society, 1921), p. 14.)
"To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom,
and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. . . . Whenever
the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms
of government, and all blessings which flow from them, must fall with them."
(Source: Jedediah Morse, Election Sermon given at Charleston, MA, on April 25, 1799.)
"The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in
religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be
no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.
(Source: Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical
(Philadelphia: Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), p. 8.)
"We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means of
establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government, that is, the
universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by the
means of the Bible. For this Divine Book, above all others, favors that
equality among mankind, that respect for just laws, and those sober and frugal
virtues, which constitute the soul of republicanism."
(Source: Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical
(Philadelphia: Printed by Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), pp. 93-94.)
"By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings upon all
moral subjects. . . . It is the only correct map of the human heart that ever
has been published. . . . All systems of religion, morals, and government not
founded upon it [the Bible] must perish, and how consoling the thought, it
will not only survive the wreck of these systems but the world itself. "The
Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." [Matthew 1:18]"
(Source: Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951), p. 936, to John Adams,
January 23, 1807.)
"While just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion
affords to government its surest support."
(Source: George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C.
Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932),
Vol. XXX, p. 432 n., from his address to the Synod of the Dutch Reformed
Church in North America, October 9, 1789.)
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim
the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of
human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens. The
mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish
them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public
felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for
reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths,
which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?
And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be
maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of
refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both
forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of
religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a
necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or
less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend
to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?"
(Source: George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the
United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: George and
Henry S. Keatinge), pp. 22-23. In his Farewell Address to the United States in 1796.)
"The most perfect maxims and examples for regulating your social conduct and
domestic economy, as well as the best rules of morality and religion, are to
be found in the Bible. . . . The moral principles and precepts found in the
scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws.
These principles and precepts have truth, immutable truth, for their
foundation. . . . All the evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition,
injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or
neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible. . . . For instruction then in
social, religious and civil duties resort to the scriptures for the best
precepts."
(Source: Noah Webster, History of the United States, "Advice to the Young"
(New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), pp. 338-340, par. 51, 53, 56.)
"Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends,
and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The
divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential
part of both."
(Source: James Wilson, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson (Philadelphia:
Bronson and Chauncey, 1804), Vol. I, p. 106.)
Al Klein
wrote:
Before I waste time, what date does it give for the founding of
Nazareth?
--
Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
aklein at villagenet dot com
Rick Gardiner
> In fact only one incomplete cite among the lot.
>
> Now, I wonder why that is?
Like you really will care. But, just to prove you don't care, here are the
sources used for the essay previously posted in this thread:
1. Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (Phila: The Booksellers, 1794; Reprint, New
York: Prometheus, 1985).
2. Benjamin Franklin, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, Ed.,
(Boston: Tappan, Whittemore and Mason, 1840) X:281-282, to Thomas Paine in
1790.
3. William V. Wells, The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams (Boston:
Little, Brown and Co., 1865) III:372-73, to Thomas Paine on Nov. 30, 1802.
4. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States,
Charles Francis Adams, Ed., (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1856) III:421,
diary entry for July 26, 1796.
5. Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L.H. Butterfield, ed., (Princeton
University Press, 1951) II:770, to John Dickenson on Feb 16, 1796.
6. Joseph Gurn, Charles Carrol of Carrolton (NY: P.J. Kennedy & Sons, 1932, p.
203.
7. John Witherspoon, The Works of the Reverend John Witherspoon (Phila: Wm W.
Woodward, 1802) III:24n2, from "The Dominion of Providence over the Passions
of Men," delivered at Princeton
on May 17, 1776.
8. John Quincy Adams, An Answer to Pain's [sic] "Rights of Man" (London: John
Stockdale, 1793) p. 13.
9. Elias Boudinot, The Age of Revelation (Phila: Asbury Dickins, 1801) pp.
xii-xiv, from the prefatory remarks to his daughter, Mrs. Susan V. Bradford.
10. George Morgan, Patrick Henry (Phila: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1929) p.
366n. See also, Bishop William Meade, Old Churches, Ministers, and Families of
Virginia (Phila: J.B. Lippincott
Company, 1857) II:12.
11. John E. O'Connor, William Paterson: Lawyer and Statesman (New Bruswick:
Rutgers University Press, 1979) p. 244, from a Fourth of July Oration in 1798.
12. Zephaniah Swift, A System of Laws of the State of Connecticut (Windham:
John Byrne, 1796) II:323-24.
13. William Jay, The Life of John Jay (NY: J. & J. Harper, 1833) p. 80 from
his "Charge to the Grand Jury of Ulster County" on Sept. 9, 1777.
14.Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. "Thomas Paine."
15. Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (Phila: The Booksellers, 1794) p. 8.
16. Benjamin Franklin, Two Tracts: Information to Those Who Would Remove to
America and Remarks Concerning the Savages of North America (London: John
Stockdale, 1784), p.24.
17. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United
States, Charles Francis Adams, Ed., (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1856),
diary entry for FEBRUARY 22, 1756.
18. Lester J. Capon, ed., The Adams-Jefferson Letters 2 vols. (Chapel Hill,
NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1959), 2:339-40
19.The Papers of John Adams, Robert J. Taylor, ed., (Cambridge: Belknap Press
[Harvard University], 1977-89) vol. VI p 348 to James Warren on Aug. 4, 1778
20. Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L.H. Butterfield, ed., (Princeton
University Press, 1951) II:799, to Noah Webster on July 20, 1798.
21.The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, Harold C. Syrett, ed., (NY: Columbia
University Press, 1979) XXV:605-10, to James Bayard on April 16-21, 1802.
22. Arnold, A.G., The Life of Patrick Henry of Virginia, (Auburn and Buffalo:
Miller, Orton and Mulligan, 1854) pp. 249-50.
23. Samuel Adams, The Writings of Samuel Adams, Harry Alonzo Cushing, ed.,
(NY: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1906) II:381, to William Checkley on Dec. 14, 1772.
24.Collections of the New York Historical Society for the Year 1821 (NY:
E.Bliss and E. White, 1821) p 34, from "An Inaugural Discourse Delivered
Before the New York Historical Society by the
Honorable Gouverneur Morris on Sept. 4, 1816."
25. Witherspoon, Works, VI:13, from "An Address to the Senior Class at
Princeton College," Sept. 23, 1775.
26.Ibid., III:42, from "The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men,"
delivered at Princeton on May 17, 1776.
27. Daniel Rupp, An Original History of the Religious Denominations at Present
Existing in the United States, (Phila: J.Y. Humphreys, 1844) p. 711.
Rick Gardiner
> >:|been established specifically to create a Christian civil order. Its citizens
> >:|were self consciously Christian. The nation's leaders universally sought to
> >:|establish a Christian code of morality and civic virtue.
>
> of proposals for referral to the Committee of Detail. Calling for such
> protections of individual rights as habeas corpus--the right to be brought
> before a court--freedom of the press, and a ban on religious tests for
> national office, the list amounted to a partial bill of rights. Pinckney's
> proposals, along with some from Gouverneur Morris, dealing chiefly with a
> presidential cabinet, were referred to the committee .
>
> George Mason then moved to enable Congress to enact sumptuary laws: acts
> designed to regulate personal behavior on moral and religious grounds. "No
> government can be maintained," Mason said, "unless the manners be made
> consonant to it."
>
> Connecticut's great consumer of snuff, Oliver Ellsworth, begged to differ.
> "The best remedy," he said, "is to enforce taxes and debts. As far as the
> regulation of eating and drinking can be reasonable, it is provided for in
> the power of taxation."
It sounds like Ellsworth agreed that the regulation of eating and drinking IS
PROVIDED FOR, huh? I thought that your position is that the Constitution did
not provide for means of regulating morality. Apparently Ellsworth (not to
mention George Mason), disagree with you.
RG
Rick Gardiner
[snip rest of book review; I don't see how a BOOK REVIEW adds anything at
substantive in contradiction to what has been posted by me above, and I doubt
Alison will take the time to be more clear]
Here is the material which Alison's book review simply doesn't come close to addressing--
===
RELIGION AND THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
Christine Heyrman, Ph.D.
Department of History, University of Delaware
No small number of those men and women who converted during the First Great
Awakening had defied traditional authorities to uphold their new religious
convictions. Some had criticized and ultimately rejected their former
ministers or churches for not being sufficiently evangelical, while others had
challenged the legitimacy of state-supported churches, which they deemed
enemies to individual religious freedom. In short, this was a generation of
people who had, during their youth, been schooled in the importance of
self-determination and even rebellion against the existing hierarchies of
deference and privilege...
It is only within the last half century that historians have turned their
attention to this relationship--and more recently still that many have come to
see religion as essential to understanding the political culture of
revolutionary America.
The first scholars to approach this subject, Perry Miller and Edmund Morgan,
advanced strong arguments for the formative influence of Puritanism upon the
resistance to Britain. Miller argued that Americans saw the colonies as a "New
Israel" and that this firm belief in their covenant with God as his "chosen
people" prompted them to perceive the revolutionary struggle as a holy war
against a sinful, corrupt Britain. In a similar vein, Morgan posited that an
enduring "Puritan ethic," a pervasive religious culture that had long
venerated industry and frugality and upheld the superiority of consensual,
contractual forms of church government, shaped both the resistance to Britain
and the new republican constitutions.
More recent historical inquiry has focused on connections between the Great
Awakening and the American Revolution. Alan Heimert's controversial study,
Religion and the American Mind, probably did more than any other book to
prompt that curiosity, for he argued that, at least in New England, the
radical evangelical supporters of the revival later became the most ardent
rebels, while the moderate and conservative opponents of the Awakening became
either neutrals or loyalists when the conflict came with Britain. Most
historians today reject this neat dichotomy, mainly because so many
nonevangelicals--Christians and otherwise, both in New England and
elsewhere--played such prominent roles in advancing the rebel cause. Even so,
many historians now believe that the religious ferment churned up by the Great
Awakening in the decades immediately preceding the revolutionary crisis had
profound implications for American politics.
Most scholars of this persuasion characterize late colonial America as a
society steeped in religious enthusiasm and riven by wrangling among competing
denominations and opposition to established churches. That contentious
spiritual climate, they believe, at once revived older traditions of
Protestant dissent, particularly the opposition to the divine right of kings,
and lent impetus to popular and individualistic styles of religiosity that
defied the claims of established authorities and venerable hierarchies--first
in churches, and later, in the 1760s and 1770s, in imperial politics. In
short, they argue that the First Great Awakening was a sort of "dress
rehearsal" for the American Revolution--that participating in a religious
upheaval primed an entire generation of colonials (particularly if not
exclusively the committed evangelicals in their ranks) to support a political
revolution. Indeed, many scholars of this stripe argue that what brought on
the American Revolution was a merging of the traditions of radical Protestant
dissent and republicanism.
The best place to begin your acquaintance with these arguments is the chapters
covering the Great Awakening and the American Revolution in Patricia Bonomi's
Under the Cope of Heaven and Harry Stout's The New England Soul. And if, after
reading their works, you'd like to delve into this subject more deeply, try
either Nathan Hatch's The Sacred Cause of Liberty or Ruth Bloch's Visionary
Republic, both of which will enhance your understanding of the
interpenetration of politics and religion in this period of American
history--how a struggle for colonial liberation came to be perceived as a holy
war.
(Christine Heyrman was a Fellow at the National Humanities Center in 1986-87.
She holds a Ph.D. from Yale University in American Studies and is currently
Professor of History in the Department of History at the University of
Delaware. Dr. Heyrman is the author of Commerce and Culture: the Maritime
Communities of Colonial New England, 1690-1740 [1984], Southern Cross: the
Beginning of the Bible Belt [1997], and Nation of Nations: a Narrative History
of the Republic, with James West Davidson, William Gienapp, Mark Lytle, and
Michael Stoff [3rd ed., 1997].)
tonu and carol aun
>
> On Tue, 04 Jan 2000 17:37:31 -0600, hennecke <henn...@elnet.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Some new Bible geography/reference software has just been released for
<stuff snipped>
> >It was 5 years in development and its developers consulted over 200
> >scholarly texts in its development. You can check it out at their
> >website:
>
> Before I waste time, what date does it give for the founding of
> Nazareth?
> Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
> aklein at villagenet dot com
Al: Exceedingly good question :-) Will quickly separate the wheat from
the chaff.
Rick Gardiner
It's not clear what you are trying to imply by posting this book review.
Whatever it may be, here is Dr. Gaustad's take on the relationship between the
Awakening and the Revolution:
===
In two ways, particularly, religion in the generation before the Revolution
prepared a diverse people to become a nation.
First, that wave of religious enthusiasm known as the Great Awakening
transcended denominational barriers, ignored colonial boundaries, melted
divisions between rich and poor, young and old, male and female, black and
white. Here, dramatically, suddenly, inexplicably was a popular religious
movement, an outbreak of fervent piety, that brought people out of their
private retreats, off their farms and businesses, out of their studies and
their sheltered officialdoms to hear and to rejoice in a gospel open to all.
In the words of a later hymn, "Whosoever will may come." And for awhile in the
1740s and 1750s it seemed that nearly everyone did come, finding themselves
part of a community larger, closer than any they had previously known in
America. Viewed exclusively as a social movement, this 18th century revivalism
related Americans to each other in a way that enabled them to think in
communal, in cooperative terms. Viewed also as a religious movement, it gave
to the colonists a "profoundly shared belief in a transcendent power... a
belief in the existence of certain absolute, eternal, universal laws against
which Americans must measure the relative laws of their manmade culture...This
provided Americans with the courage to change what must be changed..."6
These words of William McLoughlin's suggest religion's second contribution to
community in the pre-Revolutionary era: the creation of a common destiny and
hope. The 18th century revivalism travelled on the wings of a post-millennial
optimism, a confidence that God has great things in store for the world in
general, for America in particular. "At the heart of the evangelical ethic was
the hope of human betterment, the vision of a great community in which men,
instinctively as it were, would seek the general welfare."7 Americans could
become part of God's great historical plan, and those newly awakened to
biblical affirmations, newly cleansed by God's grace, felt every confidence
that they were already partners in that grand scheme. The courage to cast off
the overlordship of a sovereign and powerful England came more readily as one
found refuge in an even more powerful lordship.
===
Jeff/addesign
>> Thank you very much for these great quotes! They are a gift! I often
>> wondered what it was that the founders had that is lacking today - it's
>> DEISM!
>>
>> Sincerely, Robert L. Johnson
>> http://www.deism.com
>WRONG!
>The bias against the United States of America's Christian roots is evident in
>current histories and textbooks.
I wouldn't know about current textbooks. My research comes from
Jefferson's autobiograhy, and history books dated 1894, 1899, and
encycopediae from 1912 and 1945.
<heavy snippage>
>Donald Lutz, a Constitutional historian at the University of Houston, argued
>that "The Pedigree of the Bill of Rights" could be found in the bills of
>rights in colonial charters, primarily authored by ministers. Three-fourths of
>the provisions from the U.S. Bill of Rights, in fact, were outlined in the
>1641 Massachusetts Body of Liberties, a Puritan document that came complete
>with Bible verses attached to each of the rights.
Did that include hanging Quakers? That was legal in Massachusetts at
the time. And the Puritan intolerance led to the founding of Maryland
and Rhode Island, by Papists fearing for their lives.
>Of course, the Revolutionary generation was not as shocked by public religion
>as are people today. Nearly half of the British colonies had been founded by
>religious sectarians with explicitly Christian visions for society. Two thirds
>of the original thirteen colonies had established state churches at the time
>of the Constitutional Convention. Colonies mandated religious test oaths,
>requiring that officeholders be theists, Christians, or Trinitarians.
Which was abolished by Article VI of the Constitution.
>Even in colonies not noted for Reformed convictions Christian influences were
>evident. Maryland is an excellent example. Originally founded as a haven for
>Roman Catholics by George Calvert, Puritan settlers poured in and launched a
>civil war in retaliation for the persecution they received as Protestants. The
>matter was settled by the Act of Toleration (1649), the first colonial act to
>guarantee religious freedom.
This guaranteed Protestants and Papists wouldn't be killing each
other, but only in Maryland. It was revoked when Protestants siezed
power in 1657, and Papists and Quakers were again persecuted.
>Or consider the case of Virginia. Though perhaps the most secular of the
>colonies, the Dominion's laws were still very "puritanical". Virginia had
>statutes against gaming with cards and dice, bastardy, adultery (including
>requiring offenders to wear the scarlet 'A'), witchcraft, and sodomy (a
>capital crime). Blasphemy was also illegal; a 17th century crusade against
>"wicked oaths" in Henrico County netted 122 indictments, including one against
>a spry-tongued woman for sixty-five separate offenses, and one against a man
>eventually imprisoned for "oaths innumerable". Skipping church could bring
>serious consequences: fines, corporal punishment, and death. Yes, in the
>"secular" colony of Virginia, under Governor Dale, the third offense of
>Sabbath-breaking brought the death penalty. A 1705 law, in force for over
>eighty years - through the Revolution - enacted stiff penalties, including
>disqualification from office, loss of civil liberties, and three years
>imprisonment, for denying the existence of God, the Trinity, the Christian
>faith, or the divine inspiration of the scriptures.[6]
An excellent argument in favor of Separation of Church and State, and,
along with the unfair taxation of the Parish system, which extracted
tithe from members of a parish, whether members of that church or not,
the reason for Jefferson's Virginia Act of Religious Freedom. In his
autobiographical account, he also cited the crime of being Quaker
while in Virginia, which on the third offense was punishable by death.
This is not unlike more recent "laws," such as DWB or BWB, "driving
while black" and "breathing while black."
<Massive Snippage which demonstates the religious bigotry fresh in the
minds of the Constitutional Convention, maiking it apparent why the
stipulated a separation of Church and State in article VI, reinforced
by Article I of the Bill of Rights>
The point is not whether a bunch of jeaolous Christian factions
happened to set up various colonies in the New World. The point is
that the framers had the wisdom to learn from the previous two hundred
years of religious mischief, and strip religion of any power in
government.
Personally, I don't care about the personal religious beliefs of
anyone, including the founders. I do appreciate that they left
religion out of government.
I leave you with Five quotes. The first from Jefferson, regarding the
Virgina Religious Freedom Act; the second and third from Jefferson
regarding his view of Jesus and the Church, which viewpoint you have
conveniently overlooked in your various references to Jefferson in
this and other posts; and the last two, observations from historians,
including Gibbon, whose work was well-known in Jefferson's day.
1. "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." Jefferson, _Notes on Virginia_
2. Jefferson's Bible:
To John Adams Monticello, October 13, 1813
“. . . In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should
have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been
muffled by priests, who have travastied them into various forms, as
instruments of riches and power to themsleves. . . . There will be
found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which
has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my
own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and
arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is easily
distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an octavo of
forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines, such as were
professed and acted on by the «unlettered» Apostles, the Apostolic
Fathers, and the Christians of the first century. Their Platonizing
successors, indeed, in after times, in order to legitimate the
corruptions which they had incorporated in the doctrine of Jesus,
found it necessary to disavow the primitive Christians, who had taken
their principles from the mouth of Jesus himself, of his Apostles, and
the Fathers contemporary with them. They excommunicated their
followers as heretics, branding them as the opprobrious name of
Ebionites or Beggars . . . .”
3. Trinitarianism, and the organized Church's corruption of
Christianity:
To James Smith Monticello, December 8, 1822
“ SIR,--I have to thank you for the pamphlets on the subject of
Unitarianism, and to express my gratification with your efforts for
the revival of primitive Christianity in your Quarter. No historical
fact is better established, than the doctrine of one God., pure and
uncompinded, was that of the early ages of Christianity; and among the
efficacious doctrines which gave triumph over the polytheism of the
ancients, sickened with the absurdities of their own theology. Nor was
the unity of the Supreme Being ousted from the Christian creed by
force of reason, but by the sword of civil government, wielded by the
will of the fanatic Athanasius. The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like
another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and
growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs. And a
strong proof of the solidity of the primitive faith, is its
restoration, as soon as a nation arises which vindicates to itself the
freedom of religious opinion, and its external divorce from the civil
authority. . . . . the Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three
but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man
can say he has any idea about it, and how can he believe what presents
no idea? He who thinks he does only deceives himself. He proves, also,
than man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against
absurdities the mist monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is
the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility which they
call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind
becomes a wreck.
“I write with freedom, because while I claim a right to believe in one
God, if so my reason tells me, I yield as freely to others that of
believing in three. Both religions, I find, make honest men, and that
is the only point society has any right to look to. . . .”
4. Religion and Government:
"The Theologian may indulge the pleasing task of describing Religion
as she descended from heaven arrayed in her native purity. A more
melancholy duty is imposed on the historian. He must discover the
inevitable mixture of error and corruption which she contracted in a
long residence upon earth, among a weak and degernerate race of
beings." Edward Gibbon _ The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire_
5. Religion and Government:
"The greatest disaster that has befallen Christendom was, perhaps, the
conversion of Constantine and the consequent involvement of Caesar in
the affairs of God and of God's Church in the affairs of Caesar.
Second to this was the transformation of the Church from the status of
a Church persecuted for Christ's sake into a Church persecuting in
the name of Christ."
--R.C. Zaehner, Concordant Discord, Oxford, Clarendon Prss, 1970 p.18
Quoted in Arnold Toynbee, _A Study of History_
Rick Gardiner
Help us all understand what a Ph.D. "type" professor is? Is that like Jeff
Sinclair's "I might be a Ph.D." or does Peters actually qualify?
RG
Jeff/addesign
>Jeff/addesign wrote:
>>
>> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>> >the provisions from the U.S. Bill of Rights, in fact, were outlined in the
>> >1641 Massachusetts Body of Liberties, a Puritan document that came complete
>> >with Bible verses attached to each of the rights.
>>
>> Did that include hanging Quakers? That was legal in Massachusetts at
>> the time. And the Puritan intolerance led to the founding of Maryland
>> and Rhode Island,
>Is it your view that Catholics left Massachusetts as a result of Puritan
>intolerance and went down and founded Maryland? That's a new one on me. Cite please.
No, an oversimplification, and an error. I had in my mind that there
were two colonies of those who sought freedom FROM the religion of
Massachusetts, and posting too late at night, I erred on one. I should
have said Connecticut.
The Catholics of Maryland came primarily from England, not Mass., but
the Connecticut colony was primarily settled by emigrants from
Massachusetts Bay, "because they were out of sympathy with the hard
rule of the united church and state of Massachussetts." Andrew C.
McLughlin, _A History of the American Nation_ D. Appleton & Co., 1899
Maryland has its own history of Protestants and Catholics taking turns
at persecuting each other. Rhode Island was the last state to ratify
the Constitution, out of fears for the security of its religious
liberty.
>> >Of course, the Revolutionary generation was not as shocked by public religion
>> >as are people today. Nearly half of the British colonies had been founded by
>> >religious sectarians with explicitly Christian visions for society. Two thirds
>> >of the original thirteen colonies had established state churches at the time
>> >of the Constitutional Convention. Colonies mandated religious test oaths,
>> >requiring that officeholders be theists, Christians, or Trinitarians.
>>
>> Which was abolished by Article VI of the Constitution.
>Interesting. Is it your view that the religious qualifications for state
>officials required by state constitutions
>(http://www.universitylake.org/history/state.html) were all abolished in 1787
>as a result of Article VI? That is another new one on me. Cite please.
At least in principle, and certainly for national office. "...No
religious test..." I would think the Amendment XIV (ratified 1868)
would have thoroughly abrogated any remaining oath requirements in the
individual states. Some religious idiocy lingers on in some
jurisdictions, even today. There is a concurrent thread (in a.a) about
some place prohibiting atheists from holding office. But I doubt any
such laws would survive a Constitutional test.
>> The point is not whether a bunch of jeaolous Christian factions
>> happened to set up various colonies in the New World. The point is
>> that the framers had the wisdom to learn from the previous two hundred
>> years of religious mischief, and strip religion of any power in
>> government.
>Do you deny that the Declaration of Independence ROOTED fundamental human
>rights in the existence of a deity? I can give you a citation if you need to
>see it.
No thanks. I suspect it would be from a biased source. I do not deny
that DoI defines rights as inherent in people, as opposed to bestowed
by a human sovereign. That most of the signers were in some form deist
or christian is not disputed. That it was necessary to phrase the DoI
in a manner that appealed to the christian signers is not disputed.
That it is a document that establishes the "Christianity" of this
nation, is disputed. The phrasing is consistent with Deism.
It is not the architecture of our nation, however. The structure of
government is in the Constitution, and the framers made clear that no
religious test shall ever be required. What stirring prose they used
to inspire men upon the dangerous course of rebellion does not
establish the rules of our government.
The DoI is based upon George Mason's Declaration of Rights for
Virginia, adopted June 12, 1776.
Section 1: "That all men are by nature equally free and independent
and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a
state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their
posterity; namely the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of
acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining
happiness and safety."
No mention of a creator or god, or Jesus. So the "All men are endowed
by their creator" was a marvelously crafted phrase, but the original
intent was merely to state that such rights are inherent in all men.
This would be true for christians, deists, or atheists, and is
consistent with Deism.
If we may get back to New England for a moment:
The majority of sympathies in the colonies was for fair treatment of
colonials with the rights of Englishmen, and could these rights have
been gained and sustained, we might still be under British rule. The
turning point came with the "Five Intolerable Acts" in reprisal for
the Boston Tea Party, and leading to the first Continental Congress.
Among them was the Quebec Act. Under this act, the province of
Quebec was extended to the Ohio and Mississippi, and Catholicism was
sanctioned. The protestants of New England (rightly or wrongly)
considered this a threat to their religion. Four out of Five of the
"Intolerable Acts" are specifically addressed in our Bill of Rights:
freedom of religion; right to assemble and redress of grievances; no
quartering of troops; trial by jury of peers within the jurisdiction
of the crime.
It is clear to me, from reading my dusty old volumes from the previous
century, that the religious iniquities within the colonies in the
century preceding the revolution were as vivid in the minds of the
framers, as African-American slavery and Nazism are vivid in ours.
I do not doubt that the beliefs of a few men, deist and christian,
gave us a nation with religion and government held at arms length.
You neatly clipped my quotes with no responses, so I'll add one back
in for your consideration. Jefferson read Gibbon's works, prior to
1785, when he mentions them in a letter to Peter Carr. From this, and
his mention of Gibbon with respect to establishing courses at the U.
of Virginia, I gather that Gibbon was well-read among some of the
great thinkers of our nacent nation. He refered to Gibbon as I do, as
though expecting any literate person to know of whom he spake.
"The Theologian may indulge the pleasing task of describing Religion
as she descended from heaven arrayed in her native purity. A more
melancholy duty is imposed on the historian. He must discover the
inevitable mixture of error and corruption which she contracted in a
long residence upon earth, among a weak and degernerate race of
beings."
Edward Gibbon _ The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire_
>> Personally, I don't care about the personal religious beliefs of
>> anyone, including the founders. I do appreciate that they left
>> religion out of government.
>Not quite. The founders believed Vox Populi est Vox Dei (the voice of the
>people is the voice of God), and thus, with Locke, they believed in the divine
>right of the electorate.
I believe this is a mischaracterization of Locke, if you mean to show
that Locke, or those who may have been influenced by, or espoused him,
are in opposition to Deism.
Locke held that by the use of reason, man can order his life in the
state of nature by "God's comands," and that these commands ARE the
laws of nature. Thus, the God presented in Locke's Second Treatise,
is not inconsistent with Deism. The "divine right of the electorate"
is more properly described as men living in a state of nature, who by
mutual agreement have joined together for safety, peace, and security
of property.
If the founders believed "with Locke," then they believed in a Deist
concept of God revealed by reason in Natural Law.
>Furthermore, they believed that a government can only
>succeed where the people are imbued with a religious conscience and sense of
>morals. Here is a sample of sentiments from those who gave us the Declaration
>and the Constitution--
The United States was first and foremost an experiment in the creation
of a fair and rational government by and for the people, and to that
end, some great men labored and debated to produce our Constitution
and Bill of Rights. That some may also have been Christian, and
espoused Christian views in comments such as you have quoted, does not
establish this as a Christian nation, nor detract from the fact that
they implicitly separated church from state in both Article VI and the
First Amendment.
Locke 's influence on American political ideas is indisputable.
That his concept of the State of Nature and the formation of
government are consistent with Deism is also difficult to dispute.
I can see nothing in The Second Treatise to suggest that governments
should be established under anything derived specifically from
Christian doctrine.
Locke was tutor to the Second Earl of Shaftesbury, who later gained
fame as a leading Deist. Hume, Berkeley, Rousseau, Voltaire, Leibniz,
were all influenced by Locke. Deism is rooted in Locke's work, as is
our form of government.
Rick Gardiner
Thank you for your reasoned response. I hope I respond here as courteously as
you have.
Jeff/addesign wrote:
>
> >> Did that include hanging Quakers? That was legal in Massachusetts at
> >> the time. And the Puritan intolerance led to the founding of Maryland
> >> and Rhode Island,
>
> >Is it your view that Catholics left Massachusetts as a result of Puritan
> >intolerance and went down and founded Maryland? That's a new one on me. Cite please.
>
> No, an oversimplification, and an error. I had in my mind that there
> were two colonies of those who sought freedom FROM the religion of
> Massachusetts, and posting too late at night, I erred on one. I should
> have said Connecticut.
Understood. And I concede that Rhode Island and Connecticutt were both born in
conflict with Boston. I don't contest your assessment of Maryland, once corrected.
> >> >Of course, the Revolutionary generation was not as shocked by public religion
> >> >as are people today. Nearly half of the British colonies had been founded by
> >> >religious sectarians with explicitly Christian visions for society. Two thirds
> >> >of the original thirteen colonies had established state churches at the time
> >> >of the Constitutional Convention. Colonies mandated religious test oaths,
> >> >requiring that officeholders be theists, Christians, or Trinitarians.
> >>
> >> Which was abolished by Article VI of the Constitution.
>
> >Interesting. Is it your view that the religious qualifications for state
> >officials required by state constitutions
> >(http://www.universitylake.org/history/state.html) were all abolished in 1787
> >as a result of Article VI? That is another new one on me. Cite please.
>
> At least in principle, and certainly for national office.
If you look above, however, the claim that you were saying was abolished by
Article VI was: "Colonies mandated religious test oaths."
Insofar as states governments were concerned, Article VI did not affect them,
either in fact or in principle, until the 14th Amendment.
> >Do you deny that the Declaration of Independence ROOTED fundamental human
> >rights in the existence of a deity? I can give you a citation if you need to
> >see it.
>
> No thanks. I suspect it would be from a biased source.
Thomas Jefferson: "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights."
> I do not deny
> that DoI defines rights as inherent in people, as opposed to bestowed
> by a human sovereign. That most of the signers were in some form deist
> or christian is not disputed.
A large majority of non-Deist Christians of one sect or the other.
> That it was necessary to phrase the DoI
> in a manner that appealed to the christian signers is not disputed.
Are you alleging that the "endowed by their Creator" clause was just a show?
Do you have any evidence that this was insincerely inserted?
> That it is a document that establishes the "Christianity" of this
> nation, is disputed.
Is anyone asserting that the DOI established Christianity? It didn't. It did
build upon Christian political theory.
> The phrasing is consistent with Deism.
"Consistent with" is a slippery phrase. The phrasing is also consistent with
the principles of the Boy Scouts, but I don't think that means it is a Boy
Scout document.
> It is not the architecture of our nation, however.
Agreed. It is not the "by-laws," it is simply a statement of fundamental beliefs.
> The structure of
> government is in the Constitution, and the framers made clear that no
> religious test shall ever be required.
For federal office. That was not the case locally.
> What stirring prose they used
> to inspire men upon the dangerous course of rebellion does not
> establish the rules of our government.
The Declaration of Independence continues to be cited by federal courts as an
authoritative source for understanding our government's position on
fundamental human rights. Do you deny that?
> The DoI is based upon George Mason's Declaration of Rights for
> Virginia, adopted June 12, 1776.
It was based upon many sources. Granted, Masons's Declaration is one such
source. The Dutch Declaration is another. http://www.newswise.com/articles/1998/6/DECLARE.UWI.html
> Section 1: "That all men are by nature equally free and independent
> and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a
> state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their
> posterity; namely the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of
> acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining
> happiness and safety."
>
> No mention of a creator or god, or Jesus. So the "All men are endowed
> by their creator" was a marvelously crafted phrase, but the original
> intent was merely to state that such rights are inherent in all men.
Well, if we are going back to Jefferson's "original intent," the unedited
version of the DOI indicates that "we hold these truths to be SACRED."
According to John Adams
(http://www.universitylake.org/history/pickering.html), what Jefferson was
doing was rewording a pamphlet written by Otis and Adams in 1772.
That forementioned pamphlet spoke of the Rights of Colonists, appealing to
their "rights as Christians," as identified in the New Testament.
> This would be true for christians, deists, or atheists, and is
> consistent with Deism.
And with Boy Scouts.
> If we may get back to New England for a moment:
> The majority of sympathies in the colonies was for fair treatment of
> colonials with the rights of Englishmen, and could these rights have
> been gained and sustained, we might still be under British rule. The
> turning point came with the "Five Intolerable Acts" in reprisal for
> the Boston Tea Party, and leading to the first Continental Congress.
As far as Independence was concerned, I don't know of anyone that was talking
that way in 1773-1774. The turning point in that regard seems to have come
from the pen of Thomas Paine (COMMON SENSE) in 1776. I'm sure that is a point
that you will want to gladly concede. However, you should not be too quick to
herald Paine's deism insofar as when he wrote Common Sense, the general public
had no clue that he was a deist. He did not go public with his deism until
1790, and that was a fatal mistake for him (http://www2.pitnet.net/gardiner/history/deism.htm)
> Among them was the Quebec Act. Under this act, the province of
> Quebec was extended to the Ohio and Mississippi, and Catholicism was
> sanctioned. The protestants of New England (rightly or wrongly)
> considered this a threat to their religion.
I wholeheartedly agree. As a matter of fact, NO KING, NO POPERY provides
excellent proof of the depths of this concern (http://info.greenwood.com/books/0313297/0313297290.html)
> Four out of Five of the
> "Intolerable Acts" are specifically addressed in our Bill of Rights:
> freedom of religion; right to assemble and redress of grievances; no
> quartering of troops; trial by jury of peers within the jurisdiction
> of the crime.
>
> It is clear to me, from reading my dusty old volumes from the previous
> century, that the religious iniquities within the colonies in the
> century preceding the revolution were as vivid in the minds of the
> framers, as African-American slavery and Nazism are vivid in ours.
I think I agree, but with qualification. I think that the framers were very
concerned about "institutional abuses" of religion, such as the inquisition,
the Salem witch trials, the jailing of Baptist preachers, the hanging of
Quakers, etc.
I dont't think, however, that this amounted to a wholesale rejection of "the
Christian religion" per se. It was a rejection of giving ecclesiasts the power
of the civil magistrate, which they had in England and in some parts of the
colonial world. This sentiment reflected Luther's views on the subject (http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/Secauth.HTM)
> I do not doubt that the beliefs of a few men, deist and christian,
> gave us a nation with religion and government held at arms length.
For what purpose? I find it clear that men such as Madison and Jefferson
agreed with Locke that this was the best means of promoting religion and
SINCERE faith. (http://www.constitution.org/jl/tolerati.htm)
> You neatly clipped my quotes with no responses,
Only because I didn't have any reason to contest what was said.
> so I'll add one back
> in for your consideration. Jefferson read Gibbon's works, prior to
> 1785, when he mentions them in a letter to Peter Carr.
I concede that Jefferson, like Gibbon, was very cautious about ecclesiastical
tyranny, theological persecution, and the potential negative effects which
theologians had historically had upon progress.
> >> Personally, I don't care about the personal religious beliefs of
> >> anyone, including the founders. I do appreciate that they left
> >> religion out of government.
>
> >Not quite. The founders believed Vox Populi est Vox Dei (the voice of the
> >people is the voice of God), and thus, with Locke, they believed in the divine
> >right of the electorate.
>
> I believe this is a mischaracterization of Locke, if you mean to show
> that Locke, or those who may have been influenced by, or espoused him,
> are in opposition to Deism.
>
> Locke held that by the use of reason, man can order his life in the
> state of nature by "God's comands," and that these commands ARE the
> laws of nature. Thus, the God presented in Locke's Second Treatise,
> is not inconsistent with Deism.
First, Locke was not a Deist, he was a sincere Christian (See e.g., "Locke,"
the Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
Second, this continual phrase, "not inconsistent with Deism" seems to be a
sleight of hand. The idea that the Laws of Nature and the Laws of God are one
and the same is an idea that was loudly proclaimed by St. Thomas Aquinas, John
Calvin, and the Puritans, as well as the Westminster Confession and
Blackstone. By making this move, Locke was not introducing anything new or
"deist." The fact that the deists reduced all divine laws to "natural law" is
something that Locke DID NOT DO. Unlike the deists, but like the Puritans,
Locke believed in Natural Law AND Revealed Law (the Bible). Late in his life,
he considered his commentaries on the New Testament to be his most important
contributions to humanity.
You are "reaching" to claim Locke as a deist, and it is strained.
> The "divine right of the electorate"
> is more properly described as men living in a state of nature, who by
> mutual agreement have joined together for safety, peace, and security
> of property.
You are confusing Locke with Rousseau. Locke draws heavily upon the VINDICIAE,
Rutherford, Lawson, and other Puritan Political theorists for his
understanding of popular sovereignty as an expression of the Divine will. (See
Winthrop S. Hudson, "John Locke: Heir of Puritan
Political Theorists," in Calvinism and the Political Order, ed. George L. Hunt
(Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1965), pp. 108-29)
> If the founders believed "with Locke," then they believed in a Deist
> concept of God revealed by reason in Natural Law.
The founders views about Political rights was largely drawn from Blackstone,
as much as Locke (http://www.universitylake.org/history/influences.html), see
also Beverly Zweiben, How Blackstone Lost the Colonies: English Law, Colonial
Lawyers, and the American Revolution (New York: Garland Publishing, 1990).
Locke and Blackstone agree as to the sources of Law:
"Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his
creator, for he is entirely a dependent being... This will of his maker is
called the law of nature. For as God, when he created matter, and endued it
with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the perpetual
direction of that motion; so, when he created man, and endued him with
freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain
immutable laws of human nature, whereby that freewill is in some degree
regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover
the purport of those laws... This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and
dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It
is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times; no human
laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid
derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately,
from this original...
This has given manifold occasion for the benign interposition of divine
providence; which, in compassion to the family, the imperfection, and the
blindness of human reason, hath been pleased, at sundry times and in divers
manners, to discover and enforce it's laws by an immediate and direct
revelation. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law,
and they are to be found only in the
holy scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparison to
be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their
consequences to man's felicity. But we are not from thence to conclude that
the knowledge of these truths was attainable by reason, in it's present)
corrupted state; since we find that, until they were revealed, they were hid
from the wisdom of ages. As then
the moral precepts of this law are indeed of the same original with those of
the law of nature, so their intrinsic obligation is of equal strength and
perpetuity. Yet undoubtedly the revealed law is of infinitely more
authenticity than that moral system, which is framed by ethical writers, and
denominated the natural law. Because one is the law of nature, expressly
declared so to be by God himself; the other is only what, by the assistance of
human reason, we imagine to be that law. If we could be as certain of the
latter as we are of the former, both would have an equal authority; but, till
then, they can never be put in any competition together.
Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation,
depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to
contradict these."
(Source: BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES, http://www.founding.com/library/lbody.cfm?id=344&parent=21)
> >Furthermore, they believed that a government can only
> >succeed where the people are imbued with a religious conscience and sense of
> >morals. Here is a sample of sentiments from those who gave us the Declaration
> >and the Constitution--
>
> The United States was first and foremost an experiment in the creation
> of a fair and rational government by and for the people, and to that
> end, some great men labored and debated to produce our Constitution
> and Bill of Rights. That some may also have been Christian, and
> espoused Christian views in comments such as you have quoted, does not
> establish this as a Christian nation, nor detract from the fact that
> they implicitly separated church from state in both Article VI and the
> First Amendment.
Okay.
> Locke 's influence on American political ideas is indisputable.
> That his concept of the State of Nature and the formation of
> government are consistent with Deism is also difficult to dispute.
> I can see nothing in The Second Treatise to suggest that governments
> should be established under anything derived specifically from
> Christian doctrine.
Locke's view of religious establishments was drawn from the Luther, Milton and
the Puritans, such as Owen, Locke's teacher at Oxford.
These theologians believed, on the grounds of Jesus saying "my kingdom is not
of this world," that there should be a clear distinction between the civil and
the ecclesiastical.
Locke's view of religious toleration is, therefore, entirely Christian in it's origin:
"No man can be a Christian without charity and without that faith which works,
not by force, but by love. Now, I appeal to the consciences of those that
persecute, torment, destroy, and kill other men upon pretence of religion,
whether they do it out of friendship and kindness towards them or no? And I
shall then indeed, and not until then, believe they do so, when I shall see
those fiery zealots correcting, in the same manner, their friends and familiar
acquaintance for the manifest sins they commit against the precepts of the
Gospel; when I shall see them persecute with fire and sword the members of
their own communion that are tainted with enormous vices and without amendment
are in danger of eternal perdition; and when I shall see them thus express
their love and desire of the salvation of their souls by the infliction of
torments and exercise of all manner of cruelties. For if it be out of a
principle of charity, as they pretend, and love to men's souls that they
deprive them of their estates, maim them with corporal punishments, starve and
torment them in noisome prisons, and in the end even take away their lives - I
say, if all this be done merely to make men Christians and procure their
salvation, why then do they suffer whoredom, fraud, malice, and such-like
enormities, which (according to the apostle)*(4) manifestly relish of
heathenish corruption, to predominate so much and abound amongst their flocks
and people? These, and such-like things, are certainly more contrary to the
glory of God, to the purity of the Church, and to the salvation of souls, than
any conscientious dissent from ecclesiastical decisions, or separation from
public worship, whilst accompanied with innocence of life.
The toleration of those that differ from others in matters of religion is so
agreeable to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to the genuine reason of mankind,
that it seems monstrous for men to be so blind as not to perceive the
necessity and advantage of it in so clear a light...
The commonwealth seems to me to be a society of men constituted only for the
procuring, preserving, and advancing their own civil interests.
Civil interests I call life, liberty, health, and indolency of body; and the
possession of outward things, such as money, lands, houses, furniture, and the
like.
Now that the whole jurisdiction of the magistrate reaches only to these civil
concernments, and that all civil power, right and dominion, is bounded and
confined to the only care of promoting these things; and that it neither can
nor ought in any manner to be extended to the salvation of souls, these
following considerations seem unto me abundantly to demonstrate."
(Source: LOCKE, A Letter Concerning Toleration, 1689)
> Locke was tutor to the Second Earl of Shaftesbury, who later gained
> fame as a leading Deist. Hume, Berkeley, Rousseau, Voltaire, Leibniz,
> were all influenced by Locke. Deism is rooted in Locke's work, as is
> our form of government.
Insofar as these men were deists and they rejected "revealed religion" they
departed from Locke, who was dearly committed throughout his life to revealed religion:
"The holy Scripture is to me, and always will be, the constant guide of my
assent; and I shall always hearken to it, as containing the infallible truth
relating to things of the highest concernment... and I shall immediately
condemn and quit any opinion of mine, as soon as I am shown that it is
contrary to any revelation in the holy scripture."
(SOURCE: John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (New York: Dover,
1959), vol. 1, prolegomena.)
Thanks again for your reasoned and non-inflamatory post. It is refreshing to
be able to disagree with out reducing one's self to epithets, insults, and
genetic ad hominems.
buc...@exis.net
Gee, why have you ignored these posts:
From: Jeff Sinclair <jeffrey...@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups:
soc.history.war.us-revolution,alt.history.colonial,sci.skeptic,alt.deism
Subject: Re: The Founders Were Deists? (PART II)
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 06:07:50 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
Lines: 300
Message-ID: <851bfg$769$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <eBJdOIgrlhIRLn...@4ax.com>
<385DBA78...@pitnet.net> <83n6pq$6i4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
<386038B9...@pitnet.net>
<83q1ep$49ra$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>
<841e9t$2dp$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
<clw-251299...@i48-06-29.pdx.du.teleport.com>
<gO994.3265$GF1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
<mikeburt-281...@pon-mi22-07.ix.netcom.com>
<unin6scjreun110ch...@4ax.com> <38715FA6...@deism.com>
<38717830...@pitnet.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.174.163.90
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jan 06 06:07:50 2000 GMT
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98; DigExt;
MindSpring Internet Services)
X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x35.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 199.174.163.90
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDjeffreysinclair
Path:
grouper.exis.net!pants.skycache.com!howland.erols.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail
Xref: grouper.exis.net soc.history.war.us-revolution:7572
alt.history.colonial:3405 sci.skeptic:384783 alt.deism:2224
In article <38717830...@pitnet.net>,
Gard...@pitnet.net wrote:
[Part II]
<<snip>>
> In short, then, the Bible and Protestant theology provided Christians
ample
> justification for participation in the American War of Independence.
[15]
Gardiner misses the point by noting this, however. The question is not
whether the theology of the Reformed tradition _could_ have justified
participation in the American War of Independence, but whether it was
more of a factor than other factors in giving the colonists
justification to revolt against the crown. Historians such as Gordon
Wood have stressed that this factor is much less important in this
regard than Enlightenment philosophy, Whig Political thinking,
republicanism, and the perceptions of widespread corruption by the
crown on the English government to the detriment of the colonists.
These were the primary motivations for the colonist’s revolt, and not
Biblical or Protestant theology.
> Another factor for Christian participation in the War was the
historical
> example of resistance. John Adams said that one of the most
influential works
> of the Revolutionary era was A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants ,
by Junius
> Brutus, a Protestant who experienced bloody religious persecution in
16th
> century France. Thoroughly Biblical and Calvinistic in approach,
Against
> Tyrants directly challenged the presumptions of royal absolutism and
the
> divine right of kings, arguing that one must not obey the king when
his
> commands violated God's law, ruined His church, or harmed the nation.
[16]
A defense of Liberty can be found at
http://www.visi.com/~homelands//vindiciae/vindiciae.html
Please note that the reasons the colonists opposed the Crown was not,
according to the principles laid down in this document, primarily
because the Crown violated God’s law or ruined his church, but because
the rampant corruption in English politics was widely perceived to be
harmful to the nation, especially to the colonists. The link
to “Question 3” on this document describes conditions similar to those
found in the colonies just prior to the revolution:
http://www.visi.com/~homelands//vindiciae/vindiciae3.html
“Whether it is lawful to resist a ruler who is oppressing or ruining
the country, and how far such resistance may be extended; by whom, how,
and by what right or law it is permitted.
For so much as we must here discuss the lawful authority of a lawful
ruler, I am confident that this question won't be in the least
acceptable to tyrants and wicked rulers. But it's no wonder that those
who acknowledge no law but their own whims are deaf to the voice of
that law which is grounded upon reason. But I am convinced that the
good rulers will willingly listen to this discussion, because they know
full well that every magistrate, whatever their rank, are but an
embodiment of the law. And even though nothing will convince the bad
rulers, this doesn't say anything against the good, since the two are
are, in character, diametrically the opposite of each other. Therefore,
whatever shall be said against the actions of tyrants by no means
detracts anything from good kings; on the contrary, the more tyrants
are shown for their true colors, the more glorious does the true worth
and dignity of good kings appear, and neither can the vicious
imperfections of the one be laid open without adding perfections and
respect to the honor of the other.
But as for tyrants, let them say and think what they please; that will
be the least of my worries. For it is not to them, but against them
that I write. I believe good kings will readily consent to that which
is propounded, for they ought to hate tyrants and wicked governors just
as much as shepherds hate wolves, physicians hate poisoners, or true
prophets hate false doctors; for reason infuses into good kings as much
hatred against tyrants, as nature imprints in dogs against wolves, for
as the one lives by looting and pillaging, so the other is born or bred
to redress and prevent all such outrages. It may be the flatterers of
tyrants will read this and turn up their noses at it, but if they were
not past all grace, they would rather blush with shame. I very well
know that the friends and faithful servants of kings will not only
consider and approve this argument, but also, with their best
abilities, defend its contents. Accordingly as the reader shall find
himself liking or disliking what we say here, let him know that by that
he shall plainly discover either the affection or hatred that he bears
to tyrants. Let us now enter into the matter.”
It is to be noted here that the rationale, in contrast to the first two
questions having to do specifically with religious issues is here
social and political; the influence of this document especially as
regards the colonial situation is based on this question (noting
especially the reference to syncophants in the second paragraph here)
and not on religious considerations, which are addressed by the first
two questions in this document.
Furthermore, it is to be noted that this document was written in 1579,
in a time, place, and culture where _everything_ was subjected to
religious scrutiny, especially in the polemical religious atmosphere of
this time which pre-dated nationalism, rationalism, and Enlightenment
though whose influence on the revolution was far greater and more
immediate.
> The Scottish covenanting tradition was another religio-historical
precedent
> for the War of Independence. In 1633, the Scots formed the "Solemn
League and
> Covenant" to resist English tyranny and the imposition of the
Anglicanism in
> Scotland. (During the same period of English tyranny Puritans fled to
> Massachusetts.) The best example of the covenanter's philosophy of
resistance
> was Samuel Rutherford's Lex, Rex , which challenged royal power by
arguing
> that the law was king. Though Rutherford was not often quoted in the
colonies,
> and the extent of his direct influence is unknown, the ideas of the
> covenanters were familiar to colonists. In Common Sense , for
instance, in
> true Rutherfordian fashion, Thomas Paine insisted that "In America,
THE LAW IS
> KING".
If Rutherford was not often quoted, and also if the extent of his
direct influence is unknown, to thereby assert that he was an influence
on American political thinking without such evidence is patently
ludicrous. The barest of threads, based upon familiarity and a use of
the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy links Rutherford, who is not even
cited as an influence by such historians of the influences of the
American Revolution as Gordon Wood, to the revolutionary thinking of
Thomas Paine, which paradoxically Gardiner tries his hardest to
downplay in his post in this same thread on the same day! Were this to
be used as “evidence” of an influence of thought in professional
historian’s circles, it would certainly be cause for raucous laughter.
> John Witherspoon, a native Scot and a signer of the Declaration of
> Independence, frequently invoked the example of the Scottish
covenanters
> during the Revolution as people who bonded together to resist British
tyranny.
> For Witherspoon, the Covananter tradition was an horizon for the
American
> Revolution.[17]
It may or may not have been for Witherspoon, but the more relevant
questions in this regard are whether the covenanters were influential
for large numbers people other than Witherspoon, and whether
Witherspoon himself was influential on Revolutionary thought.
In Gordon Wood’s definitive _The Creation of the American Republic_,
Witherspoon is mentioned in six places (pp. 103, 115, 118, 164, 202-03,
357). In these places, he is noted as disagreeing with Paine’s
optimistic view of human nature (remembering that Paine’s _Common
Sense_ had been well-read and influential on the colonists after
January, 1776), disagreeing with the Enlightenment view of the
possibility and goal of a virtuous society that was much of the
lifeblood of the revolutionary republican ideology, argument concerning
the effect of the character of the people on the people’s destruction
or florishing, part of a lecture to his Princeton students citing the
identification of the multitude with the public, observations about
what Americans had argued about in the imperial debate, and a note that
he was one of the spokemen for the “small states”. In contrast to
Gardiner’s broad assertions about his influence, largely due to
aquaintance with people at Princeton, his influence here is noted as
being more local, and in some places, his own thought was at odds with
some of the ideological driving forces of the American Revolution.
> By the time of the War for Independence there was ample Christian
theory
> justifying resistance to a corrupt and tyrannical king. Jonathan
Mayhew's 1750
> sermon, "A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission", foreshadowed
preaching
> on the topic. During the war New England preachers were called
the "Black
> Regiment" because of the color of their clerical robes and their
fervent
> support of the Revolutionary cause. Though some have charged them with
> politicizing the gospel and preaching up "the sacred cause of
liberty", these
> ministers were able to distinguish between secular and sacred causes.
They did
> see political and religious issues as being interrelated, believing
that
> British political tyranny would eventually destroy religious freedom.
As John
> Witherspoon put it "there is no instance in history in which civil
liberty was
> destroyed, and the rights of conscience preserved entire". Yet as my
own study
> has shown, eve at the height of political and civil strife, these
ministers
> gave the greatest priority to spiritual struggles, the need for
salvation, and
> eternal destiny of all.[18]
And as Wood has shown, these were largely secondary considerations, if
considerations at all, of the involvement of the colonists in rebelling
against the crown. Again, while there were strands of Reformation
thought which allowed for resistance against despots, it is clear that
these considerations did not loom as large as republicanism,
corruption, Enlightenment thinking, etc. in the thoughts of the
founders. It is not clear in fact whether this strand of religious
thinking (as opposed to related strands of social or political
thinking) in fact had any large scale effect on encouraging rebellion.
Except that the classical texts referred to above, by Machiavelli and
by Cato (who was not even Christian), the morality called for was not
labeled as Christian. The literature of ancient Greece and Rome, of
course, existed either before or largely independent and oblivious to
Christian thinking; to assert that such texts reinforced the need for
Christian morality is unwarranted and unsupported, in that such texts
by themselves argued for a moral solutions based upon different
cultural standards.
Also, as has been mentioned before, in contrast to the above stated
pessimistic view of human nature, the founders ideas of what the
republic could be was very optimistic, even though they themselves were
well-aware of the failures of republics in antiquity. Given this fact,
it would not seem that Calvinistic anthropological pessimism had much
of an effect in the political thinking and formation of the early
republic even while ¾ of the population at this time were of a relgious
background from the reformed tradition.
> These concerns are clearly seen in the U.S. Constitution. The framers,
> following Montesquieu, outlined a network of checks and balances to
guarantee
> a republican government. Given their fears that politicians would
usurp power,
> the framers insisted on a division of power to prevent tyranny. The
commitment
> to a balance of powers and factions, growing from the convictions
about human
> depravity, was especially keen in James Madison, the "Father of the
> Constitution". He learned this from Witherspoon, the leading colonial
> Presbyterian, who directed Madison's graduate program at the College
of New
> Jersey. In short, the classical-Christian consciousness, with its
emphasis on
> human corruption and the need to insure public virtue, was the
foundation for
> the colonists' world view and was enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
[20]
The commitment to checks and balances was less the result of an
anthropological pessimism than it was the result of an honest
assessment of how corruption had done in earlier republics
historically. Overall, there was still an optimistic take on the
possibilities for the new republic, even while the founders realized
that the tensions between the freedom to acquire wealth and the need
for citizens to put the common good first would cause strains in the
warp and woof of the new republic.
--
"I have always been here" - Kosh
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
buc...@exis.net
and this post
From: Jeff Sinclair <jeffrey...@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups:
soc.history.war.us-revolution,alt.history.colonial,sci.skeptic,alt.deism
Subject: Re: The Founders Were Deists? (PART II)
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 06:08:01 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
Lines: 360
Message-ID: <851bfq$76a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <eBJdOIgrlhIRLn...@4ax.com>
<385DBA78...@pitnet.net> <83n6pq$6i4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
<386038B9...@pitnet.net>
<83q1ep$49ra$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>
<841e9t$2dp$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
<clw-251299...@i48-06-29.pdx.du.teleport.com>
<gO994.3265$GF1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
<mikeburt-281...@pon-mi22-07.ix.netcom.com>
<unin6scjreun110ch...@4ax.com> <38715FA6...@deism.com>
<38717830...@pitnet.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.174.163.90
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jan 06 06:08:01 2000 GMT
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98; DigExt;
MindSpring Internet Services)
X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x35.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 199.174.163.90
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDjeffreysinclair
Path:
grouper.exis.net!pants.skycache.com!howland.erols.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail
Xref: grouper.exis.net soc.history.war.us-revolution:7573
alt.history.colonial:3406 sci.skeptic:384784 alt.deism:2225
In article <38717830...@pitnet.net>,
Gard...@pitnet.net wrote:
> > Thank you very much for these great quotes! They are a gift! I often
> > wondered what it was that the founders had that is lacking today -
it's
> > DEISM!
> >
> > Sincerely, Robert L. Johnson
> > http://www.deism.com
>
> WRONG!
>
> The bias against the United States of America's Christian roots is
evident in
> current histories and textbooks. Henry May admits that most
historians are
> "partisans of the Enlightenment; of liberalism, progress, and
rationality".
This quote of May's is out of context. Interestingly enough, Gardiner
called him an example of "tunnel history" in a prior conversation with
Mike Curtis. Even more interesting is how Gardiner now uses
this “tunnel historian” to support his own ideological position when he
feels it convenient. Apparently Gardiner thinks that he can have it
both ways. This is the paragraph the above little passage is from:
"Here I found what seems to me a surprising paradox of American
historiography. First, most American historians of recent times are
partisans of the Enlightenment: of liberalism. progress, and
rationality. And yet there is no good book on the Enlightenment in
America, indeed no general book at all. There are excellent studies of
many individuals and episodes, especially major Enlightened political
figures of the revolutionary age. But there is no serious attempt to
define the Enlightenment in America, to say clearly where it came
from, when it started and ended, or how far it spread; or trace it
through such fields as religion, science, politics, and social
thought. The most nearly comprehensive book on the Enlightenment in
America remains the one by Woodbridge Riley, published in 1907."
Now we can see that May is speaking about American Historians and not
historians in general. He isn't speaking about textbooks either. May
also points out in his introduction that Donald H. Meyer, just as his
book was going to press, had published _Democratic Enlightenment_. Also
May's book is a 1976 publication. So what MIGHT have been true in 1976
is not true at all today. The context of the above statement shows that
what May is in fact stating is not an indictment of an ideological bias
of American historians as it is rather a note that these students of
the enlightenment needed to better define what the enlightenment
constituted through the production of a general book on this subject.
<<snip>>
> The United States in the revolutionary period was the beneficiary of
a century
> and a half of Christian development. Historians often overlook the
political
> contributions of the Puritans, whose intense Biblical faith produced
uniquely
> American conceptions of liberty and covenant. The Puritans were
champions of
> jury trials, broad suffrage, a written bill of rights, and the
notions of "no
> taxation without representation" and "due process of law" - political
ideals
> associated with the American Revolution.[2]
Gardiner’s examples above show a desire that Puritan systems were much
like
those today. They were not. Broad suffrage indeed! One had to be a
member of
the Congregational Church and a freeman. There was nothing broad about
suffrage where the Puritans were concerned. There was lots of taxation
without representation and the due process of law didn't exist then.
And as I noted previously, there was actual oppression directed toward
non-Puritans such as the Quakers.
Therefore, the above statement is ripped out of its historical context,
and is meaningless, especially when one considers that these ideas were
used not to expand freedom and tolerance within the Puritan areas but
were used in support of a kind of “herrenvolk” democracy and de facto
theocracy.
> Donald Lutz, a Constitutional historian at the University of Houston,
argued
> that "The Pedigree of the Bill of Rights" could be found in the bills
of
> rights in colonial charters, primarily authored by ministers. Three-
fourths of
> the provisions from the U.S. Bill of Rights, in fact, were outlined
in the
> 1641 Massachusetts Body of Liberties, a Puritan document that came
complete
> with Bible verses attached to each of the rights. (Conference
participants
> gasped in horror when they realized that for their cherished
liberties they
> were indebted to the hated Puritans, folks they considered repressive,
> religious zealots.) Note that this Biblically-oriented Puritan
document was
> adopted a half century before the English Glorious Revolution and
John Locke's
> Second Treatise , the supposed primary influences on the Revolution.
Keep this
> as a handy fact to shock liberals with: the roots to our Bill of
Rights are in
> New England Puritanism.[3]
Let’s look at the source for this quote:
3. See Charles Hyneman and Donald Lutz, American Political Writing
During the Founding Era, 1760-1805 (Indianapolis: Liberty Press,
1983). Unfortunately, Lutz interprets the 1641 Body of Liberties from
a "rights consciousness" perspective, thus de-emphasizing the Biblical
roots of the document.
As regards the Body of Liberties, the magistrates were against having
written laws because it would show England how different their laws
were from the mother country. Also written laws would put a bridle on
the power and discretionary authority of the
magistrates.
One page 323 of Winthrop's Journal (Hosmer edition):
“The people had long desired a body of laws, and thought their
condition very unsafe, while so much power rested in the discretion of
the magistrates. Divers attempts had been made at former courts, and
matter referred to some of the magistrates and some of the elders; but
still it came to no effect; for being committed to the care of many,
whatsoever was done by some, was still disliked or neglected by
others. At last it was referred to Mr. Cotton and Mr. Nathaniel Warde,
etc., and each of them framed a model, which were presented to this
general court, and by them committed to the governor and deputy and
some others to consider of, ad so prepare it for the court in the 3rd
month next. Two great reasons there were, which caused most of the
magistrates and some of the elders not to be very forward in this
matter. One was, want of sufficient experience of the nature of the
country and other circumstances, which made them conceive, that such
laws would be fittest for us, which should arise pro re nata upon
occasions, etc., and so the laws of England and other states grew, and
therefore the fundemental laws of England are called customs,
consuetudines. 2. For that it would professedly transgress the limits
of our charter, which provide, we shall make no laws repugnant to the
laws of England, and that we were assured we must do. But to raise up
laws by practice and custom had been no transgression; as in our
church discipline, and in matters of marriage, to make a law, that
marriages should not be solemnized by ministers, is repugnant to the
laws of England; but to bring it to a custom by practice for the
magistrates to perform it, is no law made repugnant, etc. . . . ."
So you can see that they placed the writing of the document in John
Cotton's hand (he was a minister) and in a lawyer's hand, Nathaniel
Ward. So the separation is like Calvin. One hand washes the other.
Plus they were forming their own laws after their own customs as my
article on this pointed out. Now John Cotton's draft was never enacted
into law. Despite this George Lee Haskins, a primary legal historian
of Massachusetts-Bay says that it shouldn't be forgotten. He describes
this part as having "a heavy reliance on Scripture" and "provides an
important illustration of the strong religious influence which infused
Puritan thinking about law and the administration of justice." Still a
number of provisions relating to crime and civil liberties found their
way through the Body of Liberties of 1641 and the Code of 1648 to the
permanent laws of the colony. I suspect that some reprints of the laws
add the Cotton stuff because of Haskins descriptions. "The criminal
provisions are harsh and severe. Pursuant to literal texts of the Old
Testament, the death penalty was prescribed for blasphemy, idolatry,
witchcraft, false worship, sabbath breaking, murder, adultery, incest,
sodomy, bestiality, man stealing, false witness, reviling the
magistrates, cursing or smiting of parents." (page 125 of Haskins,
_Law and Authority in Early Massachusetts_, Harvard, 1960.)
Anyhow, Haskins can only speculate (page 126) as to why his draft was
not accepted. One reason was that the capital provisions were too
severe. Haskins covers the whole document in a discussion that goes on
for pages.
> Of course, the Revolutionary generation was not as shocked by public
religion
> as are people today. Nearly half of the British colonies had been
founded by
> religious sectarians with explicitly Christian visions for society.
Two thirds
> of the original thirteen colonies had established state churches at
the time
> of the Constitutional Convention. Colonies mandated religious test
oaths,
> requiring that officeholders be theists, Christians, or Trinitarians.
After
> independence, virtually all the new state charters had references to
Almighty
> God as the source of power, authority, and legitimacy.[4]
After reading _Albion's Seed_, one should have a problem with this.
First the Pilgrims were free in Holland. They were too free so they had
to come here so that they could control what religion was seen and
heard. Another major reason was that living in the city was hard on
farmers. The Puritans of the Great Migration came here to, yes, found a
city on the hill while pretending to be still a part of the Church of
England. Then Oliver Cromwell and the Roundheads took over and
migration happened and settled Virginia. Quakers avoided Massachusetts
and settled elsewhere. Catholics avoided those Puritans and settled
Maryland. There was no vision in Rhode Island. I'm not so sure there
was one in the other colonies. What we have going on here is a person
who wants to make a big deal that western civilizations migrated to
this country, and inflate the importance that their religious
affiliations had on their subsequent thinking at the expense of more
important curtural, social, and political coinsiderations. That they
were of the western faiths, being from Western Europe. is a no brainer.
Gardiner still doesn't get the picture. States realized that they too
should not be establishing Churches for it disrupted the peace. So they
went the way of the central government. Massachusetts was the last to
disestablish in 1833. All of this happened _prior_ to the ratification
of the fourteenth amendment. The states did this on their own.
There is a vast difference in law concerning Federal power and state
power. So what Gardiner is doing is obfuscating and hiding the history
underneath his propaganda.
> Even in colonies not noted for Reformed convictions Christian
influences were
> evident. Maryland is an excellent example. Originally founded as a
haven for
> Roman Catholics by George Calvert, Puritan settlers poured in and
launched a
> civil war in retaliation for the persecution they received as
Protestants. The
> matter was settled by the Act of Toleration (1649), the first
colonial act to
> guarantee religious freedom. To soothe aroused combatants and ensure
religious
> tranquility, the Act forbade the use of inflammatory terms: "heretick,
> Scismatick, Idolator, puritan, Jesuite, papist, ... or any other name
or terme
> in a reproachfull manner." But the Act left no doubt that the colony
was a
> "Christian Common Wealth", mandating the forfeiture of property and
death for
> anyone who would "blaspheme God", "deny our Saviour Jesus Christ to
bee the
> sonne of God", "deny the holy Trinity", or challenge the "Godhood of
any of
> the Three persons of the Trinity or the Unity of the Godhead". Strong
stuff;
> especially for a Toleration Act, especially in a colony not noted for
its
> religious fervor.[5]
<<snip>>
Well and good, but it wasn't until 1776 that Maryland finally
provided "that no person could be compelled 'to maintain any particular
place of worship, or any particular ministry,' thus ending the former
supremacy of the Episcopalian church, which had enjoyed establishment
in the colonial period. But that did not separate church and state
because the same constitution provided for a new establishment of
religion by a special enabling clause: 'yet the Legislature may, in
their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the
Christian religion . . . ." The word "christian" was used rather than
"protestant" because of the large Roman Catholic population in the
state. (Levy, The Establishment Clause, page 54) It is unclear what
effect this act of toleration really had, especially as it contradicts
in some of its particulars the toleration for non-Christians embedded
in the Constitution and especially in that disestablishment of even
this special enabling clause eventually occurred, so it is pointless to
cite this.
<<snip>>
> The concern for the Bible and Christianity in the Revolutionary era
was not
> restricted to preachers. Most Americans were firmly grounded in the
> scriptures. Requirements for college entrance included the ability to
read in
> Greek and Hebrew. Quotations from the patriot leaders came more
frequently
> from the Bible than any other source. In the 1770s, for instance, 44%
of all
> quotations used by the founders came from Holy Writ, while 20% came
from
> Whiggish authors, 18% from Enlightenment writers, and 11% from the
classics.
> M.E. Bradford's A Worthy Company has shown the religious roots of the
American
> founders. Though expecting to find a large percentage of deists among
the
> fifty-five members of the Constitutional Constitution, Bradford
discovered
> that the vast majority were "orthodox members" of established
Christian
> churches, who sincerely believed they were perpetuating a Christian
order.
> Most of the churches of the time had Calvinistic roots and Reformed
creeds. As
> the great American historian George Bancroft put it, John Calvin was
the
> "father of America". As late as 1839, Alexis de Tocqueville noted that
> "America is still the place where the Christian religion has the
greatest real
> power over men's souls", and that Christianity reigned by "universal
consent"
> (because people either believed its dogmas or were afraid to appear
not
> believe them).[11]
Jim Allison has already addressed the first portion of this paragraph
concerning the sources of quotes used. Concerning the de Tocqueville
quote:
Alexis de Tocqueville, _Democracy in America_, 2 vol., Ed. J.P. Mayer
(Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday/Anchor, [1848] 1966), pp. 291-292 is a
part of this note 11. Page 291 contains this:
"I have said that American priests proclaim themselves in general
terms in favor of civil liberties without excepting those who do not
admit religious freedom; but none of them lend their support to any
particular political system. They are at pains to keep out of affairs
and not mix in the combinations of parties. One therefore cannot say
that in the United States religion influences the laws or political
opinions in detail, but it does direct mores, and by regulating
domestic life it helps regulate the state."
I think Gardiner is dropping names or someone isn't reading the stuff
they note.
> Theories of Christian Resistance
One final note about this section. It is instructive to look at the
sources that Gardiner quotes:
Look at some of the publishers that Gardiner uses:
>Illinois: Crossway Books, 1983), p. 22.
>Washington: Christian College Consortium, 1977),
>Resistance (Tyler, Texas: Geneva Divinity School, 1983).
This last one cites Gary North, who has openly advocated that the
United States be restructured in the pattern of Old Testament
Theocracy. Such things as “blasphemy”, homosexuality, etc. would be
capital offenses punishable by stoning. A real un-biased “academic”
source, huh?
>16. Junius Brutus, A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants (1689;
Edmonton,
>Alberta: Still Waters Revival, 1989).
>17. Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex (1644; Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle
Rutherford isn't exactly a major figure in America. He's not even
mentioned in May's Enlightenment book!
It is highly doubtful that the sources that Gardiner has cited here are
un-biased sources up to academic standards. One can only wonder if he
is not going the route of David Barton here in his use of dubious
quotes and/or quotes cited apart from their context which entirely
changes the meaning of said quotes (as in the Tocqueville example
above).
buc...@exis.net
and this post
I found all three rather interesting, semed to punch a lot of holes in your
comments.
From: Jeff Sinclair <jeffrey...@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups:
soc.history.war.us-revolution,alt.history.colonial,sci.skeptic,alt.deism
Subject: Re: The Founders were Deists?
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 06:08:11 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
Lines: 132
Message-ID: <851bg4$76e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <eBJdOIgrlhIRLn...@4ax.com>
<385DBA78...@pitnet.net> <83n6pq$6i4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
<386038B9...@pitnet.net>
<83q1ep$49ra$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>
<841e9t$2dp$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
<clw-251299...@i48-06-29.pdx.du.teleport.com>
<gO994.3265$GF1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
<mikeburt-281...@pon-mi22-07.ix.netcom.com>
<unin6scjreun110ch...@4ax.com> <38715FA6...@deism.com>
<387179E2...@pitnet.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.174.163.90
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jan 06 06:08:11 2000 GMT
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98; DigExt;
MindSpring Internet Services)
X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x35.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 199.174.163.90
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDjeffreysinclair
Path:
grouper.exis.net!pants.skycache.com!howland.erols.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail
Xref: grouper.exis.net soc.history.war.us-revolution:7574
alt.history.colonial:3407 sci.skeptic:384785 alt.deism:2226
In article <387179E2...@pitnet.net>,
Gard...@pitnet.net wrote:
<<snip>>
> John Witherspoon
>
> Originally a native of Scotland and a Presbyterian minister,
Witherspoon came
> to America to assume the presidency of the what is now Princeton,
became a
> resistance leader in New Jersey and a member of Congress, and was a
signer of
> the Declaration of Independence, the only clergyman to do so.
According to a
> probably apocryphal legend, Witherspoon delivered the critical
> pro-independence speech at the Continental Congress, after a mud-
soaked,
> all-night ride to Philadelphia. His contemporaries did not overlook
his
> efforts in behalf of the revolutionary cause, especially since many
of them
> considered Scots troublemakers and viewed the Revolution as
a "Presbyterian
> Rebellion". At the start of the revolution, Horace Walpole opined
that "Cousin
> America has run off with a Presbyterian parson". Adam Ferguson,
secretary of
> the British Peace Commission to America in 1778, charged that
Witherspoon was
> at the "head" of the rebellion (Witherspoon was on the Continental
Congress
> committee to evaluate the British proposal), but hoped that if proper
measures
> were taken "we should reduce Johnny Witherspoon to the small support
of
> Franklin, Adams, and two or three of the most abandoned villians in
the world,
> but I tremble at the thought of their cunning and determination
against us".
> Even the first French foreign minister to the United States saw
Witherspoon as
> the "soul of his party" in Congress.[47]
47. Varnum Lansing Collins, President Witherspoon, 2v. (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1925), II:35-37; and James Smylie,
"Introduction" Journal of Presbyterian History 54 (Spring 1976): 5.
He quotes this last because it has the passage. But right after the
passage is this:
"Just as Ferguson exaggerated the importance of John Witherspoon as a
leader of the American Revolution, so he miscalculated British
prospects for holding onto their colonies in revolt." That is on page 5
just below the quoted passage.
So the British were free to fool themselves. I don't think it is fair
to pass on the stupidity of the British onto American students. Plus
Thomas Hutchinson mentions Witherspoon not once as far as his
experiences as the last British governor of Massachusetts Bay is
concerned.
<<snip>>
> Witherspoon's reputation as an apostle of the American Enlightenment
arises
> from his Lectures in Moral Philosophy , an influential set of
lectures dealing
> with ethics, epistemology, and political philosophy. Witherspoon
compiled the
> lectures shortly after arriving in America, and delivered them in
essentially
> unaltered form to each year's senior class for the rest of his
teaching
> career. It is often the only work cited by historians, who ignore his
other,
> voluminous writings. And it is one work Witherspoon refused to
publish,
> believing it was poorly written and organized. There is something
strange
> about outlining a person's philosophy from a work he did not want in
print,
> and it is questionable how representative the "Lectures" were of
Witherspoon's
> thought.[57]
57. See Scott, An Annotated Edition of the Lectures on Moral
Philosophy; and May, The Enlightenment in America, p.63.
There is something ignored by Gardiner. There was an old school and new
school fight going on among the Presbyterians. First of all he's got
things so distorted that it's difficult to place reality back in.
In an article in the above discussed Journal by Howard Miller called
THE GRAMMAR OF LIBERTY we find that though Witherspoon was the
recognized spokesman for the Presbyterian Church in 1776 New Jersey
(page 143) we find that he had "staked out a Whiggish position." Though
he voiced colonial complaints he did so while reiterating "his loyalty
to King George, whom he believed to be an honest man ill served by
ministers ignorant of the colonial scene. . . . Eventually, the
quickened pace of the imperial crisis in New Jersey pushed Witherspoon
and other Presbyterian Whigs into advocating independence." (page 144)
Then there is not much more on Witherspoon
until we get to the Continental Congress.
In an earlier article in the same Journal by James McAllister, Jr.
Called Francis Alison and John Witherspoon is the complaint that Alison
should get much more credit than Witherspoon.
Dealing with Gardiner's obfuscations are like dealing with the
obfuscations of Holocaust deniers or creationists. One has to be
surrounded by books in order to clean up the distortions; unfortunately
most people reading this do not, and have no way of checking to see if
this research is really accurate, or simply represets a kind of slick
propaganda piece with footnotes. Most historians will find a couple
distortions as with the May source above and the Journal Introduction
and will tell Gardiner to go away. Also demonstrated is Gardiner’s
mistreatment of the 1641 Body of Liberties. But this is what
propagandists do.
The reader is thereby urged to recognize what is true in his material
while always being aware of his penchant for distortion and over-
emphasis of the miniscule.
<<snip>>
Rick Gardiner
>
> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> Gee, why have you ignored these posts:
>
> From: Jeff Sinclair <jeffrey...@my-deja.com>
I have not received this post. Following your approach to Mr. Schulman, I have
opted to set my browser to ignore anything coming from Sinclair. But since
this post appears to be relatively vulgar-free and non-inflamatory, I'll give
it its proper due.
> > In short, then, the Bible and Protestant theology provided Christians ample
> > justification for participation in the American War of Independence. [15]
>
> Gardiner misses the point by noting this, however. The question is not
> whether the theology of the Reformed tradition _could_ have justified
> participation in the American War of Independence, but whether it was
> more of a factor than other factors in giving the colonists
> justification to revolt against the crown. Historians such as Gordon
> Wood have stressed that this factor is much less important in this
> regard than Enlightenment philosophy, Whig Political thinking,
> republicanism, and the perceptions of widespread corruption by the
> crown on the English government to the detriment of the colonists.
> These were the primary motivations for the colonist’s revolt, and not
> Biblical or Protestant theology.
That's not how the British saw it. King George and his advisors considered the
conflict a "Presbyterian War" (Source: Kevin Phillips, THE COUSINS WARS, p.92
& 177).
Furthermore, according to John Adams, "But what do we mean by the American
Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before
the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a
change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations." (Letter
to H. Niles, Feb. 13, 1818)
As far as Wood is concerned, his opinion is one among many. Try Carl
Bridenbaugh, Alan Heimert, Page Smith, Christine Heyrman, Patricia Bonomi,
Kevin Phillips, David R. Williams, Alice Baldwin, and Paul Johnson. All
Ph.D.'s in the field.
All suggest that the religious element was a central factor.
And let's not forget what the current Federal Government is telling us in this regard:
(from the Library of Congress, at http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html)
"Religion played a major role in the American Revolution by offering a moral
sanction for opposition to the British--an assurance to the average American
that revolution was justified in the sight of God. As a recent scholar has
observed, 'by turning colonial resistance into a righteous cause, and by
crying the message to all ranks in all parts of the colonies, ministers did
the work of secular radicalism and did it better.'
Ministers served the American cause in many capacities during the Revolution:
as military chaplains, as penmen for committees of correspondence, and as
members of state legislatures, constitutional conventions and the national
Congress. Some even took up arms, leading Continental troops in battle.
The Revolution split some denominations, notably the Church of England, whose
ministers were bound by oath to support the King, and the Quakers, who were
traditionally pacifists. Religious practice suffered in certain places because
of the absence of ministers and the destruction of churches, but in other
areas, religion flourished.
The Revolution strengthened millennialist strains in American theology. At the
beginning of the war some ministers were persuaded that, with God's help,
America might become "the principal Seat of the glorious Kingdom which Christ
shall erect upon Earth in the latter Days." Victory over the British was taken
as a sign of God's partiality for America and stimulated an outpouring of
millennialist expectations--the conviction that Christ would rule on earth for
1,000 years. This attitude combined with a groundswell of secular optimism
about the future of America to create the buoyant mood of the new nation that
became so evident after Jefferson assumed the presidency in 1801."
Oh, I forgot, your view is that the Library of Congress is a right-wing
fundamentalist organization run by Pat Robertson and out to destroy the
separation of Church and state. LOL.
> > Another factor for Christian participation in the War was the historical
> > example of resistance. John Adams said that one of the most influential works
> > of the Revolutionary era was A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants , by Junius
> > Brutus, a Protestant who experienced bloody religious persecution in 16th
> > century France. Thoroughly Biblical and Calvinistic in approach, Against
> > Tyrants directly challenged the presumptions of royal absolutism and the
> > divine right of kings, arguing that one must not obey the king when his
> > commands violated God's law, ruined His church, or harmed the nation.
> [16]
>
> A defense of Liberty can be found at
> http://www.visi.com/~homelands//vindiciae/vindiciae.html
>
> Please note that the reasons the colonists opposed the Crown was not,
> according to the principles laid down in this document,
Is that so? Let the reader judge--
"There is, therefore, a mutual obligation between the king and the people,
which, whether it be civil or natural only, whether tacit or expressed in
words, it cannot by any means be annihilated, or by any law be abrogated, much
less by force made void. And this obligation is of such power that the prince
who willfully violates it, is a tyrant...
There is ever, and in all places, a mutual and reciprocal obligation between
the people and the prince; the one promises to be a good and wise prince, the
other to obey faithfully, provided he govern justly. The people therefore are
obliged to the prince under condition, the prince to the people simply and
purely. Therefore, if the prince fail in his promise, the people are exempt
from obedience, the contract is made void, the right of obligation of no force."
(Source: VINDICIAE CONTRA TYRANNOS, http://www.exlaw.com/library/1579-vct.htm)
"that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to
alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation
on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall
seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness... when a long Train of
Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design
to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty,
to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
Security...The History of the present King of Great- Britain is a History of
repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the
Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."
(Source: DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/declar.html)
> It is to be noted here that the rationale, in contrast to the first two
> questions having to do specifically with religious issues is here
> social and political; the influence of this document especially as
> regards the colonial situation is based on this question (noting
> especially the reference to syncophants in the second paragraph here)
> and not on religious considerations, which are addressed by the first
> two questions in this document.
>
> Furthermore, it is to be noted that this document was written in 1579,
> in a time, place, and culture where _everything_ was subjected to
> religious scrutiny, especially in the polemical religious atmosphere of
> this time which pre-dated nationalism, rationalism, and Enlightenment
> though whose influence on the revolution was far greater and more
> immediate.
The fact that Jefferson drew upon 16th and 17th century documents of this sort
has been demonstrated by Dr. Stephen Lucas in his "The Rhetorical Ancestry of
the Declaration of Independence," which was published in the Summer 1998 issue
of Rhetoric and Public Affairs. You can see a brief synopsis of Dr. Lucas'
findings at http://www.newswise.com/articles/1998/6/DECLARE.UWI.html
> > The Scottish covenanting tradition was another religio-historical precedent
> > for the War of Independence. In 1633, the Scots formed the "Solemn League and
> > Covenant" to resist English tyranny and the imposition of the Anglicanism in
> > Scotland. (During the same period of English tyranny Puritans fled to
> > Massachusetts.) The best example of the covenanter's philosophy of resistance
> > was Samuel Rutherford's Lex, Rex, which challenged royal power by arguing
> > that the law was king. Though Rutherford was not often quoted in the colonies,
> > and the extent of his direct influence is unknown, the ideas of the
> > covenanters were familiar to colonists. In Common Sense, for instance, in
> > true Rutherfordian fashion, Thomas Paine insisted that "In America, THE LAW IS
> > KING".
>
> If Rutherford was not often quoted, and also if the extent of his
> direct influence is unknown, to thereby assert that he was an influence
> on American political thinking without such evidence is patently
> ludicrous. The barest of threads, based upon familiarity and a use of
> the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy links Rutherford, who is not even
> cited as an influence by such historians of the influences of the
> American Revolution as Gordon Wood, to the revolutionary thinking of
> Thomas Paine, which paradoxically Gardiner tries his hardest to
> downplay in his post in this same thread on the same day! Were this to
> be used as “evidence” of an influence of thought in professional
> historian’s circles, it would certainly be cause for raucous laughter.
Funny thing. The post you are responding to was not written by me. It was a
cut and paste of an essay by a professional (Ph.D.) historian. LOL (raucous laughter).
> > John Witherspoon, a native Scot and a signer of the Declaration of
> > Independence, frequently invoked the example of the Scottish covenanters
> > during the Revolution as people who bonded together to resist British tyranny.
> > For Witherspoon, the Covananter tradition was an horizon for the American
> > Revolution.[17]
>
> It may or may not have been for Witherspoon, but the more relevant
> questions in this regard are whether the covenanters were influential
> for large numbers people other than Witherspoon, and whether
> Witherspoon himself was influential on Revolutionary thought.
Apparently the British thought so! Adam Ferguson, secretary of the British
Peace Commission to America in 1778, charged that John Witherspoon was at the
“head” of the American Revolution: “there are about 150,000 with Johny
Witherspoon at their head, against us.”
(Adam Ferguson, quoted by Varnum Collins, President Witherspoon (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1925), Arno Press, reprint, 1969, II:35).
One British officer of the time speculated that Witherspoon “had not a less
share in the Revolution than Washington himself. He poisons the minds of his
young students and through them the Continent.” In reference to Witherspoon,
Horace Walpole of the British Parliament allegedly remarked that “the Colonies
have run away after a Presbyterian parson.”
(SOURCE: Varnum Collins, President Witherspoon, Vol. II, 133 & 196)
I suppose the British who were living in the 1770's, such as Walpole and
Ferguson, wouldn't have a clue. The hadn't read Gordon Wood!
> In Gordon Wood’s definitive _The Creation of the American Republic_,
> Witherspoon is mentioned in six places (pp. 103, 115, 118, 164, 202-03,
> 357).
>
> > By the time of the War for Independence there was ample Christian theory
> > justifying resistance to a corrupt and tyrannical king. Jonathan Mayhew's 1750
> > sermon, "A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission", foreshadowed preaching
> > on the topic. During the war New England preachers were called the "Black
> > Regiment" because of the color of their clerical robes and their fervent
> > support of the Revolutionary cause. Though some have charged them with
> > politicizing the gospel and preaching up "the sacred cause of liberty", these
> > ministers were able to distinguish between secular and sacred causes. They did
> > see political and religious issues as being interrelated, believing that
> > British political tyranny would eventually destroy religious freedom. As John
> > Witherspoon put it "there is no instance in history in which civil liberty was
> > destroyed, and the rights of conscience preserved entire". Yet as my own study
> > has shown, eve at the height of political and civil strife, these ministers
> > gave the greatest priority to spiritual struggles, the need for salvation, and
> > eternal destiny of all.[18]
>
> And as Wood has shown, these were largely secondary considerations, if
> considerations at all, of the involvement of the colonists in rebelling
> against the crown. Again, while there were strands of Reformation
> thought which allowed for resistance against despots, it is clear that
> these considerations did not loom as large as republicanism,
> corruption, Enlightenment thinking, etc. in the thoughts of the
> founders. It is not clear in fact whether this strand of religious
> thinking (as opposed to related strands of social or political
> thinking) in fact had any large scale effect on encouraging rebellion.
It is not clear??? http://www.universitylake.org/history/oliver.html
> > These concerns are clearly seen in the U.S. Constitution. The framers,
> > following Montesquieu, outlined a network of checks and balances to guarantee
> > a republican government. Given their fears that politicians would usurp power,
> > the framers insisted on a division of power to prevent tyranny. The commitment
> > to a balance of powers and factions, growing from the convictions about human
> > depravity, was especially keen in James Madison, the "Father of the
> > Constitution". He learned this from Witherspoon, the leading colonial
> > Presbyterian, who directed Madison's graduate program at the College of New
> > Jersey. In short, the classical-Christian consciousness, with its emphasis on
> > human corruption and the need to insure public virtue, was the foundation for
> > the colonists' world view and was enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. [20]
>
> The commitment to checks and balances was less the result of an
> anthropological pessimism than it was the result of an honest
> assessment of how corruption had done in earlier republics
> historically. Overall, there was still an optimistic take on the
> possibilities for the new republic, even while the founders realized
> that the tensions between the freedom to acquire wealth and the need
> for citizens to put the common good first would cause strains in the
> warp and woof of the new republic.
The commitment to checks and balances has been demonstrated to be the product
of the Calvinistic pessimism. See JAMES H. SMYLIE, "Madison and Witherspoon:
Theological Roots of American Political Thought," Princeton University
Chronicle, XXII:118-132
I applaud you for your ability to go an entire post without becoming vulgar or inflamatory.
RG
Rick Gardiner
> > current histories and textbooks. Henry May admits that most historians are
> > "partisans of the Enlightenment; of liberalism, progress, and rationality".
>
> This quote of May's is out of context. Interestingly enough, Gardiner
> called him an example of "tunnel history" in a prior conversation with
> Mike Curtis. Even more interesting is how Gardiner now uses
> this “tunnel historian” to support his own ideological position when he
> feels it convenient. Apparently Gardiner thinks that he can have it
> both ways. This is the paragraph the above little passage is from:
>
> "Here I found what seems to me a surprising paradox of American
> historiography. First, most American historians of recent times are
> partisans of the Enlightenment: of liberalism. progress, and
> rationality. And yet there is no good book on the Enlightenment in
> America, indeed no general book at all. There are excellent studies of
> many individuals and episodes, especially major Enlightened political
> figures of the revolutionary age. But there is no serious attempt to
> define the Enlightenment in America, to say clearly where it came
> from, when it started and ended, or how far it spread; or trace it
> through such fields as religion, science, politics, and social
> thought. The most nearly comprehensive book on the Enlightenment in
> America remains the one by Woodbridge Riley, published in 1907."
>
> Now we can see that May is speaking about American Historians and not
> historians in general. He isn't speaking about textbooks either.
American historians are the persons who produce American History textbooks,
no? Try Francis Fitzgerald, America Revised: History Schoolbooks in the
Twentieth Century (New York: Vintage, 1980).
> > The United States in the revolutionary period was the beneficiary of a century
> > and a half of Christian development. Historians often overlook the political
> > contributions of the Puritans, whose intense Biblical faith produced uniquely
> > American conceptions of liberty and covenant. The Puritans were champions of
> > jury trials, broad suffrage, a written bill of rights, and the notions of "no
> > taxation without representation" and "due process of law" - political ideals
> > associated with the American Revolution.[2]
>
> Gardiner’s examples above show a desire that Puritan systems were much
> like
> those today. They were not. Broad suffrage indeed! One had to be a
> member of
> the Congregational Church and a freeman. There was nothing broad about
> suffrage where the Puritans were concerned. There was lots of taxation
> without representation and the due process of law didn't exist then.
> And as I noted previously, there was actual oppression directed toward
> non-Puritans such as the Quakers.
No one is denying the flaws of the Puritans. What you are denying is the clear
and demonstrable contributions of the Puritans.
In addition to the many writings of Samuel and John Adams which credit
American ideals as the product of the New England Puritans (e.g., Letter to
Abigail Adams, Oct. 29, 1775), see also--
Perry Miller, The Puritans (New York, Harper & Row, 1963).
Ralph Barton Perry, Puritanism and Democracy (New York: The Vanguard Press, 1944).
Ralph C. Hancock, Calvin and The Foundations of Modern Politics (Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 1989).
George Laird, Hunt, ed. Calvinism and the Political Order (Philadelphia,
Westminster Press, 1965).
Donald S. Lutz: "From Covenant to Constitution in American Political Thought."
Publius 10 (Fall 1980), 101-133.
Donald S. Lutz: Documents of Political Foundation by Colonial Americans.
Philadelphia: ISHI Press, 1986.
Donald S. Lutz: A Covenanted People. The Religious Tradition and the Origins
of American Constitutionalism. The John Carter Brown Library: Providence, RI,
1987.
Donald S. Lutz: : The Origins of American Constitutionalism. Baton Rouge and
London: Louisiana State UP, 1988.
Donald S. Lutz (edited, introductory essay): Colonial Origins of the American
Constitution. A Documentary History. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1998.
> Therefore, the above statement is ripped out of its historical context,
> and is meaningless, especially when one considers that these ideas were
> used not to expand freedom and tolerance within the Puritan areas but
> were used in support of a kind of “herrenvolk” democracy and de facto
> theocracy.
Of all the documents which foreshadowed the U.S. Constitution, the one that it
closest resembles is the Mass. Constitution, 1780,
(http://www.founding.com/library/lbody.cfm?id=478&parent=475) which is
acknowledged by historians to be the product of a century and a half of the
development of puritan political theory.
> Gardiner still doesn't get the picture. States realized that they too
> should not be establishing Churches for it disrupted the peace. So they
> went the way of the central government. Massachusetts was the last to
> disestablish in 1833. All of this happened _prior_ to the ratification
> of the fourteenth amendment. The states did this on their own.
Exactly. They were not compelled by the U.S. Constitution, because Article VI
of the U.S. Constitution did not regulate state governments.
> There is a vast difference in law concerning Federal power and state
> power. So what Gardiner is doing is obfuscating and hiding the history
> underneath his propaganda.
The history of state governments is part of the history of America, is it not?
> One final note about this section. It is instructive to look at the
> sources that Gardiner quotes:
>
> Look at some of the publishers that Gardiner uses:
A page out of Alison's book. When you can't beat 'em, smear em. Try the "guilt
by association...you are who you associate with" tactic. Try looking at some
of the people who host Alison's site, and say "who we are..." (viz., Wiccans)
Of course when it comes to Sinclair and his associates, God knows who they
are, because he is ashamed of his background.
Remember?
GARDINER
"when are you going to ante up on your [credentials]? I sense some degree of
embarassment there, Sherlock?
SINCLAIR
"What do you care? For all you care, I could be anywhere from an elementary
school graduate to having a PhD."
> >16. Junius Brutus, A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants (1689; Edmonton,
> >Alberta: Still Waters Revival, 1989).
> >17. Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex (1644; Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle
>
> Rutherford isn't exactly a major figure in America. He's not even
> mentioned in May's Enlightenment book!
>
> It is highly doubtful that the sources that Gardiner has cited here are
> un-biased sources up to academic standards.
As I said in my previous post, the essay I posted wasn't my own work. It was a
cut-and-paste essay of a history professor (Ph.D.) at Virginia Intermont,
Roger Schulz.
Perhaps Jeff is ready to tell us where he received his Ph.D. and where he is
currently a professor. Until then, his assessment of a bona fide scholar's
"unacademic" sources should be taken for what we have paid for it.
RG
Rick Gardiner
>
> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> and this post
>
> I found all three rather interesting, semed to punch a lot of holes in your
> comments.
Really?
Of course Ferguson exaggerated the importance of Witherspoon. Witherspoon was
not the "Head" of the revolution. No one was! NOT EVEN WASHINGTON. Ferguson's
language was exaggerated regardless of who was called the "head." The fact
that Witherspoon would wrongly identify Witherspoon as the "head" is the point
that Varnum Collins is making.
> So the British were free to fool themselves. I don't think it is fair
> to pass on the stupidity of the British onto American students. Plus
> Thomas Hutchinson mentions Witherspoon not once as far as his
> experiences as the last British governor of Massachusetts Bay is
> concerned.
Witherspoon was not part of the Boston milieu. He was based in New Jersey.
Hutchinson did not address the patriot leadership of New Jersey.
Try John A. Neuenschwander, The Middle Colonies and the Coming of the American
Revolution (London, 1973).
> Dealing with Gardiner's obfuscations are like dealing with the
> obfuscations of Holocaust deniers or creationists.
Oh geez, here come the inflamatory comments. Perhaps I have made a mistake
again by giving this goon a respectable answer.
> One has to be
> surrounded by books in order to clean up the distortions; unfortunately
> most people reading this do not, and have no way of checking to see if
> this research is really accurate, or simply represets a kind of slick
> propaganda piece with footnotes. Most historians will find a couple
> distortions as with the May source above and the Journal Introduction
> and will tell Gardiner to go away.
It wouldn't be telling me to go away, it would be telling a Ph.D. history
professor to "go away." LOL.
> The reader is thereby urged to recognize what is true in his material
> while always being aware of his penchant for distortion and over-
> emphasis of the miniscule.
The reader is urged to note that Sinclair is clearly bent upon bringing
disrepute to "Gardiner," clearly as a result of the embarrassing performance
Sinclair has made in this newsgroup over the last month. What is quite
entertaining is the way he has shot wrecklessly at "Gardiner" and in his
desperation to do so has disparaged a good deal of commonly held scholarship
regarding the Revolutionary context.
This is the difference between a newsgroup goon and a respectable scholar. The
newsgroup goon lets his emotions get the best of him, and, as a result of his
lack of credentials and insecurities, he wrecklessly uses unqualified and
trashmouthed criticisms.
The scholar, on the other hand, disagrees with a colleague with a
dispassionate and courteous use of evidence.
Does anyone think that there still remains a remote chance that Sinclair's
claim for himself "I might have a Ph.D." may be true??
RG
Jeff/addesign
>Dear Jeff,
>Thank you for your reasoned response. I hope I respond here as courteously as
>you have.
>> >> Which was abolished by Article VI of the Constitution.
>>
>> >Interesting. Is it your view that the religious qualifications for state
>> >officials required by state constitutions
>> >(http://www.universitylake.org/history/state.html) were all abolished in 1787
>> >as a result of Article VI? That is another new one on me. Cite please.
>>
>> At least in principle, and certainly for national office.
>If you look above, however, the claim that you were saying was abolished by
>Article VI was: "Colonies mandated religious test oaths."
Quite right. I should be more careful about time frames. But I still
stand on my statement that " Some religious idiocy lingers on in some
jurisdictions, even today." From a historical overview, it is easy for
me to say that any colony, upon becoming a state under the
Constitution, should have realised that such a requirement would
eventually be found at odds with Article VI. Perhaps they didn't
really comprehend what they were committing to, in ratifying the
Constitution.
>Insofar as states governments were concerned, Article VI did not affect them,
>either in fact or in principle, until the 14th Amendment.
>> >Do you deny that the Declaration of Independence ROOTED fundamental human
>> >rights in the existence of a deity? I can give you a citation if you need to
>> >see it.
>>
>> No thanks. I suspect it would be from a biased source.
>Thomas Jefferson: "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights."
A biased interpretation, at the very least, since Jefferson did not
have the same interpretation of Creator as you apparently hold. Deism
is rooted in the belief in a deity, but not as a non-deist or
trinitarian would define the term.
>> I do not deny
>> that DoI defines rights as inherent in people, as opposed to bestowed
>> by a human sovereign. That most of the signers were in some form deist
>> or christian is not disputed.
>A large majority of non-Deist Christians of one sect or the other.
Which would lend credence to the supposition that Jefferson's artful
phrasing was intended to appeal to them, as does a Jefferson quote
later in this post.
>> That it was necessary to phrase the DoI
>> in a manner that appealed to the christian signers is not disputed.
>Are you alleging that the "endowed by their Creator" clause was just a show?
>Do you have any evidence that this was insincerely inserted?
The bulk of the section is derived from Mason, who did not use a
reference to a creator. I am alleging that it adds force, just as any
clever marketing pitch would do today. My only evidence is that it
fomented a revolution. The phrase was unnecessary, given the Mason
document, and the DoI was successful in firing up the revolutionaries,
given the obvious results.
>> That it is a document that establishes the "Christianity" of this
>> nation, is disputed.
>Is anyone asserting that the DOI established Christianity? It didn't. It did
>build upon Christian political theory.
It is built upon political theory primarily derived from Locke, rooted
in his concept of Natural Law, derived from the work of Grotius,
Pufendorf, Hobbes, and Hooker. He was a Christian in education and
perhaps in name, but his philosophy is arrived at through reason, not
by cribbing from any Christian doctrine.
Professsor Carl Becker, in _The Declaration of Independence_(1922),
observed "The lineage is direct: Jefferson copied Locke and Locke
quoted Hooker."
Hooker's theory of government is based upon the rules of reason.
>> The phrasing is consistent with Deism.
>"Consistent with" is a slippery phrase. The phrasing is also consistent with
>the principles of the Boy Scouts, but I don't think that means it is a Boy
>Scout document.
The phrasing does not preclude the possibiltiy of deist origin. The
phrasing does not limit the origin to Christian doctrine. Happy now?
>> The structure of
>> government is in the Constitution, and the framers made clear that no
>> religious test shall ever be required.
>For federal office. That was not the case locally.
I suspect it was the intent of the framers that Article VI would cover
any Office or Trust under the United States, and that they meant
throughout the States. That local religious bigotry may have persisted
is not surprising, and we may be grateful that the XIV Amendment
corrected this, as well as several other oversights. Good thing we
have an amendment process.
>> What stirring prose they used
>> to inspire men upon the dangerous course of rebellion does not
>> establish the rules of our government.
>The Declaration of Independence continues to be cited by federal courts as an
>authoritative source for understanding our government's position on
>fundamental human rights. Do you deny that?
No, but neither do I see how federal courts citing DoI disparages any
deist influence, or supports any Christian origin.
>> The DoI is based upon George Mason's Declaration of Rights for
>> Virginia, adopted June 12, 1776.
>It was based upon many sources. Granted, Masons's Declaration is one such
>source. The Dutch Declaration is another. http://www.newswise.com/articles/1998/6/DECLARE.UWI.html
So? I see the article states they are very similar when compared. But
I don't see the Dutch document, so I can't compare them.
John Locke was in Holland from 1683 until 1689, when he returned to
England with the expedition that brought Mary to join her husband,
William of Orange, on the throne. Locke was commissioner of appeal
(1689-1704), and advisor on coinage to the throne. The purpose of
Locke's two treatises on government was to demonstrate that William
ruled by the consent of the people. It is certainly possible that
Locke read the Plakkaat while in Holland, it is most probable that
Locke had some influence on the 1689 Declaration of Rights.
The article also states: "British state documents. . . say nothing
about the natural rights of citizens to remove a tyrannical leader. "
Balderdash. The researchers didn't bother to read Locke's second
treatise, especially chapters XVII-XIX, Of Usurpation, Of Tyrrany, Of
the Dissolution of Government.
Don't believe everything you find on the internet.
The article also seems to discount the much more obvious link between
Mason and Jefferson (the latter worked with the former and had the
highest regard for his wisdom and judgment) and the influence on both
of Locke. We know Locke was widely read in the colonies. We have the
article's supposition that Jefferson may have been aware of the
Plakkaat. It more probable that Locke was aware of the Plakkaat, but
it has not been shown that Locke was thus influenced.
" . . . All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of
the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed
essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle,
Cicero, Locke, Sidney, etc. " Jefferson on the DoI in a letter to
Henry Lee, May 8, 1825
No mention of Holland.
We also know from Jefferson's autobigraphy that he was familiar with
the writings of Grotius, Pufendorf, and Locke. Occam's Razer: what is
more probable: the obvious sources, or the obscure supposition?
>> Section 1: "That all men are by nature equally free and independent
>> and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a
>> state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their
>> posterity; namely the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of
>> acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining
>> happiness and safety."
>>
>> No mention of a creator or god, or Jesus. So the "All men are endowed
>> by their creator" was a marvelously crafted phrase, but the original
>> intent was merely to state that such rights are inherent in all men.
>Well, if we are going back to Jefferson's "original intent," the unedited
>version of the DOI indicates that "we hold these truths to be SACRED."
>According to John Adams
>(http://www.universitylake.org/history/pickering.html), what Jefferson was
>doing was rewording a pamphlet written by Otis and Adams in 1772.
The unedited version appears in Jefferson's autobiography, and it does
not include the word SACRED. The word _sacred_ does not occur in the
url you cited, nor in the linked documents.
>That forementioned pamphlet spoke of the Rights of Colonists, appealing to
>their "rights as Christians," as identified in the New Testament.
Yes, and he cited Locke, and excluded Papists. Another Locke-inspired
proponent of Natural Law. The aforementioned pamphlet reads like the
Cliff's Notes to Locke's Second Treatise. You apparently discount the
fact that many deists referred to themselves as Christians, as they
understood the term-- following the teaching but not the Christology.
Christians has also been used interchangeably with Englishmen. A
conceit of an ethnocentric culture.
Sam Adams and Jefferson were close friends, as were Jefferson and
Mason. If they all shared in interpreting the work of Locke, I'm not
the least bit surprised.
>> This would be true for christians, deists, or atheists, and is
>> consistent with Deism.
>And with Boy Scouts.
Locke and his "State of Nature" and natural law precedes the DoI. The
Boy Scouts came considerably later. Do we really need to bring them
into this?
>> If we may get back to New England for a moment:
>> The majority of sympathies in the colonies was for fair treatment of
>> colonials with the rights of Englishmen, and could these rights have
>> been gained and sustained, we might still be under British rule. The
>> turning point came with the "Five Intolerable Acts" in reprisal for
>> the Boston Tea Party, and leading to the first Continental Congress.
>As far as Independence was concerned, I don't know of anyone that was talking
>that way in 1773-1774. The turning point in that regard seems to have come
Then you haven't studied history.
The American revolution actually was fought to CONSERVE the rights of
Englishman advanced by the rebellion of the seventeenth century. The
first Congress of 1774 was not considering independence, but
preservation of their rights as Englishmen.
"Had these self-reliant people on this side of the ocean been pliant
and obediant to laws they considered wrong and tyrannical, it would
have been an evil day for popular government. It is sometimes said
that the American Revolution was conservative or preservative. Such it
surely was; but it did more than save the principles of English
liberty: it built them up and gave them a logical expression in the
institutions of a free people made by themsleves and changeable at
their own discretion, and in the growth of free government resting on
the people not only in America but in England."
A history of The American Nation, Andrew C. McLaughlin, 1900
The tyranny that led to the Declaration of Independence was the result
of King George III trying to be a king in fact, and not just in title,
usurping Parliament, and undoing the liberties of English subjects
advanced by Cromwell's revolt.
>from the pen of Thomas Paine (COMMON SENSE) in 1776. I'm sure that is a point
>that you will want to gladly concede. However, you should not be too quick to
>herald Paine's deism insofar as when he wrote Common Sense, the general public
>had no clue that he was a deist. He did not go public with his deism until
>1790, and that was a fatal mistake for him (http://www2.pitnet.net/gardiner/history/deism.htm)
By citing Paine you acknowledge the influence of deist thinking on
government, from Locke to Paine, to the populace, whether they knew
it or not. The Five Intolerable Acts were the final straw, and Paine's
work merely helped to unify the cause. Deism was not a fatal mistake
for him in 1790, but the publication of 'The Age of Reason' (1794,
1796) may have been, because of it's attack on organized religion. You
have noticed that believers get upset about attacks on organized
religion, I presume.
Paine's pamphlet fanned the flames, the Five Intolerable Acts led to
the Continental Congress.
<snip>
>I dont't think, however, that this amounted to a wholesale rejection of "the
>Christian religion" per se. It was a rejection of giving ecclesiasts the power
>of the civil magistrate, which they had in England and in some parts of the
>colonial world. This sentiment reflected Luther's views on the subject (http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/Secauth.HTM)
Nor had I ever characterized any action of the framers as a "wholesale
rejection of 'the Christian religion' per se." But the principles of
the deists, and the concept of toleration require the separation to
protect against such abuses. Many Deists refer to themselves as
Christians, but they aligned themselves with an interpretation of the
earliest Christians, and in opposition to trinitarianism. I beleive
I've already given you Jefferson's quote about the Ebionites and
Athanasius. It's a view held by several of the names we've been
bandying about. One can be a deist and still revere the words of
Jesus.
<snip>
>> Locke held that by the use of reason, man can order his life in the
>> state of nature by "God's comands," and that these commands ARE the
>> laws of nature. Thus, the God presented in Locke's Second Treatise,
>> is not inconsistent with Deism.
>First, Locke was not a Deist, he was a sincere Christian (See e.g., "Locke,"
>the Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
Haven't got that Encyc. on hand. My encyc's all describe him as the
primary force in English empirical philosophy, a proponent of the
concept of natural law, e.g. "In [The Reasonableness of Christianity]
he argued the necessity of identifying Christianity, not with a belief
in mysteries such as the incarnation and the atonement, but the gospel
of love."(1)
"He awoke violent controversies in his day--one of his own famous
quarels being with Bishop Stillingfleet-- and he stirred up and
affected the minds of people who reached quite opposite conclusions.
Hume, Berkeley, and all the empiricists were directly affected. Deism
and Latitudinarian doctrines in religion both found their roots in
Locke's work. Voltaire and Rouusseau show his influence. The men who
shaped the constitutional justification for the American Revolution
drew heavily on Locke's politics. All the men of the 'Age of
Enlightenment' acknowledged their great debt to the British
philosopher." (2)
"deists (de-ists), a term commonly applied to cetain thinkers of the
17th and 18th centuries, who held that the existence and nature of God
can be proved rationally from the course of nature, without the aid of
supernatural revelation." (2)
I have a few other sources that would support linking Locke with
Deism, but I'll not belabor the point. I tire of retyping quotes.
>Second, this continual phrase, "not inconsistent with Deism" seems to be a
>sleight of hand. The idea that the Laws of Nature and the Laws of God are one
>and the same is an idea that was loudly proclaimed by St. Thomas Aquinas, John
>Calvin, and the Puritans, as well as the Westminster Confession and
Socinarianism was in opposition to Calvin. Calvin had the Socinarian,
Servetus burned at the stake. Socinarianism took root in England as
Unitarianism. "Milton, John Locke, and William Penn held Unitarian
views."(2). Clearly there is a difference in interpretation between
the laws of nature/god in Locke and in Calvinism or Catholicism, or
the Anglican church. Locke was at odds with a number of clergy.
>Blackstone.
> By making this move, Locke was not introducing anything new or
>"deist."
One thing is sure, He did it before Blackstone, who was born 19 years
after Locke's death.
>The fact that the deists reduced all divine laws to "natural law" is
>something that Locke DID NOT DO. Unlike the deists, but like the Puritans,
>Locke believed in Natural Law AND Revealed Law (the Bible). Late in his life,
>he considered his commentaries on the New Testament to be his most important
>contributions to humanity.
But not in the way that you imagine. If he believed in revealed law in
the Bible, he would not have written in favor of reason, and against
revelation. For example, he goes to great pains to arrive at natural
laws regarding murder and theft, by reason alone. Why not just say,
"God said obey the decalogue."
"By use of his reason, man can discover God's commands by which he
would order his life in the state of nature." (3)
"The law of nature governs the state of nature; reason reveals the law
of nature, which is derived from God," (3)
Sounds just like that definition of deism from the Columbia U. encyc,
doesn't it? No revelation. Locke does not build upon Christian
doctrine in the Treatises, or in "An Essay Concerning Human
Understanding," but starts with a clean slate, and builds his case by
reason.
>You are "reaching" to claim Locke as a deist, and it is strained.
Deism/Unitarianism/Locke. If it walks like a duck . . . .
>> The "divine right of the electorate"
>> is more properly described as men living in a state of nature, who by
>> mutual agreement have joined together for safety, peace, and security
>> of property.
>You are confusing Locke with Rousseau.
No, I am very nearly quoting Locke verbatim.
> Locke draws heavily upon the VINDICIAE,
>Rutherford, Lawson, and other Puritan Political theorists for his
>understanding of popular sovereignty as an expression of the Divine will.
Certainly not in his political treatises, which draw upon Grotius,
Pufendorf ("he anticipated Rousseau in his belief that the will of the
people constitute the state." (2)), Hobbes and Hooker, although he
differs from them on some points. These sources Locke mentions, and
commentaries about his work point to them. Rutherford et al, are
conspicuous by their absence in the Second Treatise.
>> If the founders believed "with Locke," then they believed in a Deist
>> concept of God revealed by reason in Natural Law.
>The founders views about Political rights was largely drawn from Blackstone,
>as much as Locke (http://www.universitylake.org/history/influences.html), see
Blackstone was born 19 years after Locke's death, and Locke's works
were already widely distributed in the colonies. Locke drew upon
Hobbes, Hooker, Grotius and Pufendorf. Blackstone is an authority not
so much on political theory, but on British jurisprudence. If you wish
to posit that the US Code had it's inspiration in Blackstone, I'll
grant it. But the political views of the colonials was from Locke,
Grotius, et al.
>> Locke 's influence on American political ideas is indisputable.
>> That his concept of the State of Nature and the formation of
>> government are consistent with Deism is also difficult to dispute.
>> I can see nothing in The Second Treatise to suggest that governments
>> should be established under anything derived specifically from
>> Christian doctrine.
>Locke's view of religious establishments was drawn from the Luther, Milton and
>the Puritans, such as Owen, Locke's teacher at Oxford.
As I have stated, Locke's political views are from Hobbes, Hooker,
Grotius and Pufendorf, and arrived at through reason, not Christian
doctine. Milton was a deist, and had considerable controversy with
both the episcopal and Presbyterian churches. "His final religious
position, which held, in effect, that every man should be his own
church, is best stated in the posthumous "De Doctrina Christiana." "
(Col. U. Encyc, 1945), Owen wrote a polemic against Socinarianism,
which would include Milton.
"Locke was extremely critical of the education he received at both
school and university. He was impatient with the scholastic curriculum
still in force and not always respectful of teachers. According to
Anthony Wood,* indeed, Locke as a student was 'ever prating and
troublesome and paid little attention to his lecturers,' However, he
read a great deal, being particularly stirred at this tie by the ideas
of Descartes. . ."
"It was probably Locke's liberal religious ideas that decided him
against a career in the Church. . . "(4)
Locke's religious views were "not with a belief in mysteries such as
the incarnation and the atonement,"(2) . . . "Deism and Latitudinarian
doctrines in religion both found their roots in Locke's work."(2)
" ... reason--the common rule and measure God has given to mankind
.." (5)
Where are these ideas in Luther?
>These theologians believed, on the grounds of Jesus saying "my kingdom is not
>of this world," that there should be a clear distinction between the civil and
>the ecclesiastical.
I don't care what those theologians believed. Locke's Second Treatise
on Government addresses the State of Nature, not Jesus, nor Christian
theology. _An Essay Concerning Human Understanding_ lays the
groundwork for all English empirical philosophy that followed. It's
not about Jesus, either.
>Locke's view of religious toleration is, therefore, entirely Christian in it's origin:
Only insofar as all education in England at the time emmanated from
church-dominated institutions. Show me Jesus in Descartes. He was more
heavily influenced by reading Hugo Grotius than by Scritpure, with
respect to natural law. Grotius attempted to resolve religious
conflicts in Holland, and completed his treatise on natural law in
France, after escaping imprisonment for taking the wrong side. Locke
was also a disciple of Hobbes, but differed with him on the state of
nature preceding the establishment of government, which Locke did not
see as a state of war. Hobbes, like Paine, had much difficulty in
later life due to his attacks on organized religion.
>Now that the whole jurisdiction of the magistrate reaches only to these civil
>concernments, and that all civil power, right and dominion, is bounded and
>confined to the only care of promoting these things; and that it neither can
>nor ought in any manner to be extended to the salvation of souls, these
>following considerations seem unto me abundantly to demonstrate."
>(Source: LOCKE, A Letter Concerning Toleration, 1689)
Yup, sounds like an argument for the separation of church and state.
Reminds me of a Jefferson quote.
>> Locke was tutor to the Second Earl of Shaftesbury, who later gained
>> fame as a leading Deist. Hume, Berkeley, Rousseau, Voltaire, Leibniz,
>> were all influenced by Locke. Deism is rooted in Locke's work, as is
>> our form of government.
>Insofar as these men were deists and they rejected "revealed religion" they
>departed from Locke, who was dearly committed throughout his life to revealed religion:
<Snip>
That's nonsense. He was not committed to revealed religion, because
his writings are against revealed religion, except as revealed by
observation of natural law. Nearly all the major philosophical
thought of Deism is rooted in Locke, whether you interpret Locke as
deist or not.**
Hume and Berkeley disputed some of Locke's ideas, but they
nevertheless were an outgrowth of his work, as were Rousseau et al.
Locke may not have called himself deist, but he was the last milepost
on the road to enlightenment. Jesus did not call himself a Christian,
either. And some, such as Locke, Jefferson, Priestley, considered
themselves Christian, but opposed miraculous revelation and other
supernatural docrine.
>Thanks again for your reasoned and non-inflamatory post. It is refreshing to
>be able to disagree with out reducing one's self to epithets, insults, and
>genetic ad hominems.
I'll get to those later.
;-)
*(1632-1695) Author of a history of Oxford University
(1) The New International Encylopedia, 1912
(2) The Columbia Encylopedia, 1945
(3) Frank N. Magil, ed., _Masterpieces of World Philosophy in Summary
Form_, Harper & Row, 1961
(4) Thomas P. Reardon, Professor of Government, Columbia U.
Introduction to _The Second Treatise on Government,_ The Liberal Arts
Press, 1952
(5) art. 11, John Locke, _The Second Treatise of Government_, The
Liberal Arts Press, 1952
**Two exceptions that come to mind are Socinus, who preceded him, and
and Spinoza, who was contemporary. I don't know to what extent, if
any, Locke was aware of them.
buc...@exis.net
>:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Gee, why have you ignored these posts:
>:|>
>:|> From: Jeff Sinclair <jeffrey...@my-deja.com>
>:|
>:|I have not received this post. Following your approach to Mr. Schulman, I have
>:|opted to set my browser to ignore anything coming from Sinclair. But since
>:|this post appears to be relatively vulgar-free and non-inflamatory, I'll give
>:|it its proper due.
Ywa, right
You didn't follow my approach to anything, silly.
I didn't set my browser to do anything.
As far as Shulman is concerned, I didn't see anything of value from his
rude crude keyboard.
Jeff Sinclair gives you what you give out to him and others, but even
better he takes your claims and tears them apart with facts.
Big difference.
However, your choice. The fact that approx nine people came forth to spank
Childress when he presented his latest example of just how narrow-minded
he really is, shows that there are lurkers/readers here.
So, you can ignore well presented, well documented arguments if you wish,
it is your theories they are destroying.
You do seem to fall back onto that "I am ignoring him/you tactic when
people are hitting you with well documented evidence refuting your claims.
You done it to me, at times, Mike, at times, and a few others off and on
since last March.
That is kewl.
Jeff/addesign
>Jeff/addesign wrote:
<snip>
>> >Interesting. Is it your view that the religious qualifications for state
>> >officials required by state constitutions
>> >(http://www.universitylake.org/history/state.html) were all abolished in 1787
>> >as a result of Article VI? That is another new one on me. Cite please.
I'm no Constitutional scholar, so perhaps I may be forgiven for
overlooking Marbury vs. Madison, 1803:
"Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The
constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by
ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts,
and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please
to alter it.
"If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act
contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true,
then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the
people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
"Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate
them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and
consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act
of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void."
. . .
"It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that in declaring
what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is
first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but
those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have
that rank.
"Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United
States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be
essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the
constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments,
are bound by that instrument."
. . .
Thus, Marshall has presented an argument establishing that the
Constitution, from ratification onward, supercedes any conflicting
State laws. Did the SC have jurisdiction over matters between a State
and a citizen? In appellate matters, yes. Were the statutes you cited
ever challenged, they would assuredly fail an SC appeal.
Article III Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity,
arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and
Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all
Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to
all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to
which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between
two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another
State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the
same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and
between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens
or Subjects.
Lorrill Buyens
Book of World Records, ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) ate
seventeen helpings of lutefisk, then belched:
>In article <386d6e91....@news.primenet.com>,
>Lorrill Buyens <buyensl@prime*SPAMMERS.GO.HOME*net.com> wrote:
>>On 24 Dec 1999 04:59:29 GMT, in an attempt to get into the Guinness
>>Book of World Records, ic...@best.com (Kenneth Childress) ate
>>seventeen helpings of lutefisk, then belched:
>
>Of course, if I was Mr. Curtis I would whine about name-calling. I'll
>just let the readers decide if this aids your credibility or not.
I fail to see your objection, as it's the same attribution header I
use for every post, and not one crafted just for you. If I'd been
responding to you two months earlier, my header would've said
something like: "On the momentous occasion of <date>, the
Great Detective <previous poster> looked the murderer straight
in the eye and hissed:".
>>>In article <83su65$1dio$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>Michael J Nash <NASHMs...@prodigy.spamsux.net> wrote:
>>>>Kenneth Childress <ic...@best.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:38610463$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
>>>>> In article <83q1ep$49ra$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>> Michael J Nash <NASHMs...@prodigy.spamsux.net> wrote:
>>>>I'm
>>>>referring to the fact that some deem it necessary to open sessions of
>>>>Congress and other public events with organized prayer, a violation of the
>>>>First Amendment and an insult to those who lack theistic beliefs.
>>>
>>>Nonsense. Because you here religious speech IN NO WAY violates your
>>>rights. The insult is your advocating stopping them. You have no right
>>
>>What about the right to equal time? If some Christian thinks it's
>>necessary for me or my (hypothetical) kids to sit through one of
>>their prayers at a *secular* event, then I want the right to make
>>them & their kids sit through a Wiccan blessing...
>
>Funny, I wasn't aware that there was a "right to equal time".
If they were to use prayers from one religion, they'd have to use
prayers from as many others as possible - otherwise it wouldn't
be fair.
>That argument is just stupid.
What goes around comes around, nipplechips.
>In order to adress your stupid statement, if most of the participants
>are Wiccan and choose to have a blessing, so be it. As long as it
>doesn't violate common standards of decency, what's the problem?
The violation of the rights of those participants who *weren't*
Wiccan to not be forced to sit through a prayer from a religion
not their own, and at a *secular* event, yet?
>>>>I'm
>>>>referring to the attempts by some to introduce voucher programs that would
>>>>fund religious indoctrination and the teaching of creationist pseudoscience
>>>>to our nation's schoolchildren, while at the same time reducing funding to
>>>>our already underfunded public schools.
>>>
>>>Public schools are not underfunded. You have really fallen for all the
>>>propoganda.
>>
>>Have you ever even *seen* an inner-city school, let alone heard the
>>stories about lack of materials?
>
>I've seen private schools put public schools to shame with less than
>half the budget of public schools. The problem isn't money, it's
Arguments of the form "If X can do <foo>, then why can't Y?" are
usually flawed by failure to realize that not all <schools, people,
etc.> are the same. Even if these crackerjack private schools of
yours *can* work miracles, that doesn't necessarily mean public
schools can do the same.
>>>>I'm referring to the attempts by
>>>>many in this country to interject religious indoctrination into our public
>>>>institutions; namely, the attempts by some to force the posting of the
>>>>Judeo-Christian 10 commandments in schools and courtrooms, and to force the
>>>
>>>You know, these things used to take place without any problem. What's
>>>your problem with it?
>>
>>The tiny fact that not everyone is either Christian or Jewish?
>
>So?
So why post something *religious* that not everyone believes in?
>>>>I'm also referring to the official sanctioning of
>>>>heterosexual marriage, while homosexual marriage is disallowed due to the
>>>>religious sensibilities of the theist majority, and for no other logical
>>>>reason.
>>>
>>>There is not a single reason for sanctioning a sexually perverse union.
>>>You don't even want to get me started on this topic. I've read up on
>>>the homosexual advocates, their techniques and practices. They are
>>>probably the most dishonest, and dispicable group in this country. If
>>>same-sex marriages are so virtuous then why are the advocates tauting
>>>the virtuals? Why all the lies, victim playing, tactics to silence the
>>>opposition? Do tell me the virtues?
>>
>>The legal & spiritual union of two people who love each other? The
>>right to have a say in each other's medical treatment, to receive
>>death benefits if their partner kicks the bucket, to raise any kids
>>they might have?
>
>I didn't think anyone would chime in with benefits. I see you didn't
>either.
Why do you believe the things I listed aren't benefits?
>Why do you think kids should be raised without a mother or a
>father?
Why do you think it's impossible for a lesbian to be a mommy,
or a homosexual a daddy? For that matter, why do you apparently
think it impossible for them to be raised by a grandparent, aunt or
uncle, or other non-parental relative?
>Besides, the issue isn't about death benefits and you know it.
You expressed a desire to know the *benefits* of same-sex
marriage. Benefit is a benefit is a benefit is a benefit, to slightly
alter Gertrude Stein.
--
| Doctor Fraud |Always believe six|
|Mad Inventor & Purveyor of Pseudopsychology |impossible things |
| Weird Science at Bargain Rates |before breakfast. |
Support the Jayne Hitchcock HELP Fund
http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/6172/helpjane.htm
Gardiner
>
> From a historical overview, it is easy for
> me to say that any colony, upon becoming a state under the
> Constitution, should have realised that such a requirement would
> eventually be found at odds with Article VI. Perhaps they didn't
> really comprehend what they were committing to, in ratifying the
> Constitution.
Preposterous. The whole thrust of the federalist appeal was assuring each state
that it would be able to maintain a sense of sovereignty. Article 4 and the 10th
amendment both spoke to that issue.
The founders had no reason to believe that the 14th amendment would be added in
1868, and that it would be interpretted to impose restrictions on state
governments. Probably, if they had reason to suspect that, the anit-federalist
sentiment would have gained enough momentum to prevent the Constitution from
being ratified.
> >> >Do you deny that the Declaration of Independence ROOTED fundamental human
> >> >rights in the existence of a deity? I can give you a citation if you need to
> >> >see it.
> >>
> >> No thanks. I suspect it would be from a biased source.
>
> >Thomas Jefferson: "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights."
>
> A biased interpretation, at the very least, since Jefferson did not
> have the same interpretation of Creator as you apparently hold.
All I said is that he rooted human rights in the deity's existence.
> >> I do not deny
> >> that DoI defines rights as inherent in people, as opposed to bestowed
> >> by a human sovereign. That most of the signers were in some form deist
> >> or christian is not disputed.
>
> >A large majority of non-Deist Christians of one sect or the other.
>
> Which would lend credence to the supposition that Jefferson's artful
> phrasing was intended to appeal to them, as does a Jefferson quote
> later in this post.
Your allegation that Jefferson was insincere and manipulative the work that he
considered to be his life's greatest achievement is a reach.
I find it entertaining that the "trump card" used by the anti-Christian voices
whenever they come across Christian statements of the founders is "well, he was
just being political."
> >> That it was necessary to phrase the DoI
> >> in a manner that appealed to the christian signers is not disputed.
>
> >Are you alleging that the "endowed by their Creator" clause was just a show?
> >Do you have any evidence that this was insincerely inserted?
>
> The bulk of the section is derived from Mason, who did not use a
> reference to a creator.
Actually a Creator is mentioned in Mason's bill of rights (sect. 16), even
though the creator is not mentioned in sect. 1, which you allege is where
Jefferson "derived" the language from.
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1776-1800/independence/virdor.htm
But, more importantly, the political theory in the DOI is more properly derived
from Locke. And Locke does encourage an appeal to "heaven"--
"242. If a controversy arise betwixt a prince and some of the people in a matter
where the law is silent or doubtful, and the thing be of great consequence, I
should think the proper umpire in such a case should be the body of the
people... But if the prince, or whoever they be in the administration, decline
that way of determination, the appeal then lies nowhere but to Heaven. Force
between either persons who have no known superior on earth or, which permits no
appeal to a judge on earth, being properly a state of war, wherein the appeal
lies only to heaven; and in that state the injured party must judge for himself
when he will think fit to make use of that appeal and put himself upon it."
> I am alleging that it adds force, just as any
> clever marketing pitch would do today. My only evidence is that it
> fomented a revolution. The phrase was unnecessary, given the Mason
> document,
The "Mason Document" not only makes reference to a Creator, but it also speaks
of a "duty of all to practice Christian love."
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1776-1800/independence/virdor.htm
> >> That it is a document that establishes the "Christianity" of this
> >> nation, is disputed.
>
> >Is anyone asserting that the DOI established Christianity? It didn't. It did
> >build upon Christian political theory.
>
> It is built upon political theory primarily derived from Locke, rooted
> in his concept of Natural Law, derived from the work of Grotius,
> Pufendorf, Hobbes, and Hooker. He was a Christian in education and
> perhaps in name, but his philosophy is arrived at through reason, not
> by cribbing from any Christian doctrine.
>
> Professsor Carl Becker, in _The Declaration of Independence_(1922),
> observed "The lineage is direct: Jefferson copied Locke and Locke
> quoted Hooker."
> Hooker's theory of government is based upon the rules of reason.
Granted, of the sources Locke uses, Hooker is the most frequently cited, but
that doesn't help your assertion that Locke avoids Christian doctrine.
http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/ofprayer.htm
> >> The phrasing is consistent with Deism.
>
> >"Consistent with" is a slippery phrase. The phrasing is also consistent with
> >the principles of the Boy Scouts, but I don't think that means it is a Boy
> >Scout document.
>
> The phrasing does not preclude the possibiltiy of deist origin. The
> phrasing does not limit the origin to Christian doctrine. Happy now?
The phrasing is largely borrowed from Locke. Locke was not a deist.
> >> The structure of
> >> government is in the Constitution, and the framers made clear that no
> >> religious test shall ever be required.
>
> >For federal office. That was not the case locally.
>
> I suspect it was the intent of the framers that Article VI would cover
> any Office or Trust under the United States, and that they meant
> throughout the States.
According to Federalist 39, that is not the proper conception of Federalism.
Federalism does not view the state governments as "subordinate" to the federal
government, but rather in an equal but different station. For example, the rules
requiring qualifications for an executive in the federal government did not,
thereby, automatically trickle down to the states.
> >> What stirring prose they used
> >> to inspire men upon the dangerous course of rebellion does not
> >> establish the rules of our government.
>
> >The Declaration of Independence continues to be cited by federal courts as an
> >authoritative source for understanding our government's position on
> >fundamental human rights. Do you deny that?
>
> No, but neither do I see how federal courts citing DoI disparages any
> deist influence, or supports any Christian origin.
I am not claiming either. What I am claiming is that by holding the DOI as
authoritative regarding the official human rights doctrine of the nation, the
government concedes the existence and NECESSITY of a creator as the ground of
our rights.
> >> The DoI is based upon George Mason's Declaration of Rights for
> >> Virginia, adopted June 12, 1776.
>
> >It was based upon many sources. Granted, Masons's Declaration is one such
> >source. The Dutch Declaration is > >another. http://www.newswise.com/articles/1998/6/DECLARE.UWI.html
>
> So? I see the article states they are very similar when compared. But
> I don't see the Dutch document, so I can't compare them.
It's posted at the fordham university site:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1581dutch.html
Dr. Lucas' article in Rhetoric and Public Affairs goes into extensive depth
proving the connection between these two documents.
> John Locke was in Holland from 1683 until 1689, when he returned to
> England with the expedition that brought Mary to join her husband,
> William of Orange, on the throne. Locke was commissioner of appeal
> (1689-1704), and advisor on coinage to the throne. The purpose of
> Locke's two treatises on government was to demonstrate that William
> ruled by the consent of the people. It is certainly possible that
> Locke read the Plakkaat while in Holland, it is most probable that
> Locke had some influence on the 1689 Declaration of Rights.
Lucas claims that the connection was direct from the Dutch document to
Jefferson.
> The article also states: "British state documents. . . say nothing
> about the natural rights of citizens to remove a tyrannical leader. "
>
> Balderdash. The researchers didn't bother to read Locke's second
> treatise, especially chapters XVII-XIX, Of Usurpation, Of Tyrrany, Of
> the Dissolution of Government.
Locke was important as a philosopher, but his treatise hardly qualifies as
OFFICIAL BRITISH STATE PAPERS, anymore than Witherspoon's sermons qualify as
official United States Documents.
> Don't believe everything you find on the internet.
I didn't just find the material on the internet. Before I saw the internet
article, I spoke with Dr. Lucas, saw him on the History Channel special on the
DOI, and read many of his works.
> The article also seems to discount the much more obvious link between
> Mason and Jefferson (the latter worked with the former and had the
> highest regard for his wisdom and judgment) and the influence on both
> of Locke.
If you read Dr. Lucas' scholarly works, you'll find that he doesn't discount
Mason or Locke.
> " . . . All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of
> the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed
> essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle,
> Cicero, Locke, Sidney, etc. " Jefferson on the DoI in a letter to
> Henry Lee, May 8, 1825
>
> No mention of Holland.
Or Mason. So what?
> We also know from Jefferson's autobigraphy that he was familiar with
> the writings of Grotius, Pufendorf, and Locke.
...and the Dutch Revolution
http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/Jefferson/Autobiography.html
> >> Section 1: "That all men are by nature equally free and independent
> >> and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a
> >> state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their
> >> posterity; namely the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of
> >> acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining
> >> happiness and safety."
> >>
> >> No mention of a creator or god, or Jesus. So the "All men are endowed
> >> by their creator" was a marvelously crafted phrase, but the original
> >> intent was merely to state that such rights are inherent in all men.
>
> >Well, if we are going back to Jefferson's "original intent," the unedited
> >version of the DOI indicates that "we hold these truths to be SACRED."
> >According to John Adams
> >(http://www.universitylake.org/history/pickering.html), what Jefferson was
> >doing was rewording a pamphlet written by Otis and Adams in 1772.
>
> The unedited version appears in Jefferson's autobiography, and it does
> not include the word SACRED. The word _sacred_ does not occur in the
> url you cited, nor in the linked documents.
It's there.
http://www.it.cc.mn.us/literature/original.html
http://web-cr02.pbs.org/jefferson/archives/documents/ih198036z.htm
> >That forementioned pamphlet spoke of the Rights of Colonists, appealing to
> >their "rights as Christians," as identified in the New Testament.
>
> Yes, and he cited Locke, and excluded Papists. Another Locke-inspired
> proponent of Natural Law. The aforementioned pamphlet reads like the
> Cliff's Notes to Locke's Second Treatise. You apparently discount the
> fact that many deists referred to themselves as Christians, as they
> understood the term-- following the teaching but not the Christology.
> Christians has also been used interchangeably with Englishmen. A
> conceit of an ethnocentric culture.
Your suggestion that Sam Adams was a closet deist is untenable, as he finished
his life "relying on the merits of Jesus Christ for the pardon of my sins."
That kind of statement just doesn't square with deism.
> Sam Adams and Jefferson were close friends, as were Jefferson and
> Mason. If they all shared in interpreting the work of Locke, I'm not
> the least bit surprised.
Actually, John Adams suggested that Jefferson drew directly from Sam Adams.
http://www.universitylake.org/history/pickering.html
> >> This would be true for christians, deists, or atheists, and is
> >> consistent with Deism.
>
> >And with Boy Scouts.
>
> Locke and his "State of Nature" and natural law precedes the DoI. The
> Boy Scouts came considerably later. Do we really need to bring them
> into this?
An idea can both follow and be consistent with a particular system, and still
not be the product of that system. That is my point.
>
> >> If we may get back to New England for a moment:
> >> The majority of sympathies in the colonies was for fair treatment of
> >> colonials with the rights of Englishmen, and could these rights have
> >> been gained and sustained, we might still be under British rule. The
> >> turning point came with the "Five Intolerable Acts" in reprisal for
> >> the Boston Tea Party, and leading to the first Continental Congress.
>
> >As far as Independence was concerned, I don't know of anyone that was talking
> >that way in 1773-1774. The turning point in that regard seems to have come
>
> Then you haven't studied history.
> The American revolution actually was fought to CONSERVE the rights of
> Englishman advanced by the rebellion of the seventeenth century. The
> first Congress of 1774 was not considering independence, but
> preservation of their rights as Englishmen.
That is why your suggestion that the fallout from the Tea Party is what
motivated independence is inaccurate.
> >from the pen of Thomas Paine (COMMON SENSE) in 1776. I'm sure that is a point
> >that you will want to gladly concede. However, you should not be too quick to
> >herald Paine's deism insofar as when he wrote Common Sense, the general public
> >had no clue that he was a deist. He did not go public with his deism until
> >1790, and that was a fatal mistake for him (http://www2.pitnet.net/gardiner/history/deism.htm)
>
> By citing Paine you acknowledge the influence of deist thinking on
> government,
There's nothing in Common Sense or the Crisis which smacked of Deism.
> Paine's pamphlet fanned the flames, the Five Intolerable Acts led to
> the Continental Congress.
Actually the committees of correspondence initiated by the Presbyterians in the
1760's are what led to the Continental Congress. See Joseph Galloway, Historical
and Political Reflections on the Rise and Progress of the American Rebellion
(London, 1780).
> >I dont't think, however, that this amounted to a wholesale rejection of "the
> >Christian religion" per se. It was a rejection of giving ecclesiasts the power
> >of the civil magistrate, which they had in England and in some parts of the
> >colonial world. This sentiment reflected Luther's views on the subject (http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/Secauth.HTM)
>
> Nor had I ever characterized any action of the framers as a "wholesale
> rejection of 'the Christian religion' per se." But the principles of
> the deists, and the concept of toleration require the separation to
> protect against such abuses.
Separation is a Protestant ideal.
Does this sound Deist?
"The holy Scripture is to me, and always will be, the constant guide of my
assent; and I shall always hearken to it, as containing the infallible truth
relating to things of the highest concernment... and I shall immediately
condemn and quit any opinion of mine, as soon as I am shown that it is
contrary to any revelation in the holy scripture."
(SOURCE: John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (New York: Dover,
1959), vol. 1, prolegomena.)
> >Second, this continual phrase, "not inconsistent with Deism" seems to be a
> >sleight of hand. The idea that the Laws of Nature and the Laws of God are one
> >and the same is an idea that was loudly proclaimed by St. Thomas Aquinas, John
> >Calvin, and the Puritans, as well as the Westminster Confession and
>
> Socinarianism was in opposition to Calvin. Calvin had the Socinarian,
> Servetus burned at the stake. Socinarianism took root in England as
> Unitarianism. "Milton, John Locke, and William Penn held Unitarian
> views."(2).
Milton was a Puritan. Locke was not Unitarian; he held that faith in Christ was
necessary for salvation. Penn was a Quaker, that is a form of proto-Unitarianism
I guess.
> Clearly there is a difference in interpretation between
> the laws of nature/god in Locke and in Calvinism or Catholicism, or
> the Anglican church. Locke was at odds with a number of clergy.
Luther was at odds with more clergy than Locke was. So what? Jesus was at odds
with all the clergy in his day.
> >The fact that the deists reduced all divine laws to "natural law" is
> >something that Locke DID NOT DO. Unlike the deists, but like the Puritans,
> >Locke believed in Natural Law AND Revealed Law (the Bible). Late in his life,
> >he considered his commentaries on the New Testament to be his most important
> >contributions to humanity.
>
> But not in the way that you imagine. If he believed in revealed law in
> the Bible, he would not have written in favor of reason, and against
> revelation.
He never wrote "against" revelation. He believed that natural revelation and the
Bible were from the same source.
"human laws must be made according to the general laws of Nature, and without
contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made"
(Locke, 2nd Treatise)
> For example, he goes to great pains to arrive at natural
> laws regarding murder and theft, by reason alone. Why not just say,
> "God said obey the decalogue."
He wanted to show that the Word of God (natural law) can be discovered even by
the illiterate. His favorite chapter was Romans 2.
> "By use of his reason, man can discover God's commands by which he
> would order his life in the state of nature." (3)
> "The law of nature governs the state of nature; reason reveals the law
> of nature, which is derived from God," (3)
>
> Sounds just like that definition of deism from the Columbia U. encyc,
> doesn't it? No revelation.
Sounds just like the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas, among other Christian
theologians.
> Locke does not build upon Christian
> doctrine in the Treatises, or in "An Essay Concerning Human
> Understanding," but starts with a clean slate, and builds his case by
> reason.
Essay Concerning Understanding is an epistemological treatise. The Treatise on
Government most definitely builds upon Christian assumptions. The scripture is
appealed to throughout as the authority for Locke's position. You should really
take a look at the document.
http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.htm
> >You are "reaching" to claim Locke as a deist, and it is strained.
>
> Deism/Unitarianism/Locke. If it walks like a duck . . . .
It might walk like a Duck, but it barks like a dog.
> >> The "divine right of the electorate"
> >> is more properly described as men living in a state of nature, who by
> >> mutual agreement have joined together for safety, peace, and security
> >> of property.
>
> >You are confusing Locke with Rousseau.
>
> No, I am very nearly quoting Locke verbatim.
What say you of this paragraph from the 2nd treatise:
==
109. And thus, in Israel itself, the chief business of their judges and first
kings seems to have been to be captains in war and leaders of their armies,
which (besides what is signified by "going out and in before the people," which
was, to march forth to war and home again at the heads of their forces) appears
plainly in the story of Jephtha. The Ammonites making war upon Israel, the
Gileadites, in fear, send to Jephtha, a bastard of their family, whom they had
cast off, and article with him, if he will assist them against the Ammonites, to
make him their ruler, which they do in these words: "And the people made him
head and captain over them" (Judges 11. 11), which was, as it seems, all one as
to be judge. "And he judged Israel" (Judges 12. 7) — that is, was their
captain-general — "six years." So when Jotham upbraids the Shechemites with the
obligation they had to Gideon, who had been their judge and ruler, he tells
them: "He fought for you, and adventured his life for, and delivered you out of
the hands of Midian" (Judges 9. 17). Nothing mentioned of him but what he did as
a general, and, indeed, that is all is found in his history, or in any of the
rest of the judges. And Abimelech particularly is called king, though at most he
was but their general. And when, being weary of the ill-conduct of Samuel's
sons, the children of Israel desired a king, "like all the nations, to judge
them, and to go out before them, and to fight their battles" (1 Sam. 8. 20),
God, granting their desire, says to Samuel, "I will send thee a man, and thou
shalt anoint him to be captain over my people Israel, that he may save my people
out of the hands of the Philistines" (ch. 9. 16). As if the only business of a
king had been to lead out their armies and fight in their defence; and,
accordingly, at his inauguration, pouring a vial of oil upon him, declares to
Saul that "the Lord had anointed him to be captain over his inheritance" (ch.
10. 1). And therefore those who, after Saul being solemnly chosen and saluted
king by the tribes at Mispah, were unwilling to have him their king, make no
other objection but this, "How shall this man save us?" (ch. 10. 27), as if they
should have said: "This man is unfit to be our king, not having skill and
conduct enough in war to be able to defend us." And when God resolved to
transfer the government to David, it is in these words: "But now thy kingdom
shall not continue: the Lord hath sought Him a man after His own heart, and the
Lord hath commanded him to be captain over His people" (ch. 13. 14.). As if the
whole kingly authority were nothing else but to be their general; and therefore
the tribes who had stuck to Saul's family, and opposed David's reign, when they
came to Hebron with terms of submission to him, they tell him, amongst other
arguments, they had to submit to him as to their king, that he was, in effect,
their king in Saul's time, and therefore they had no reason but to receive him
as their king now. "Also," say they, "in time past, when Saul was king over us,
thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel, and the Lord said unto
thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be a captain over
Israel."
===
If that Duck is supposed to be a rejection of scriptural revelation, then it's
not walking right.
> > Locke draws heavily upon the VINDICIAE,
> >Rutherford, Lawson, and other Puritan Political theorists for his
> >understanding of popular sovereignty as an expression of the Divine will.
>
> Certainly not in his political treatises, which draw upon Grotius,
> Pufendorf ("he anticipated Rousseau in his belief that the will of the
> people constitute the state." (2)), Hobbes and Hooker, although he
> differs from them on some points. These sources Locke mentions, and
> commentaries about his work point to them. Rutherford et al, are
> conspicuous by their absence in the Second Treatise.
Pufendorf, Grotius, and Hobbes are absent from the 2nd treatise as well. Locke's
debt to the Puritan fathers is direct. They were his teachers at Westminster and
Oxford during the commonwealth period. His works are plentiful with references
to Milton, et al.
> >> If the founders believed "with Locke," then they believed in a Deist
> >> concept of God revealed by reason in Natural Law.
>
> >The founders views about Political rights was largely drawn from Blackstone,
> >as much as Locke (http://www.universitylake.org/history/influences.html), see
>
> Blackstone was born 19 years after Locke's death, and Locke's works
> were already widely distributed in the colonies. Locke drew upon
> Hobbes, Hooker, Grotius and Pufendorf. Blackstone is an authority not
> so much on political theory, but on British jurisprudence. If you wish
> to posit that the US Code had it's inspiration in Blackstone, I'll
> grant it. But the political views of the colonials was from Locke,
> Grotius, et al.
At the time of the founding, Blackstone was the dominant source for political
theory. http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/spring97/blackstone.html
> >> Locke 's influence on American political ideas is indisputable.
> >> That his concept of the State of Nature and the formation of
> >> government are consistent with Deism is also difficult to dispute.
> >> I can see nothing in The Second Treatise to suggest that governments
> >> should be established under anything derived specifically from
> >> Christian doctrine.
>
> >Locke's view of religious establishments was drawn from the Luther, Milton and
> >the Puritans, such as Owen, Locke's teacher at Oxford.
>
> As I have stated, Locke's political views are from Hobbes, Hooker,
> Grotius and Pufendorf, and arrived at through reason, not Christian
> doctine.
It seems that you have not read much of Hooker, Pufendorf, or Grotius. These
guys cite the Bible all over the place.
> Milton was a deist,
I've never heard that one before. I've heard Calvinist, Puritan, Independent,
etc., but never Deist. The internet Encyclopedia calls him "The great Puritan
apologist" http://infoplease.lycos.com/ce5/CE042673.html
I don't see any Deism in PARADISE LOST. Since when did the Deists become the
champions of the doctrine of original sin??
> and had considerable controversy with
> both the episcopal and Presbyterian churches. "His final religious
> position, which held, in effect, that every man should be his own
> church, is best stated in the posthumous "De Doctrina Christiana." "
> (Col. U. Encyc, 1945), Owen wrote a polemic against Socinarianism,
> which would include Milton.
Milton was a Socinian, too?? Socinius entirely denied the doctrine of original
sin, Milton's greatest work, Paradise Lost, was a statement of it.
What's next? Jonathan Edwards was an atheist?
> "Locke was extremely critical of the education he received at both
> school and university. He was impatient with the scholastic curriculum
> still in force and not always respectful of teachers. According to
> Anthony Wood,* indeed, Locke as a student was 'ever prating and
> troublesome and paid little attention to his lecturers,' However, he
> read a great deal, being particularly stirred at this tie by the ideas
> of Descartes. . ."
Try H.R. Foxe Bourne, LIFE OF LOCKE
> "It was probably Locke's liberal religious ideas that decided him
> against a career in the Church. . . "(4)
Probably? What else do you want to speculate about? Maybe he was a
cross-dresser.
> Locke's religious views were "not with a belief in mysteries such as
> the incarnation and the atonement,"(2)
Apparently this writer has never read the Reasonableness of Christianity. Locke
explicitly said that he believed in miracles and in the redemption of sins
through Christ.
> . . . "Deism and Latitudinarian
> doctrines in religion both found their roots in Locke's work."(2)
Latitudinarians were around long before Locke. All it really means is tolerant
Christians.
Locke believed too much in the divinity of Christ and in the scripture to be
identified with deism.
> " ... reason--the common rule and measure God has given to mankind
> .." (5)
> Where are these ideas in Luther?
See Seigbert Becker http://users.erols.com/rpdigest/03459.htm
> >These theologians believed, on the grounds of Jesus saying "my kingdom is not
> >of this world," that there should be a clear distinction between the civil and
> >the ecclesiastical.
>
> I don't care what those theologians believed. Locke's Second Treatise
> on Government addresses the State of Nature, not Jesus, nor Christian
> theology.
It uses the Bible, and it employs reason as "God's gift to all humanity."
http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.htm
> _An Essay Concerning Human Understanding_ lays the
> groundwork for all English empirical philosophy that followed. It's
> not about Jesus, either.
That book really had very little to do with the American Revolution.
> >Locke's view of religious toleration is, therefore, entirely Christian in it's origin:
>
> Only insofar as all education in England at the time emmanated from
> church-dominated institutions. Show me Jesus in Descartes. He was more
> heavily influenced by reading Hugo Grotius than by Scritpure, with
> respect to natural law. Grotius attempted to resolve religious
> conflicts in Holland, and completed his treatise on natural law in
> France,
And a commentary on the Gospels.
> after escaping imprisonment for taking the wrong side. Locke
> was also a disciple of Hobbes, but differed with him on the state of
> nature preceding the establishment of government,
And differed with him regarding the existence of God.
> which Locke did not
> see as a state of war. Hobbes, like Paine, had much difficulty in
> later life due to his attacks on organized religion.
He attacked everything spiritual. He was a materialist. Locke believed in a
future state, Hobbes didn't.
> >Now that the whole jurisdiction of the magistrate reaches only to these civil
> >concernments, and that all civil power, right and dominion, is bounded and
> >confined to the only care of promoting these things; and that it neither can
> >nor ought in any manner to be extended to the salvation of souls, these
> >following considerations seem unto me abundantly to demonstrate."
>
> >(Source: LOCKE, A Letter Concerning Toleration, 1689)
>
> Yup, sounds like an argument for the separation of church and state.
> Reminds me of a Jefferson quote.
That's because Jefferson got it from Locke, who got it from Owen, who got it
from Calvin, who got it from Luther.
> >> Locke was tutor to the Second Earl of Shaftesbury, who later gained
> >> fame as a leading Deist. Hume, Berkeley, Rousseau, Voltaire, Leibniz,
> >> were all influenced by Locke. Deism is rooted in Locke's work, as is
> >> our form of government.
>
> >Insofar as these men were deists and they rejected "revealed religion" they
> >departed from Locke, who was dearly committed throughout his life to revealed religion:
> <Snip>
>
> That's nonsense. He was not committed to revealed religion, because
> his writings are against revealed religion, except as revealed by
> observation of natural law.
LOL
"The holy Scripture is to me, and always will be, the constant guide of my
assent; and I shall always hearken to it, as containing the infallible truth
relating to things of the highest concernment... and I shall immediately
condemn and quit any opinion of mine, as soon as I am shown that it is
contrary to any revelation in the holy scripture."
(SOURCE: John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (New York: Dover,
1959), vol. 1, prolegomena.)
> Hume and Berkeley disputed some of Locke's ideas, but they
> nevertheless were an outgrowth of his work,
Epistemology. It really had very little impact on the Americans who were
epistemologically pragmatists, after their favorite celebrity, Ben Franklin.
Jonathan Edwards was the epistemological Lockean.
Edwards was hardly a deist.
RG
Gardiner
> >:|>
> >:|> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> >:|>
> >:|> Gee, why have you ignored these posts:
> >:|>
> >:|> From: Jeff Sinclair <jeffrey...@my-deja.com>
> >:|
> >:|I have not received this post. Following your approach to Mr. Schulman, I have
> >:|opted to set my browser to ignore anything coming from Sinclair. But since
> >:|this post appears to be relatively vulgar-free and non-inflamatory, I'll give
> >:|it its proper due.
>
>
> You didn't follow my approach to anything, silly.
> I didn't set my browser to do anything.
So why did you say "I don't see any of Schulman's posts"? I guess you'll deny
saying that.
> As far as Shulman is concerned, I didn't see anything of value from his
> rude crude keyboard.
LOL. Schulman is rude and crude, and you have the audacity to defend Sinclair!!
You wanna show me all the vulgarities, epithets, and inflammatory remarks
Schulman has posted? I've never seen them. But it won't be hard to collect a
boatload of ugly stuff with Sinclair's name on it.
> Jeff Sinclair gives you what you give out to him and others, but even
> better he takes your claims and tears them apart with facts.
Do you find it really powerful and meaningful that Sinclair spent a week trying
to prove that I couldn't preach in Arkansas and Mississippi on the same day?
That was a real academic dispute wasn't it? And what is the "fact" that Sinclair
has proven? That I am a "crock of shit" who believes that all Jews want to kill
all non-Jews?
I've got a lot better things to do than to play Jr. High games.
> Big difference.
Yes. There is a huge difference between Schulman and Sinclair.
> However, your choice. The fact that approx nine people came forth to spank
> Childress when he presented his latest example of just how narrow-minded
> he really is, shows that there are lurkers/readers here.
My, how you like to proclaim "spankings." What's next? Modacc (god rest her)
spanked me and Schulman too?
> So, you can ignore well presented, well documented arguments if you wish,
> it is your theories they are destroying.
Anyone who saw the way Sinclair wasted a week on my resume, got nowhere, and
then buried his head when he was asked to share his own background, knows that
he is not interested in real debate. It's much like your "you love Pat
Robertson" defense that you use whenever you get cornered.
> You do seem to fall back onto that "I am ignoring him/you tactic when
> people are hitting you with well documented evidence refuting your claims.
Sinclair is the only name I have ever ignored, and that was only after he
refused to cease and desist with the hate speech. Sure enough, his last message
that you reposted returned to the "holocaust-denier" accusations. He'll remain
on my "dump" list.
I probably would have put Danaher in my kill file, too, for the same reason, but
apparently he has opted to be inflammatory somewhere else.
> You done it to me, at times, Mike, at times, and a few others off and on
> since last March.
I ignore your long-winded cut-and-pastes. I don't have time for them. I always
read your posts when they are just a few K.
Any other time that you think I have ignored you I was probably on vacation or
busy at school.
Some people have jobs away from the computer.
RG
Mary
Gardiner wrote:
<snip>
>
> LOL. Schulman is rude and crude, and you have the audacity to defend Sinclair!!
>
> You wanna show me all the vulgarities, epithets, and inflammatory remarks
> Schulman has posted? I've never seen them. But it won't be hard to collect a
> boatload of ugly stuff with Sinclair's name on it.
>
> > Jeff Sinclair gives you what you give out to him and others, but even
> > better he takes your claims and tears them apart with facts.
As one of those lurkers following this thread, I have yet to see Sinclair's inflamatory
remarks - only well reasoned discussion supported by direct quotes, which I have found
very interesting. You, sir, keep petutantly referring to non-existant snipes when you
lack any reasoned reponse. It matters not at all what he may or may not have done in
the past on other threads.
And why the insistance on revealing personal data about one's self? Posts should be
able to stand upon their own logic. There are many idiots in academic instititions
with credentials, it only means they went to school a long time, not that they have any
particular intellegence over others.
<snip>
Mary
Rick Gardiner
>
> Gardiner wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > LOL. Schulman is rude and crude, and you have the audacity to defend Sinclair!!
> >
> > You wanna show me all the vulgarities, epithets, and inflammatory remarks
> > Schulman has posted? I've never seen them. But it won't be hard to collect a
> > boatload of ugly stuff with Sinclair's name on it.
> >
> > > Jeff Sinclair gives you what you give out to him and others, but even
> > > better he takes your claims and tears them apart with facts.
>
> As one of those lurkers following this thread, I have yet to see Sinclair's inflamatory
> remarks - only well reasoned discussion supported by direct quotes, which I have found
> very interesting.
Dear Mary (who just happens to use Alison's old ISP),
Perhaps you find the following sort of exchange very meaningful. If so, you
and I have very different understandings about what constitutes civil discourse:
===
> > > > Whay a crock of shit.
> > >
> > > As Mr. Schulman has rightly requested: please leave your foul barnyard
> > > utterances out of the mix. Try to at least pretend to be a civilized person.
> >
> > How's this? What a crock of s**t. Or we could try this: Gardiner is
> > full of s**t. Is that better?
===
Add this to constantly accusing me of being a nazi, a holocaust-denier, and
one who thinks the Jews want to kill everybody (in a discussion that is
supposed to be about colonial America!)
Mary, you simply have a very different, and I might add, warped, understanding
of "reasoned discussion supported by direct quotes."
If you enjoy that sort of foul and inflammatory exchange, by all means
participate. I spend enough time with Jr. High boys as a teacher; I don't need
more of the immaturity at home.
> You, sir, keep petutantly referring to non-existant snipes when you
> lack any reasoned reponse. It matters not at all what he may or may not have done in
> the past on other threads.
Tell that to Sinclair and Alison regarding David Barton. I'll be they'll say
what Barton has said in the past does matter.
> And why the insistance on revealing personal data about one's self? Posts should be
> able to stand upon their own logic.
I entirely agree. Perhaps you missed it, but for a week, Sinclair wanted to
make this discussion an entire fine-tooth-comb evaluation of my resume, only
for the purpose of disparaging me. That kind of diversion is the sort of thing
which detracts from historical academic discourse. It is assanine, immature,
and not worth much of my time.
> There are many idiots in academic instititions
> with credentials, it only means they went to school a long time, not that they have any
> particular intellegence over others.
Agreed. I hope that the kings of secondary sources are listening to you.
Gordon Wood is not the final arbiter of right and wrong.
RG
Pastor Stevo & His Lovely Wife Dottie
Jeff/addesign wrote:
> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
My god! Is this "The" Gardiner? The net's biggest and most pompous ass?
It can't be!
I have it on good authority that god downsized last year's rapture to just one human being and it was our very own gassbag
gardiner.
Pastor Stevo