George Washington not Christian
PSmith9626
The Masonic temple in Philly has a
keystone with his name on it and much documentation.
Deism was the prevailing intellectual current of the french
enlightenment.
best
penny
Gardiner
>
> george washington was a rosicrucian mystic and a master mason.
George Washington attended Christ Church in Alexandria every Sunday that he
was available. He spent more time in the Episcopal church than he did in the
Masonic Hall. There are a number of Christian ministers who have been Masons
over the years.
> The Masonic temple in Philly has a
> keystone with his name on it and much documentation.
The Episcopal Church in Alexandria has a pew with his name on it, and even
more documentation.
> Deism was the prevailing intellectual current of the french
> enlightenment.
You are absolutely correct. However, last I heard, Washington was a General in
the AMerican Revolution, not the French Revolution.
RG
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|
For Washington:
Well the book I have been citing:
George Washington & Religion, by Paul F. Boller, Southern Methodist
University Press: Dallas TX (1962)
Then:
Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation. Edwin S. Gaustad, Harper
& Row, (1987) pp 71 - 85 has some good material
And don't forget this:
"Though the cool deism of Washington can hardly be distinguished in broad
outline from that of Jefferson, the public reaction to the two men and
their religious views differed sharply. Only Jefferson was denounced as the
'howling atheist,' never Washington. Only Jefferson was attacked as the
enemy of the churches and the clergy, never Washington. A curious public
probed and punches Adams, Franklin and Jefferson regarding their Christian
convictions, but never Washington."
Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation. Edwin S. Gaustad, Harper
& Row, (1987) pp 77
Krzysztof 'Mr.' Kamieniecki
--
"You can have your god back when you are old enough to handle the responsibility.",
Yours in the Darkside(tm),
mailto:kr...@mediaone.net
Paul Browning
not a Christian.
Unlike Thomas Jefferson--and Thomas Paine, for that
matter--Washington never
even got around to recording his belief that Christ was a
great ethical teacher.
His reticence on the subject was truly remarkable.
Washington frequently alluded
to Providence in his private correspondence. But the name of
Christ, in any
correspondence whatsoever, does not appear anywhere in his
many letters to
friends and associates throughout his life. (Paul F. Boller,
George Washington &
Religion, Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963,
pp. 74-75.)
... if to believe in the divinity and resurrection of Christ
and his atonement
for the sins of man and to participate in the sacrament of
the Lord's Supper are
requisites for the Christian faith, then Washington, on the
evidence which we
have examined, can hardly be considered a Christian, except
in the most nominal
sense. (Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion,
Dallas: Southern Methodist
University Press, 1963, p. 90.)
As President, Washington regularly attended Christian
services, and he was
friendly in his attitude toward Christian values. However,
he repeatedly
declined the church's sacraments. Never did he take
communion, and when his
wife, Martha, did, he waited for her outside the
sanctuary.... Even on his
deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered no prayer
to Christ, and
expressed no wish to be attended by His representative.
George Washington's
practice of Christianity was limited and superficial because
he was not himself
a Christian. In the enlightened tradition of his day, he was
a devout
Deist--just as many of the clergymen who knew him suspected.
(Barry Schwartz,
George Washington: The Making of an American Symbol, New
York: The Free Press,
1987, pp. 174-175.)
--
Paul S. Browning Jr.
<jal...@pilot.infi.net> wrote in message
news:37c0f8d6...@news.pilot.infi.net...
Gardiner
>
> Washington, like many of our founding fathers was a Deist,
> not a Christian.
There's a bounty out for anyone who can cite a text from Washington in which
he declares that.
You sure you didn't mean to say that he was a UFO?
> Unlike Thomas Jefferson--and Thomas Paine, for that
> matter--Washington never
> even got around to recording his belief that Christ was a
> great ethical teacher.
From George Washington's handwritten prayerbook:
"O most Glorious God, in Jesus Christ my merciful and loving father, I
acknowledge and confess my guilt, in the weak and imperfect performance of the
duties of this day. I have called on thee for pardon and forgiveness of sins,
but so coldly and carelessly, that my prayers are become my sin and stand in
need of pardon. I have heard thy holy word, but with such deadness of spirit
that I have been an unprofitable and forgetful hearer, so that, O Lord, tho' I
have done thy work, yet it hath been so negligently that I may rather expect a
curse than a blessing from thee. But, O God, who art rich in mercy and
plenteous in redemption, mark not, I beseech thee, what I have done amiss;
remember that i am but dust, and remit my transgressions, negligences &
ignorances, and cover them all with the absolute obedience of thy dear Son,
that those sacrifices which I have offered may be accepted by thee, in and for
the sacrifice of Jesus Christ offered upon the cross for me; for his sake,
ease me of the burden of my sins, and give me grace that by the call of the
Gospel I may rise from the slumber of sin into the newness of life."
> His reticence on the subject was truly remarkable.
> Washington frequently alluded
> to Providence in his private correspondence. But the name of
> Christ, in any
> correspondence whatsoever, does not appear anywhere in his
> many letters to
> friends and associates throughout his life.
Instead of Christ, he referred to his "Redeemer."
Here is what he asked of his Redeemer:
"that he would go forth with our hosts and crown our arms with victory; that
he would
grant to his church the plentiful effusions of divine grace, and pour out his
holy spirit on all ministers of the gospel; that he would bless and prosper
the means of education, and spread the light of christian knowledge through
the remotest corners of the earth; that he would smile upon the labours of his
people and cause the earth to bring forth her fruits in abundance; that we may
with gratitude and gladness enjoy them; that he would take into his holy
protection our illustrious ally, give him victory over his enemies, and render
him signally great, as the father of his people and the protector of the
rights of mankind; that he would graciously be pleased to turn the hearts of
our enemies, and to dispense the blessings of peace to contending nations;
that he would in mercy look down upon us, pardon our sins and receive us into
his favor, and finally, that he would establish the independence of these
United States upon the basis of religion and virtue"
Perhaps you think I'm making this up. If you want to see it in Washington's
own handwriting see:
http://memory.loc.gov/mss/mgw/mgw3g/004/284.gif
It's online through the library of congress.
> (Paul F. Boller,
> George Washington &
> Religion, Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963,
> pp. 74-75.)
Mr. Boller apparently did not do his homework.
> ... if to believe in the divinity and resurrection of Christ
> and his atonement
> for the sins of man and to participate in the sacrament of
> the Lord's Supper are
> requisites for the Christian faith,
Participation in Communion is not considered a "requisite" for salvation by Protestants.
> George Washington's
> practice of Christianity was limited and superficial because
> he was not himself
> a Christian.
He sure had the young lady who lived with him for twenty years fooled:
"I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in
Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian. He was
not one of those who act or pray, 'that they may be seen of men.' He communed
with his God in secret... Is it necessary that any one should certify,
'General Washington avowed himself to me a believer in Christianity?' As well
may we question his patriotism, his heroic, disinterested devotion to his
country."
-Nelly Custis (Washington's Adopted Daughter) 26 Feb 1833.
pan
wrote:
>PSmith9626 wrote:
>>
>> george washington was a rosicrucian mystic and a master mason.
>
>George Washington attended Christ Church in Alexandria every Sunday that he
>was available. He spent more time in the Episcopal church than he did in the
>Masonic Hall. There are a number of Christian ministers who have been Masons
>over the years.
It's my understanding that Washington was most likely a Deist.
Although it was true that he sometimes attended the Episcopal church,
he was known to never take communion (during the revolutionary period
and after).
Many Deist during this period believed that there was great value in
Jesus's teachings; but they felt that the stories of miracles and
resurrections were only myths (e.g. the "Jefferson Bible").
>
>> The Masonic temple in Philly has a
>> keystone with his name on it and much documentation.
>
>The Episcopal Church in Alexandria has a pew with his name on it, and even
>more documentation.
>
>> Deism was the prevailing intellectual current of the french
>> enlightenment.
>
>You are absolutely correct. However, last I heard, Washington was a General in
>the AMerican Revolution, not the French Revolution.
>
>RG
Gardiner
>
> On Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:39:55 -0600, Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net>
> wrote:
>
> >PSmith9626 wrote:
> >>
> >> george washington was a rosicrucian mystic and a master mason.
> >
> >George Washington attended Christ Church in Alexandria every Sunday that he
> >was available. He spent more time in the Episcopal church than he did in the
> >Masonic Hall. There are a number of Christian ministers who have been Masons
> >over the years.
>
> It's my understanding that Washington was most likely a Deist.
I wonder if you can back your "understanding" up with something that
Washington wrote identifying himself as a Deist? It can't be done.
On the other hand, it's pretty easy to show you some stuff he wrote which
identified him otherwise.
see http://memory.loc.gov/mss/mgw/mgw3g/004/284.gif
Furthermore, according to Washington's membership at Truro Parish, he was
required to swear upon an oath that he subscribed to the Doctrine and Disciple
of the Anglican Church, which oath Washington swore on August 19, 1765. That
doctrine included the following precepts:
******
I. Of faith in the Holy Trinity.
THERE is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or
passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of
all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be
three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Ghost.
II. Of the Word, or Son of God, which was made very man.
HE Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the
Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took
man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two
whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and manhood, were
joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ,
very God and very man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to
reconcile His Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original
guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.
III. Of the going down of Christ into Hell.
AS Christ died for us, and was buried, so also is it to be believed that He
went down into Hell.
IV. Of the Resurrection of Christ.
CHRIST did truly rise again from death, and took again His body, with flesh,
bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of man's nature,
wherefore He ascended into heaven, and there sitteth until He return to judge
all men at the last day.
V. Of the Holy Ghost.
THE Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one substance,
majesty, and glory with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God.
VI. Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
HOLY Scriptures containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that
whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be
required of any man, that it should be believed as an of the faith, or be
thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of Holy Scripture, we
do understand those Canonical books of the Old and New testament, of whose
authority was never any doubt in the Church.
(The Doctrines continue...)
*********
I suppose one could say that Washington was not the kind of man who took
"oaths" very seriously, or that he was not very concerned with his integrity
or honor; but that has not been the general opinion of the scholars who have
studied him.
RG
pan
wrote:
>pan wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:39:55 -0600, Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >PSmith9626 wrote:
>> >>
>> >> george washington was a rosicrucian mystic and a master mason.
>> >
>> >George Washington attended Christ Church in Alexandria every Sunday that he
>> >was available. He spent more time in the Episcopal church than he did in the
>> >Masonic Hall. There are a number of Christian ministers who have been Masons
>> >over the years.
>>
>> It's my understanding that Washington was most likely a Deist.
>
>I wonder if you can back your "understanding" up with something that
>Washington wrote identifying himself as a Deist? It can't be done.
See, for a discussion on Washington not taking communion, and on
being a Deist:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_3.html#1
>
>On the other hand, it's pretty easy to show you some stuff he wrote which
>identified him otherwise.
>
>see http://memory.loc.gov/mss/mgw/mgw3g/004/284.gif
I believe you have possibly made an error here.
This reference refers to a proclamation Congress had passed (which
Washington was quoting, as it was intended, in part, for his army)
From:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw170227))
George Washington, November 27 1779, General Orders (below):
Head Quarters, Moore's House, Saturday, November 27, 1779.
Parole Landaft. Countersigns Lexington, Leeds.
The Honorable the Congress has been pleased to pass the following
proclamation.
Whereas it becomes us humbly to approach the throne of Almighty God,
with gratitude and praise for the wonders which his
goodness has wrought in conducting our fore-fathers to this western
world; for his protection to them and to their posterity
amid difficulties and dangers; for raising us, their children, from
deep distress to be numbered among the nations of the earth;
and for arming the hands of just and mighty princes in our
deliverance; and especially for that he hath been pleased to grant us
the enjoyment of health, and so to order the revolving seasons, that
the earth hath produced her increase in abundance, blessing
the labors of the husbandmen, and spreading plenty through the land;
that he hath prospered our arms and those of our ally;
been a shield to our troops in the hour of danger, pointed their
swords to victory and led them in triumph over the bulwarks of
the foe; that he hath gone with those who went out into the wilderness
against the savage tribes; that he hath stayed the hand of
the spoiler, and turned back his meditated destruction; that he hath
prospered our commerce, and given success to those who
sought the enemy on the face of the deep; and above all, that he hath
diffused the glorious light of the gospel, whereby, through
the merits of our gracious Redeemer, we may become the heirs of his
eternal glory: therefore,
RESOLVED, That it be recommended to the several states, to appoint
Thursday, the 9th of December next, to be a day of
public and solemn thanksgiving to Almighty God for his mercies, and of
prayer for the continuance of his favor and protection
to these United States; to beseech him that he would be graciously
pleased to influence our public councils, and bless them with
wisdom from on high, with unanimity, firmness, and success; that he
would go forth with our hosts and crown our arms with
victory; that he would grant to his church the plentiful effusions of
divine grace, and pour out his holy spirit on all ministers of the
gospel; that he would bless and prosper the means of education, and
spread the light of christian knowledge through the
remotest corners of the earth; that he would smile upon the labours of
his people and cause the earth to bring forth her fruits in
abundance; that we may with gratitude and gladness enjoy them; that he
would take into his holy protection our illustrious ally,
give him victory over his enemies, and render him signally great, as
the father of his people and the protector of the rights of
mankind; that he would graciously be pleased to turn the hearts of our
enemies, and to dispense the blessings of peace to
contending nations; that he would in mercy look down upon us, pardon
our sins and receive us into his favor, and finally, that he
would establish the independence of these United States upon the basis
of religion and virtue, and support and protect them in
the enjoyment of peace, liberty and safety.33
[Note 33: In the General Orders this resolve was condensed by sundry
omissions.]
A strict observance to be paid by the Army to this proclamation and
the Chaplains are to prepare and deliver discourses
suitable to it.34
[Note 34: The Varick Transcripts of Washington's General Orders in the
Library of Congress has the following note at this
point: "The Army marching by Divisions and Brigades into Winter
Quarters."]
>
>Furthermore, according to Washington's membership at Truro Parish,
When did **Washington** claim to be a member of this parish?
>he was required to swear upon an oath that he subscribed to the Doctrine and Disciple
>of the Anglican Church, which oath Washington swore on August 19, 1765. That
>doctrine included the following precepts:
>
People swear oaths for many reasons.
I would guess that Washington would have felt (during that time) that
it would have been to his benefit to be a member of England's 'State'
church.
And besides,
as an English colonist: Washington was most likely 'born into' the
Anglican Church (baptized in infancy, and 'confirmed' in his teens).
I have never heard of a 'baptized' Anglican having to 'swear' an oath
each time they attend a new church (unless you want to view the
standard prayers of the church services as 'oaths')
Heck, I'm an ex-Episcopalian myself! ;-)
*People change their minds*
pan
(snip)
>
>RG
Robert L. Johnson
WASHINGTON AND RELIGION that says, "like nearly all the founders of the
Republic, he (Washington) was not a Christian, but a Deist."
For an indepth look at Deism visit the site of the World Union of Deists
at: http://www.deism.com
Thanks, Bob
PSmith9626 wrote:
> george washington was a rosicrucian mystic and a master mason.
> The Masonic temple in Philly has a
> keystone with his name on it and much documentation.
> Deism was the prevailing intellectual current of the french
> enlightenment.
> best
> penny
Napoleon Bean
Gardiner wrote:
> pan wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 18 Aug 1999 09:39:55 -0600, Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >PSmith9626 wrote:
> > >>
> > >> george washington was a rosicrucian mystic and a master mason.
> > >
> > >George Washington attended Christ Church in Alexandria every Sunday that he
>
> > >was available. He spent more time in the Episcopal church than he did in
> the
> > >Masonic Hall. There are a number of Christian ministers who have been
> Masons
> > >over the years.
> >
> > It's my understanding that Washington was most likely a Deist.
>
> I wonder if you can back your "understanding" up with something that
> Washington wrote identifying himself as a Deist? It can't be done.
>
> On the other hand, it's pretty easy to show you some stuff he wrote which
> identified him otherwise.
>
> see http://memory.loc.gov/mss/mgw/mgw3g/004/284.gif
>
> Furthermore, according to Washington's membership at Truro Parish, he was
> required to swear upon an oath that he subscribed to the Doctrine and Disciple
>
> of the Anglican Church, which oath Washington swore on August 19, 1765. That
> doctrine included the following precepts:
>
> ******
>
> I suppose one could say that Washington was not the kind of man who took
> "oaths" very seriously, or that he was not very concerned with his integrity
> or honor; but that has not been the general opinion of the scholars who have
> studied him.
Now for the reality check:
(1) One of the first laws passed in colonial Virginia was that anyone who
came
into the colony or found there who was not Christian was subject to enslavement.
This naturally provided a potent incentive for anyone who was not Christian
to pretend to be one.
(2) The Anglican church was the state religion of colonial Virginia.
Everyone
had to pay taxes to support it, whether they were Anglicans or not. Religious
oaths of adherence to the Anglican religion were required for anyone to hold any
public office of any consequence.
Source: St. George Tucker's Annotated Blackstone's Commentaries (1803)
Go to http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook-law.html
Tucker was chair of the school of law at William & Mary University in 1803.
Although probably too young to have participated in the revolutionary struggle,
he was a
contemporary of most of the founding generation. He probably was actually
acquainted
with many of the founders, since so many of them were Virginians, their state
being the
most populous of those in the new republic. Tucker reflected revolutionary
ideology
in his condemnation of religious oaths, observing that they were oftentimes pro
forma rather than sincere, and they demeaned churches by holding out worldly
rewards
for membership. From that, IF Washington ever took any Christian oath (no
direct
proof), it is reasonable to assume that it had as much meaning in colonial
Virginia by
1765 as singing the national anthem does at an American sports event today.
In any event, a quarter century passed before Washington became the first
U.S.
president. It might be hard for a bible-thumper to understand, but normal
humans
often do change their minds about their beliefs as they go on in life. To reason
otherwise
would be to also suppose (for example), that anyone who believed in Santa Claus
or the
Easter Bunny never abandons such convictions. Such reasoning would also support
a contention that "born again" Christians are all liars. What illogical humbug!
(4) Any supposition Washington was Christian is at best supported by only
the most
slender of reeds. He attended Episcopal services in the company of his
wife, who was Episcopalian. She took communion but he never did. He also
attended the services of several other Christian sects, starting a custom which
continues through today by U.S. presidents to show respect for (not affiliation
with)
the various faiths, including non-Christian ones. Inquiries early on were put
to the
pastors of the various churches Washington had attended as to whether he had
ever took communion, all stated he never did, one volunteered it was because
Washington was a Deist.
Source:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_3.html
Washington was acutely conscious of being the unifying figurehead of his
just-born
nation and felt it his obligation to maintain strict public neutrality. Yet
there is no
evidence that he ever worshipped in a private service, or for that matter even
indicated
to his closest acquaintances (other than doubtless his wife) what his religious
beliefs were
if any except possibly that one Episcopal pastor. Unfortunately, it cannot be
determined
whether Washington's Deism was something he himself disclosed to the pastor,
whether
that was the pastor's conclusion, and if the latter what factual support there
was for it.
Signs that point in opposite directions point nowhere. One might as well
post that
Washington had to be a Christian because he kept slaves, which was perfectly
permissible
under biblical law.
Gardiner
>
> Gardiner wrote:
>
> > pan wrote:
> > >
> (1) One of the first laws passed in colonial Virginia was that anyone who
> came
> into the colony or found there who was not Christian was subject to enslavement.
>
> This naturally provided a potent incentive for anyone who was not Christian
> to pretend to be one.
Perhaps in 1607, but by Washington's time there were sure a lot of people in
Virginia who were not Anglicans and who were not enslaved either. Therefore,
your reasoning is out to lunch. Washington didn't have to swear to be a good
Anglican or fear being a slave. Are you kidding??
> (2) The Anglican church was the state religion of colonial Virginia.
> Everyone
> had to pay taxes to support it, whether they were Anglicans or not. Religious
> oaths of adherence to the Anglican religion were required for anyone to hold any
> public office of any consequence.
So, what you are alleging is that Washington perjured himself in order that he
might aspire to high political office? Are you saying that you would swear to
believing a grand hoax if that might advance your political status? I
wouldn't; and I don't think that I am a man of principles any more than Washington.
> Source: St. George Tucker's Annotated Blackstone's Commentaries (1803)
> Go to http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook-law.html
The Virginia Constitution of 1776, article 16, disestablished the Anglican church.
> From that, IF Washington ever took any Christian oath (no
> direct proof),
Really? How much proof do you want?
Court Records of Fairfax Co., VA, 1763
"At the court held for the County of Fairfax, 15 February, 1763--George
Washington, Esq. took the oaths according to Law, repeated and subscribed the
Test and subscribed to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England in
order to qualify him to act as a Vestryman of Truro Parish"
Furthermore, his signature is also found in the Church Records of Truro Parish
under the following inscription: "I, A.B., do declare that I will be
conformable to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England, as by law established"
No proof that he ever took a Christian oath, huh?
> In any event, a quarter century passed before Washington became the first
> U.S.
> president. It might be hard for a bible-thumper to understand, but normal
> humans
> often do change their minds about their beliefs as they go on in life.
Nelly Custis lived at Mt. Vernon with Washington until the day of his death.
This is what Nelly had to say about the "changes" in Washington's Christian beliefs:
"I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in
Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian... Is it
necessary that any one should certify, 'General Washington avowed himself to
me a believer in Christianity?' As well may we question his patriotism, his
heroic, disinterested devotion to his country."
> (4) Any supposition Washington was Christian is at best supported by only
> the most
> slender of reeds. He attended Episcopal services in the company of his
> wife, who was Episcopalian. She took communion but he never did. He also
> attended the services of several other Christian sects, starting a custom which
> continues through today by U.S. presidents to show respect for (not affiliation
> with)
> the various faiths, including non-Christian ones. Inquiries early on were put
> to the
> pastors of the various churches Washington had attended as to whether he had
> ever took communion, all stated he never did, one volunteered it was because
> Washington was a Deist.
Not every minister was asked. There are primary accounts of Washington
receiving communion while with the troops in battle.
If you allege that Washington rarely ever prayed as well (a subject you
probably don't want to touch), the evidence is overwhelming that Washington
was a fervent prayor.
> Washington was acutely conscious of being the unifying figurehead of his
> just-born
> nation and felt it his obligation to maintain strict public neutrality. Yet
> there is no
> evidence that he ever worshipped in a private service, or for that matter even
> indicated
> to his closest acquaintances (other than doubtless his wife) what his religious
> beliefs were
Good point. His wife knew. And when he died his wife "resigned him without a
murmur into the arms of his Savior and his God, with the assured hope of his
eternal felicity."
> Unfortunately, it cannot be
> determined
> whether Washington's [alleged] Deism was something he himself disclosed to the pastor,
> whether
> that was the pastor's conclusion, and if the latter what factual support there
> was for it.
Good point.
Napoleon Bean
> Napoleon Bean wrote:
> >
> > (1) One of the first laws passed in colonial Virginia was that anyone who
> > came
> > into the colony or found there who was not Christian was subject to enslavement.
> >
> > This naturally provided a potent incentive for anyone who was not Christian
> > to pretend to be one.
>
> Perhaps in 1607, but by Washington's time there were sure a lot of people in
> Virginia who were not Anglicans and who were not enslaved either. Therefore,
> your reasoning is out to lunch. Washington didn't have to swear to be a good
> Anglican or fear being a slave. Are you kidding??
Well, if I was out to lunch on that one you must be there picking up the tab. There were
many Christians of differing persuasions in Virginia by Washington's time-- since when have
Anglicans ever had a monopoly claim on the title "Christian," as opposed to a monopoly on some
governments such as colonial Virginia's? Yeah, perhaps my mention of that law was a bit
tenuous. By the relevant time, there were plenty of Africans available for enslavement, their
skin color was an easy mark of status, they could be born Christian and it changed their status
not one whit. No need to try to enslave native Americans (which never worked out for a number
of reasons), conduct inquisitions of whites, or shanghai Jews or Moslems by then. Although
Christians of sects other than the one in power were persecuted, imprisoned, and killed in the
Massachusetts Bay and Connecticut in the 17th century, I am unaware of anything on a comparable
scale occurring in colonial Virginia.
> > (2) The Anglican church was the state religion of colonial Virginia.
> > Everyone
> > had to pay taxes to support it, whether they were Anglicans or not. Religious
> > oaths of adherence to the Anglican religion were required for anyone to hold any
> > public office of any consequence.
>
> So, what you are alleging is that Washington perjured himself in order that he
> might aspire to high political office? Are you saying that you would swear to
> believing a grand hoax if that might advance your political status? I
> wouldn't; and I don't think that I am a man of principles any more than Washington.
>
> > Source: St. George Tucker's Annotated Blackstone's Commentaries (1803)
> > Go to http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook-law.html
>
> The Virginia Constitution of 1776, article 16, disestablished the Anglican church.
My speculation on this point in my previous post, which is reasonable given the historical
evidence available, stands if nothing more is offered. The very reason the revolutionaries
detested religious oaths was that they compromised the integrity of good people or deterred
them from holding public office, while demeaning the purpose of belonging to the particular
faith which the oaths were supposed to benefit. Most of these revolutionaries were in fact
Christians themselves. What is interesting is that you NOW identify Washington's Christian oath
as having been made in 1763 (not 1765), which puts it closer to when Washington began his
service in the colony's legislative house of burgesses. I would like you if you could to
provide identifiers as to where this oath paper is (a web source would be dandy) so I might
determine myself how close a correlation there might be. By your new date, Washington was still
in his early thirties. No reflection on you, but usenet does teach one to be wary of
uncorroborated assertions, particular when inconsistencies appear. And do you have evidence of
any earlier Christian oaths of his that cannot be plausibly related to his decision to enter
Virginia politics?
> Furthermore, his signature is also found in the Church Records of Truro Parish
> under the following inscription: "I, A.B., do declare that I will be
> conformable to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England, as by law established"
>
> No proof that he ever took a Christian oath, huh?
First, and perhaps a quibble, the closest equivalent today to a such declaration under oath
would have "I, the undersigned..." not "I, A.B...." The use of "John Doe" as a generic
substitute for a real name had been in common use for quite some time by then at least in
England in legal writings, according to Blackstone's Commentaries (which went into its first
printing about this same time). So too in those days there was a more attention to phrasing
technicalities than substance in legal writings (the opposite is true today). So I can only
wonder if in fact this was an oath punishable as perjury under the law in Virginia at that
time, or merely what had become by then an acceptable no-risk semblance of one. Whether there
were requirements imposed by the Crown in the colonial charter bearing on this is something I
would like to check.
But whatever the date of the "oath paper" and its content, which I will grant you whatever
you think they are at this juncture only for discussion's sake, they do not settle the primary
point. If you interpret my previous observations as being an argument that if Washington took
that oath he lied (a strawman, for reasons previously given), I could with as much logic
construct a strawman of my own-- are you saying Washington violated this oath to the Church of
England when he disaffiliated himself from it prior to 1776 or even up to the day the Paris
Peace Treaty was inked? For to rebel against England was also to reject its particular
Anglican brand of Christianity, since its government and church were also legally and
functionally intertwined.
But I am curious as to why you seem to attach so much significance to this oath-- is it
based on the charming notion that Washington never lied? It can't be based on the old cherry
tree saw, which has been determined to have never been more than an invention.
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/GW/moral.html
It can't be based on his generalship. Washington proved himself to be so adept at deception
that his British opposites charged more than once he was a man with no honor. It can't be
based on the fact that Washington was a human being, and as such could not possibly have lived
a full life with a perfect track record for truth. Is it because-- despite its circumstances--
to entertain the idea that if he was anything less than completely sincere and serious about
that oath it must mean he was either non-Christian or a sinner? The moral version of the
"Hobson's Choice"-- the forced choice between evils-- has attracted much study over the
centuries by ethicists of all religious stripes and (yes) even secular humanists. Even for
many Christians, the resolution of such a dilemma explains why, for example, Samson's suicide
in bringing down the Philistine temple was no sin. A more modern and verifiable example: Many
Christian Danes wore Stars of David during nazi occupation to impede the roundup of Jews-- they
deliberately lied about their religious beliefs, but would anyone reasonable dispute that that
was among Christianity's finest moments? [I do not mean to suggest Anglicans and nazis are
"soul mates," even if the former over the centuries have had a few of their own murderous
rampages.] What I do mean to state is that it would be wrong to suppose Christians would be of
one mind about whether the moral issues posed by a government religion-- whose tenets are not
universally shared by the governed-- will invariably be clear-cut. Would you really think less
of Washington the man-- as opposed to the icon-- if (hypothetically speaking) you knew he swore
an Anglican oath with no sincerity, but only after a principled analysis of any moral dilemma
posed-- and even if you might have come to a different decision? If the moral course is so
easily charted at all times in human affairs, one wonders why so many religions-- Christianity
included-- have struggled as mightily as they have to chart it consistently.
> > In any event, a quarter century passed before Washington became the first
> > U.S.
> > president. It might be hard for a bible-thumper to understand, but normal
> > humans
> > often do change their minds about their beliefs as they go on in life.
>
> Nelly Custis lived at Mt. Vernon with Washington until the day of his death.
> This is what Nelly had to say about the "changes" in Washington's Christian beliefs:
>
> "I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in
> Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian... Is it
> necessary that any one should certify, 'General Washington avowed himself to
> me a believer in Christianity?' As well may we question his patriotism, his
> heroic, disinterested devotion to his country."
Nelly, born 1779, was a probably a devout Episcopalian, she was a grandchild of
Washington's spouse by a previous marriage, the Washingtons assumed a parental role after her
parents died and she probably loved George and Martha as much as she would parents. There are,
however several curious aspects to her quotes you mention. First (and I am SURE this was just
inadvertence), you managed to omit some significantly damaging parts to her statement, such as
"I never witnessed his private devotions. I never inquired about them" and "He communed with
his God in secret." She actually had nothing to offer in terms of direct observation to settle
the question of whether his convictions were Christian or something else, and what she did say
doesn't make much sense-- how could she personally "know" while disclaiming any way of
acquiring such knowledge? And this is again remarkable since she lived with the Washingtons for
so long. This is one of these situations where the absence of evidence you normally expect to
find is more significant than the evidence that turns up. And her bias, however innocent and
well-intentioned, is also plain: "(S)he (Martha Washington) and her husband were so perfectly
united and happy that he MUST have been a Christian." Now, I am not versed in Episcopal church
history, but I would be surprised if its doctrine in that century entertained for a moment that
any non-Christian, however otherwise eminently qualified, could ever reach heaven. I do know
the Roman Catholic Church did not officially concede that until this century. Thus if Nelly
believed her stepdad had to be in heaven, she had to believe he was Christian-- did the times
and her faith allow any other option? From what I've learned about Nelly she was a decent,
likable person, hardly the sort to engage in any knowing mendacity. But her account hardly
convinces, if anything it moves speculation in the opposite direction. If Washington conducted
himself as a devout Christian, the same conduct also can be said to "demonstrate" his private
convictions were something different. And of course, few on either side of the question would
agree with Nelly's pronouncement that direct evidence of Washington's Christian beliefs is
unnecessary-- on what other evidence is verifiable, it is. I am not playing favorites here, you
have noted the reliability issues I identified with an Episcopal minister's emphatic
pronouncement that Washington was a Deist.
> > (4) Any supposition Washington was Christian is at best supported by only
> > the most
> > slender of reeds. He attended Episcopal services in the company of his
> > wife, who was Episcopalian. She took communion but he never did. He also
> > attended the services of several other Christian sects, starting a custom which
> > continues through today by U.S. presidents to show respect for (not affiliation
> > with)
> > the various faiths, including non-Christian ones. Inquiries early on were put
> > to the
> > pastors of the various churches Washington had attended as to whether he had
> > ever took communion, all stated he never did, one volunteered it was because
> > Washington was a Deist.
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_3.html
> Not every minister was asked. There are primary accounts of Washington
> receiving communion while with the troops in battle.
Oh, really? Please enlighten me. I've only found one, at a web site of a non-profit
organization which presumably has no psychic investment in either its truth or falsity.
http://community.libertynet.org/~iha/valleyforge/youasked/060.htm
http://community.libertynet.org/~iha/valleyforge/washington/prayer.html
That one account, allegedly by a Presbyterian minister who witnessed it, is highly dubious
employing usual tests of reliability. This minister purportedly recollected seeing Washington
receive communion in front of all his officers during the revolutionary war. With all those
people standing about witnessing this, it is decidedly strange that this single eyewitness
account attributed to this minister did not surface until sometime after 1846 (about 60 years
later), the deification of Washington having commenced in earnest decades before, questions of
his piety having been a subject of continuous public interest, and nobody else in that supposed
crowd of witnesses seems to have ever mentioned it. The most likely explanation is that this
account was as much a well-meaning fabrication as the old cherry tree saw was.
At the sites referenced, there are also a couple of accounts of Washington sneaking into the
woods alone on the eve of battle and talking to God out loud. The credibility problems with
these are multiple and at times amusing, but even what was purportedly overheard of his side of
the conversations with God hardly carried any Christian earmarks ("God of the Armies" indeed--
sounds more like General Patton at prayer). Perhaps too he developed some kind of prayer
laryngitis between then and when Nelly entered the picture. Suffice it to say that in 1918 the
Valley Forge commission reviewed all available evidence purporting to "prove" Washington prayed
at Valley Forge upon petition of a patriotic organization for a "prayer marker" and found there
was nothing credible to support the conclusion that Washington did. And it seems there were
other rascals
wandering around in early 19th century America claiming to have special knowledge about
Washington. Mark Twain gives us an amusing account of some more.
http://rowlf.cc.wwu.edu:8080/~stephan/webstuff/twain.html
> If you allege that Washington rarely ever prayed as well (a subject you
> probably don't want to touch), the evidence is overwhelming that Washington
> was a fervent prayor.
I have no problem with it one way or the other, but I hope you have something other
than what I have previously mentioned. I ran across an argument that because Washington
showed no reluctance to invoke a generic God in public, it is unlikely that he was
sneaking around praying privately. There is sense to that observation. Obviously Martha
and Nelly wouldn't have been upset if they had happened to come upon Washington in
Christian prayer. There is a difference between privacy and the total secrecy he supposedly
engaged in to pray
in his own household! If he was a "closet praying," the more plausible explanation is that
Washington didn't want his wife or Nelly to freak out about the substance of it. Today, most
folks would think the "prayer behavior" Washington supposedly engaged in with espionage or drug
problems. But can you identify any "other" Christian contemporary of his who went to the
extremes Washington supposedly did to hide the "fact" he was "praying" from other Christians?
The subject of this thread was whether Washington was a Christian. I never alleged he was
an atheist, a Deist, or for that matter a Muslim, a Jew, a Buddhist, a Taoist, a Hindu, a
pantheist, an ancestor worshipper, or a cargo cultist-- but do I have to go on now and list
every set of convictions I never alleged he had? My position remains that the inferences to be
drawn from equivocal evidence are simply too speculatory to resolve the matter. I do not know
whether Deists once adopted a prayer like posture to meditate (even if the "lotus position" or
whatever is more popular today) or whether they too engage in "re-linking" comparable to
Christian prayer. But one of the most famous paintings of Washington supposedly praying hardly
depicts a typically Christian prayer posture.
Of course, usenet is structured such that hyperbolic assertions always get the most
attention, so it is understandable if more balanced ones are tried to be treated as such at
times.
> > Washington was acutely conscious of being the unifying figurehead of his
> > just-born
> > nation and felt it his obligation to maintain strict public neutrality. Yet
> > there is no
> > evidence that he ever worshipped in a private service, or for that matter even
> > indicated
> > to his closest acquaintances (other than doubtless his wife) what his religious
> > beliefs were
>
> Good point. His wife knew. And when he died his wife "resigned him without a
> murmur into the arms of his Savior and his God, with the assured hope of his
> eternal felicity."
Why did you somehow neglect to mention that these were Nelly's words, NOT
Martha Washington's? You weren't actually attempting such a tacky hat trick
were you? Tsk, task. Nelly was NOT present when Washington died.
http://www.libertynet.org/iha/valleyforge/served/martha.html
In any event, unless there has been a major revamping of Christian doctrine that somehow
has eluded my notice, Joshua the Christened One (i.e., "Jesus Christ" as known today) is the
Savior of all, not just those who have recognized it. Sorry, no "smoking gun" here, even if
Nelly could be her own corroboration.
Got anything else?
By the way, what "happened" to Washington's baptismal and/or confirmation "records?" Why
did he die without benefit of clergy?
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|Napoleon Bean wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Gardiner wrote:
>:|>
>:|> > pan wrote:
>:|> > >
>:|
>:|> (1) One of the first laws passed in colonial Virginia was that anyone who
>:|> came
>:|> into the colony or found there who was not Christian was subject to enslavement.
>:|>
>:|> This naturally provided a potent incentive for anyone who was not Christian
>:|> to pretend to be one.
>:|
>:|Perhaps in 1607, but by Washington's time there were sure a lot of people in
>:|Virginia who were not Anglicans and who were not enslaved either. Therefore,
>:|your reasoning is out to lunch. Washington didn't have to swear to be a good
>:|Anglican or fear being a slave. Are you kidding??
>:|
Well, let's see, as late as the early 1770s Baptists and others were being
jailed for holding religious services, etc.
>:|> (2) The Anglican church was the state religion of colonial Virginia.
>:|> Everyone
>:|> had to pay taxes to support it, whether they were Anglicans or not. Religious
>:|> oaths of adherence to the Anglican religion were required for anyone to hold any
>:|> public office of any consequence.
>:|
>:|So, what you are alleging is that Washington perjured himself in order that he
>:|might aspire to high political office? Are you saying that you would swear to
>:|believing a grand hoax if that might advance your political status? I
>:|wouldn't; and I don't think that I am a man of principles any more than Washington.
>:|
I am curious why it is so important to you that you make Washington a full
fledged Christian?
There are certain things that I or others can post that is guaranteed to
bring you out of the woodwork, and I am really curious why this particular
subject is one of them.
The fact of the matters is, most scholars will state that Washington was
not a die in the wool orthodox Christian.
If you are unaware of this, I do seriously have to question your research.
If you are aware of this, I have to question your ethics.
>:|> Source: St. George Tucker's Annotated Blackstone's Commentaries (1803)
>:|> Go to http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook-law.html
>:|
>:|The Virginia Constitution of 1776, article 16, disestablished the Anglican church.
>:|
I would submit to you that what you are referring to was actually Article
16 of the Declaration of Rights. I would further submit to you that there
was controversies over whether said Declaration of Rights was actually part
of the Constitution or something totally separate of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA CONSTITUTIONS
1776; 1830; 1851; 1868; 1902; 1970
VIRGINIA DECLARATION OF RIGHTS--177
(Written by Geo. Mason with at least one major contribution by James
Madison)
SECTION 16, That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator,
and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and
conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally
entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of
conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian
forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.
CONSTITUTION OF VIRGINIA--1830
ARTICLE I
( As originally written and passed, the Declaration of Rights of 1776
was not part of the Constitution of 1776. Therefore Article I of the
Virginia State Constitution of 1830 stated:)
The declaration of rights made on 12 June, 1776, by the
representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free
convention, which pertained to them and their posterity, as the basis and
foundation of government, requiring in the opinion of this convention, no
amendment, shall be prefixed to this constitution, and have the same
relation thereto as it had to the former constitution of the commonwealth.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIRGINIA DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 16, That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator,
and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and
conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally
entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of
conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian
forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.
ARTICLE III
SECTION 11 The privilege of the writ of HABEUS CORPUS shall not in
any case be suspended. The legislature shall not pass any bill of
attainder, or any EX POST FACTO law, or any law impairing the obligation of
contracts; or any law whereby private property shall be taken for public
uses without just compensation; or any law abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press.
No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious
worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained,
molested or burthened, in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on
account of his religious opinions or belief: but that all men shall be free
to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of
religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminsh, enlarge or affect
their civil capacities.
And the legislature shall not prescribe any religious test
whatsoever; nor confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any one
sect or denomination; nor pass any law requiring or authorizing any
religious society, or the people of any district within this commonwealth
to levy on themselves or others any tax for the erection or repair of any
house for public worship or for the support of any church or ministry, but
it shall be left free to every person to select his religious instructor,
and make for his support such private contract as he shall please.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual disestablishment did not come to Va until much later. {There was
something that I read recently -no I don't off hand recall where at this
point in time- that stated that legally speaking, because of continuing
courts cases over glebes and other property holdings etc complete
disestablishment didn't take place until the 1850s)
At any rate while actions did take place as early as you claim, there was
still some loopholes, etc in the laws that allowed for general assessments
for the support of religion and that continued to be the case until the
late 1780s, etc
That was why and how the conflict between henry and Madison which led to
Jefferson's bill for religious freedom being passed into law in 1786.
The common held dates for actual disestablishment in Va was technically
1786, and with the passage of some laws in 1790s made it pretty much
official.
>:|> From that, IF Washington ever took any Christian oath (no
>:|> direct proof),
>:|
>:|Really? How much proof do you want?
>:|
>:|Court Records of Fairfax Co., VA, 1763
>:|
>:|"At the court held for the County of Fairfax, 15 February, 1763--George
>:|Washington, Esq. took the oaths according to Law, repeated and subscribed the
>:|Test and subscribed to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England in
>:|order to qualify him to act as a Vestryman of Truro Parish"
>:|
>:|Furthermore, his signature is also found in the Church Records of Truro Parish
>:|under the following inscription: "I, A.B., do declare that I will be
>:|conformable to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England, as by law established"
>:|
>:|No proof that he ever took a Christian oath, huh?
according to law in order to qualify him to act as etc
Sort of says it all, doesn't it?
>:|
>:|> In any event, a quarter century passed before Washington became the first
>:|> U.S.
>:|> president. It might be hard for a bible-thumper to understand, but normal
>:|> humans
>:|> often do change their minds about their beliefs as they go on in life.
>:|
>:|Nelly Custis lived at Mt. Vernon with Washington until the day of his death.
>:|This is what Nelly had to say about the "changes" in Washington's Christian beliefs:
Glad you bought this up:
The book that I have referred to time and time again regarding Washington
mentions
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 24, 1774, the Virginia Assembly, whose sessions Washington was
attending in Williamsburg, voted to observe a day of fasting, humiliation,
and prayer on the first day of June to demonstrate its sympathy with
Massachusetts on the day that the Boston Port Bill went into effect.
Washington, accordingly, noted in his diary on June 1: "Went to Church and
fasted all day.""' Here, as elsewhere, there have been attempts to read
profound spiritual significance into Washington's notation. "Will the
reader mark especially die latter clause of this note," exclaimed one
writer.
He went to church in conformity with the order passed by the
house of burgesses. 13ut not only so-he did that also which,
perhaps, was not known to any mortal; which was known only
to Cod,-he faded all day. Who is not struck with the sincerity
and piety of this account?
And another writer referred to the seven words in Washington's diary as
"seven lights, the seven golden candles so to speak, that throw a most
penetrating light into the deeper and spiritual life of this great man."
But Washington's action on that day, like that of other Virginians, was
of course politically, not religiously, motivated. As to Washington's
behavior in church, Eleanor Parke ("Nelly") Custis, Martha Washington's
granddaughter, who resided at Mount Vernon for many years and attended
church with the Washingtons, declared: "No one in church attended to the
services with more reverential respect."
William White, who officiated at Christ Church in Philadelphia during
and after the Revolution and who was one of the chaplains in Congress
during Washington's presidency, made a similar comment. Washington, he
assured an inquirer in 1832, was "always serious and attentive" in church.
But he added that he never saw Washington kneeling during the services."'
Nelly Custis also declared that Washington "always stood during the
devotional parts of the service."
Regarding the Lord's Supper, we have the firsthand testimony of three
witnesses in a position to know what they were talking about-Nelly Custis,
Bishop White, and Dr. James Abercrombie, assistant rector of Christ Church
in Philadelphia--that Washington was not in the habit of partaking of the
sacrament. "On communion Sundays," according to Mrs. Custis, "he left the
church with me, after the blessing, and returned home, and we sent the
carriage back for my grandmother.'"" In 1835, Bishop White, in answer to
Colonel Hugh Mercer's question as to "whether General Washington was a
regular communicant in the Episcopal Church in Philadelphia," replied: "In
regard to tile subject of your inquiry, truth requires me to say, that
General Washington never received the communion, in tile churches of which
I am parochial minister. Mrs. Washington was an habitual communicant."" And
Dr. Abercrombie had an even more interesting story to tell about Washington
and the sacrament. It appeared in his letter to Origen Bacheler in 1831 and
Bacheler, for obvious reasons, chose not to make it public:
. . . observing that on Sacrament Sundays, Genl Washington immediately
after the Desk and Pulpit services, went out with the greater part of the
congregation, always leaving Mrs. Washington with the communicants, she
invariably being one, I considered it my duty, in a sermon on Public
Worship, to state tile unhappy tendency of example, particularly those in
elevated stations, who invariably turned their backs upon the celebration
of the Lord's Supper. I acknowledge the remark was intended for the
President, as such, he received it. A few days later, in conversation with,
I believe, a Senator of the U.S., he told me he had dined the day before
with the President, who in the course of the conversation at the table,
said, that on the preceding Sunday, he had received a very just reproof
from the pulpit, for always leaving the church before the administration of
the Sacrament; that he honored the preacher for his integrity and candour;
that he had never considered the influence of his example; that he would
never again give cause for the repetition of the reproof; and that, as he
had never been a communicant, were he to become one of them, it would be
imputed to an ostentatious display of religious zeal arising altogether
from his elevated station. Accordingly, he afterwards never came on the
morning of Sacrament Sunday, the' at other times, a constant attendant in
the morning."
Abercrombie's report that Washington "had never been a communicant,"
together with the statements of Mrs. Custis and Bishop White, surely must
be regarded as conclusive. It is reluctant testimony and as such carries a
high degree of credibility. Neither White nor Abercrombie had anything to
gain by their revelations; -Abercrombie, indeed, was admittedly displeased
by Washington's behavior. But like Bird Wilson, they seem to have believed
(as Wilson told Robert Dale Owen) that "truth..s truth, whether it makes
for or against us" and one can only respect them-and Washington-for their
candor." By contrast, the various stories collected by the pietists to
Prove that Washington received the sacrament at Morristown and elsewhere
are based on mere hearsay statements made many years after washington's
death.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: George Washington & Religion, by Paul F. Boller JR.
Southern Methodist University Press. (1963) pp 32-35
>:|
>:|"I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in
>:|Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian... Is it
>:|necessary that any one should certify, 'General Washington avowed himself to
>:|me a believer in Christianity?' As well may we question his patriotism, his
>:|heroic, disinterested devotion to his country."
>:|
>:|> (4) Any supposition Washington was Christian is at best supported by only
>:|> the most
>:|> slender of reeds. He attended Episcopal services in the company of his
>:|> wife, who was Episcopalian. She took communion but he never did. He also
>:|> attended the services of several other Christian sects, starting a custom which
>:|> continues through today by U.S. presidents to show respect for (not affiliation
>:|> with)
>:|> the various faiths, including non-Christian ones. Inquiries early on were put
>:|> to the
>:|> pastors of the various churches Washington had attended as to whether he had
>:|> ever took communion, all stated he never did, one volunteered it was because
>:|> Washington was a Deist.
>:|
>:|Not every minister was asked. There are primary accounts of Washington
>:|receiving communion while with the troops in battle.
Evidence?
>:|
>:|If you allege that Washington rarely ever prayed as well (a subject you
>:|probably don't want to touch), the evidence is overwhelming that Washington
>:|was a fervent prayor.
>:|
>:|> Washington was acutely conscious of being the unifying figurehead of his
>:|> just-born
>:|> nation and felt it his obligation to maintain strict public neutrality. Yet
>:|> there is no
>:|> evidence that he ever worshipped in a private service, or for that matter even
>:|> indicated
>:|> to his closest acquaintances (other than doubtless his wife) what his religious
>:|> beliefs were
>:|
>:|Good point. His wife knew. And when he died his wife "resigned him without a
>:|murmur into the arms of his Savior and his God, with the assured hope of his
>:|eternal felicity."
>:|
The above is suppose to mean what?
>:|> Unfortunately, it cannot be
>:|> determined
>:|> whether Washington's [alleged] Deism was something he himself disclosed to the pastor,
>:|> whether
>:|> that was the pastor's conclusion, and if the latter what factual support there
>:|> was for it.
>:|
>:|Good point.
In the book I have offered (cited above) there are six pages devoted to
that very subject and the Deist quote by a minister. It is rather
interesting reading.
(pp 80-86)
**********************************************
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
**********************************************
Gardiner
> >:|Virginia who were not Anglicans and who were not enslaved either. Therefore,
> >:|your reasoning is out to lunch. Washington didn't have to swear to be a good
> >:|Anglican or fear being a slave. Are you kidding??
> >:|
>
> Well, let's see, as late as the early 1770s Baptists and others were being
> jailed for holding religious services, etc.
That's because the Government wanted to tell people that they couldn't preach
in public places (the way Baptist preachers were accustomed to doing), the
same way the Americans United for Sep of Church and State and the ACLU want to
do today.
> >:|> (2) The Anglican church was the state religion of colonial Virginia.
> >:|> Everyone
> >:|> had to pay taxes to support it, whether they were Anglicans or not. Religious
> >:|> oaths of adherence to the Anglican religion were required for anyone to hold any
> >:|> public office of any consequence.
> >:|
> >:|So, what you are alleging is that Washington perjured himself in order that he
> >:|might aspire to high political office? Are you saying that you would swear to
> >:|believing a grand hoax if that might advance your political status? I
> >:|wouldn't; and I don't think that I am a man of principles any more than Washington.
> >:|
>
> I am curious why it is so important to you that you make Washington a full
> fledged Christian?
He probably wasnt
> There are certain things that I or others can post that is guaranteed to
> bring you out of the woodwork, and I am really curious why this particular
> subject is one of them.
My strong reaction is to those who continuously allege that Washington was a
full fledged Deist with anti-Christian sentiments.
> The fact of the matters is, most scholars will state that Washington was
> not a die in the wool orthodox Christian.
Maybe not. But the evidence that he was a died in the wool Deist is even weaker.
> If you are unaware of this, I do seriously have to question your research.
> If you are aware of this, I have to question your ethics.
Funny, you never seem to question Mr. Johnson's research or ethics when he
continuously says that the founders were all deists. You are easily
identifiable as a biased ideologue. Your assessment is not balanced.
RG
Mike Curtis
>jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>>
>> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>>
>> >:|Perhaps in 1607, but by Washington's time there were sure a lot of people in
>> >:|Virginia who were not Anglicans and who were not enslaved either. Therefore,
>> >:|your reasoning is out to lunch. Washington didn't have to swear to be a good
>> >:|Anglican or fear being a slave. Are you kidding??
>> >:|
>>
>> Well, let's see, as late as the early 1770s Baptists and others were being
>> jailed for holding religious services, etc.
>
>That's because the Government wanted to tell people that they couldn't preach
>in public places (the way Baptist preachers were accustomed to doing), the
>same way the Americans United for Sep of Church and State and the ACLU want to
>do today.
Gosh, this normal average reader isn't a part of either of those
groups and that is what I want today, yesterday and tomorrow.
>> >:|> (2) The Anglican church was the state religion of colonial Virginia.
>> >:|> Everyone
>> >:|> had to pay taxes to support it, whether they were Anglicans or not. Religious
>> >:|> oaths of adherence to the Anglican religion were required for anyone to hold any
>> >:|> public office of any consequence.
>> >:|
>> >:|So, what you are alleging is that Washington perjured himself in order that he
>> >:|might aspire to high political office? Are you saying that you would swear to
>> >:|believing a grand hoax if that might advance your political status? I
>> >:|wouldn't; and I don't think that I am a man of principles any more than Washington.
>> >:|
>>
>> I am curious why it is so important to you that you make Washington a full
>> fledged Christian?
>
>He probably wasnt
So much for that.
Mike Curtis
Please visit:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
http://www.nizkor.org
http://www.abebooks.com
http://www.bibliofind.com
Gardiner
>
> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
> >>
> >> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >:|Virginia who were not Anglicans and who were not enslaved either. Therefore,
> >> >:|your reasoning is out to lunch. Washington didn't have to swear to be a good
> >> >:|Anglican or fear being a slave. Are you kidding??
> >> >:|
> >>
> >> Well, let's see, as late as the early 1770s Baptists and others were being
> >> jailed for holding religious services, etc.
> >
> >in public places (the way Baptist preachers were accustomed to doing), the
> >same way the Americans United for Sep of Church and State and the ACLU want to
> >do today.
>
> Gosh, this normal average reader isn't a part of either of those
> groups and that is what I want today, yesterday and tomorrow.
And like the Va. Gov't you would have locked up Baptist and Presbyterian
Preachers in the 1770's; and it would be people like you that Madison and
Jefferson so strongly contested when they wrote on religious liberty.
> >> >:|> (2) The Anglican church was the state religion of colonial Virginia.
> >> >:|> Everyone
> >> >:|> had to pay taxes to support it, whether they were Anglicans or not. Religious
> >> >:|> oaths of adherence to the Anglican religion were required for anyone to hold any
> >> >:|> public office of any consequence.
> >> >:|
> >> >:|So, what you are alleging is that Washington perjured himself in order that he
> >> >:|might aspire to high political office? Are you saying that you would swear to
> >> >:|believing a grand hoax if that might advance your political status? I
> >> >:|wouldn't; and I don't think that I am a man of principles any more than Washington.
> >> >:|
> >>
> >> I am curious why it is so important to you that you make Washington a full
> >> fledged Christian?
> >
> >He probably wasnt
>
> So much for that.
Even Queen Elizabeth isnt a full fledged Christian; but she is much more of a
Christian than she is a Deist.
Mike Curtis
>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>
>> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>>
>> >jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >:|Perhaps in 1607, but by Washington's time there were sure a lot of people in
>> >> >:|Virginia who were not Anglicans and who were not enslaved either. Therefore,
>> >> >:|your reasoning is out to lunch. Washington didn't have to swear to be a good
>> >> >:|Anglican or fear being a slave. Are you kidding??
>> >> >:|
>> >>
>> >> Well, let's see, as late as the early 1770s Baptists and others were being
>> >> jailed for holding religious services, etc.
>> >
>> >That's because the Government wanted to tell people that they couldn't preach
>> >in public places (the way Baptist preachers were accustomed to doing), the
>> >same way the Americans United for Sep of Church and State and the ACLU want to
>> >do today.
>>
>> Gosh, this normal average reader isn't a part of either of those
>> groups and that is what I want today, yesterday and tomorrow.
>
>And like the Va. Gov't you would have locked up Baptist and Presbyterian
>Preachers in the 1770's; and it would be people like you that Madison and
>Jefferson so strongly contested when they wrote on religious liberty.
Gotta get those personal attacks in there. History be damned.
>> >> >:|> (2) The Anglican church was the state religion of colonial Virginia.
>> >> >:|> Everyone
>> >> >:|> had to pay taxes to support it, whether they were Anglicans or not. Religious
>> >> >:|> oaths of adherence to the Anglican religion were required for anyone to hold any
>> >> >:|> public office of any consequence.
>> >> >:|
>> >> >:|So, what you are alleging is that Washington perjured himself in order that he
>> >> >:|might aspire to high political office? Are you saying that you would swear to
>> >> >:|believing a grand hoax if that might advance your political status? I
>> >> >:|wouldn't; and I don't think that I am a man of principles any more than Washington.
>> >> >:|
>> >>
>> >> I am curious why it is so important to you that you make Washington a full
>> >> fledged Christian?
>> >
>> >He probably wasnt
>>
>> So much for that.
>
>Even Queen Elizabeth isnt a full fledged Christian; but she is much more of a
>Christian than she is a Deist.
Deism in the 16th century? Hmmmm. Queen Elizabeth considered herself a
protestant.
Felix Alton Marz
Baptist Church on a regular basis. Furthermore what about George
Washington's extra - marital affairs.
I was baptized in a Lutheran Church also I have attended churches on a
regular basis as various points in my life. To continue, I have been to
a Mason lodge as a guest. I can quite assure you that I am neither a
Christian or a Mason and do not have any desire to become either.
Among the Christian sects there beliefs vary greatly, Fundamentalist and
Masons are trying to use George Washington in order to further their
personal agendas. Episcopalians are not Fundamentalists or Deists but
some were in between. So it is safe that George Washington was not a
Fundamentalist or that he was a Mason (signing in as a guest proves that
he was not a Mason, however a person that liked to socialize with his
fellow members of the community regardless of their affiliation).
-Felix Alton Marz-
The Shoe
1. Saying George was not a mason is like saying it never rains in
Indianapolis. What a ridiculous statement. He was a devout Mason, took his
oath on a masonic bible.
2. According to Flexner, the definitive Washington historian, there is no
evidence that George ever had an extra marital affair. The letters he wrote
to Lady Fairfax prove nothing, perhaps even confirm there was no a sexual
affair between the two of them. You are speculating.
3. I agree that the Fundamentalists are trying to make George into a
Fundamentalist. They think that if enough people will believe it, they will
be more receptive to their message, even though they know it isn't true.
4. I doubt that Slick Willie is a fundamentalist. I would call him amoral,
no morals as opposed to immoral. John Dillinger knew he was immoral. Slick
Willie does not think anything is immoral.
>Felix Alton Marz
Sanchm1
If by 'fundamentalist' you mean the general idea of someone who stands firm by
certain beliefs and worldviews - someone who holds these views as fundamental
and not negotiable - I would agree with this statement. However, from the
context of the rest of your posting, this does not seem like the definition you
had in mind.
If by 'fundamentalist' you mean someone subscribing to the Christian
Fundamentalist worldview, I don't see how this statement could be supported.
Let me explain why.
The definition of a Fundamentalist (in the Christian sense) is one who believes
that the fundamental and historical tenets of the Christian faith are factual
(not symbolic) - including (but not limited to) the diety, virgin birth,
miracles, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Granted, many current
'Fundamentalist' viewpoints are shaped by today's circumstances, and many
Christians who call themselves Fundamentalists hold widely varying vieewpoints.
However, this generality tends to hold true.
I'll confess that I'm not educated enough on the subject to know the full
history and origins of the modern Fundamentalist movement, but it grew in
strength in the early 20th Century as a reaction to Liberal theology, humanism
and the emergence of post-modernism.
The reason I disagree with your statement that " Bill Clinton is a
Fundamentalist" is that Bill seems more of a humanist, post-modernist and
liberal - the very worldviews that Fundamentalism contradicts. I don't know him
personally, but his actions, statements and policies are not consistent with a
Christian Fundamentalist view of humanity and the world.
BL
>
>Funny, you never seem to question Mr. Johnson's research or ethics when he
>continuously says that the founders were all deists. You are easily
>identifiable as a biased ideologue. Your assessment is not balanced.
>
>RG
Perhaps more important than the religions of a handful of "founders" were
the beliefs of a multitude of farmers and laborers. These were the ones
standing toe to toe against British troops.
Arguably, a few founders may have hidden their true religious dogma from
their Christian constituency. Politicians do that kind of thing. However
despite what they believed personally, they seemed to use strongly rooted
Christian ideas to persuade a bunch of simple folks to take on a world class
army.
The country then, as it does(or should) now, belongs to the simple folks.
Irregardless of their own beliefs, the "founders" saw fit to appeal to the
overwhelming beliefs of the young nation. What the citizens of the young
nation were motivated by is what's important.
Somehow, I can't imagine the young men of the colonial era going willingly
to war to further deism. I can't imagine them willing to stand against the
British advances on Bunker Hill while believing that their success would
mean that future generations would see an abolition of any mention of
Christianity from government.
Everyone is certainly free to argue the merits of government without of any
mention of religion. Everyone is free argue about extending the wall of
seperation between government and religion. However, any argument that
attempts to assert that this is not a nation that was dramatically and
profoundly shaped by Christianity looses credibility and borders on being an
out right lie.
Gardiner
>
> However, any argument that
> attempts to assert that this is not a nation that was dramatically and
> profoundly shaped by Christianity looses credibility and borders on being an
> out right lie.
Very well said!!
It's a pretty simple matter that, for whatever reason, many people are
determined to attempt to undermine.
RG
Lewis
BL wrote in message <40fA3.9091$R84.2...@typ12.nn.bcandid.com>...
>
>>
>>Funny, you never seem to question Mr. Johnson's research or ethics when he
>>continuously says that the founders were all deists. You are easily
>>identifiable as a biased ideologue. Your assessment is not balanced.
>>
>>RG
Interesting discussion, but somewhat inaccurate.
Point 1: Many of those in the 13 colonies were: 1/3 for
independence, 1/3 for England, 1/3 didn't care. Most had little to do
with the war because they had enough problems trying
to stay alive.
Point 2: Religion of anykind had nothing to do with the American
Revolution. I feel the biggest issue was money and who got it.
If England wasn't so stupid, we would be part of the British
Commonwealth today. Most people came to America for
mainly economic reasons and a better life. Freedom
as we know it today was a concept the common people
just didn't know about or understand. Most wars of this
time were fights between the upper classes while the
common man paid the bills and got killed.
Point: 3: The founding fathers were a little of everything
in the religious sense. There were variations of deism,
Unitarianism, and Christianity. None of these men were
fundamentalist types because they would have
destroyed each other. They tolerated different ideas,
something a Falwell/Robertson fundamentalist
would never do. One big factor that everybody ignores
is most of the men were certainly influenced by
the Scientific Revolution which caused a lot
of rethinking on the part of many people. Deism
is an offshoot of both religion and science, while
Unitarianism is a direct rejection of the trinity.
Best regards,
Lewis
Lewis
Gardiner wrote in message <37D2AEC7...@pitnet.net>...
What is meant by "Christian?" It used to mean following the
steps of Jesus in the way one treats others. Today it is a
right-wing word for attacking others. Jesus would not
approve.
Lewis
Lewis
was fought for the Bible? Just what was the religious theme
that caused the colonies to rebel? Not enough churches
littering the countryside? More below.
Richard Gardiner wrote in message <37D35095...@pitnet.net>...
>Lewis wrote:
>
>> Interesting discussion, but somewhat inaccurate.
>>
>> Point 1: Many of those in the 13 colonies were: 1/3 for
>> independence, 1/3 for England, 1/3 didn't care.
>
I never cited Adams, and what proof does Phillips offer? You mean
they took a census?
I know, Adams wasn't Christian so that makes him
a lier.
>overestimated the number of loyalists in the colonies. See Kevin Phillips
>COUSINS WARS for the more accurate analysis
>
>> Most had little to do
>> with the war because they had enough problems trying
>> to stay alive.
>>
>> Point 2: Religion of anykind had nothing to do with the American
>> Revolution.
>
>Wow! You really don't see to have any problem going against the
preponderance of
>the available scholarship. Perhaps you should tell the experts at the
library of
>Congress that their team of Ph.D.'s in history have no clue what they are
>talking about (http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html)
>
You still haven't answered the question: where was the revolution
fought over religion? What was the religious theme?
I checked out the above, it is bullshit. Of it was about religion,
then the British were just as right as the rebels. by the way,
where were the Christians on slavery?
>While you're at it, tell Professor Heyrman of the University of Delaware
that
>her Ph.D work in this regard is also bogus
>(http://www.nhc.rtp.nc.us:8080/tserve/eighteen/ekeyinfo/erelrev.htm)
I can come up with just as many academics that say the opposite,
so what?
>I think John Adams had people like you in mind when he wrote about the
effect of
>religious controversy upon the revolution: "If any gentleman supposes this
>controversy to be nothing to the present purpose, he is grossly mistaken."
>(Adams to Niles)
>
>> Most people came to America for
>> mainly economic reasons and a better life.
>
>So, in your opinion, the reasons the immigrants actually gave were all lies
too?
I stand corrected, all of them fled Europe to escape the clutches
of murdering fellow Christians. OK I suppose the Boston Tea Party
was about a tax on Bibles?
>
>(see http://members.aol.com/WinthropSQ/reasons.htm)
Winthrop wasn't one of the founding fathers.
>> Point: 3: The founding fathers were a little of everything
>> in the religious sense. There were variations of deism,
>> Unitarianism, and Christianity. None of these men were
>> fundamentalist types because they would have
>> destroyed each other. They tolerated different ideas,
>> something a Falwell/Robertson fundamentalist
>> would never do.
>
>Apparently you have never read anything like Sam Adams' writings about
>Catholicism. Sam Adams would have been embarrassed by how tolerant Pat
Robertson
>types are of Catholicism. Adams believed that Papism was demonic and should
be
>resisted with violence.
When I say fundamentalist type, I mean they are so blinded
by religion that all else is secondary. There are plenty
of Christians that believe every literal word in the Bible,
but are not raving right-wing political fundamentalists.
As for Pat Robertson, check
his book _The Turning Tide_ where he advocates armed
Christian overthrow of our Godless government.
>Witherspoon was a vociferous anti-Deist. Students at Princeton had to be
able to
>"refute the doctrines of the Deists" before they were permitted to
graduate.
>Roger Sherman's puritanism was also of the strict anti-papist brand.
So? What else is new? Some Christians are still bigots, as are
some deists, atheists, Jews etc.
>> One big factor that everybody ignores
>> is most of the men were certainly influenced by
>> the Scientific Revolution which caused a lot
>> of rethinking on the part of many people.
>
>who is the everybody that ignores the role of the enlightenment in America?
Christians who think everything evolves around them. The earth
is not 6000 years old and evolution is still a scientific fact
even if it doesn't promote the Garden myth.
>Jonathan Edwards was one american who embraced the scientific revolution;
>however, that did not equate with a rejection of Christian orthodoxy.
I don't equate science and religion at all, so what?
>> Deism
>> is an offshoot of both religion and science,
>
>Deists were a small minority of the members of the constitutional
convention
>http://www.universitylake.org/history/denom.html
I never said they were in large numbers. I'll ask the question
again, What religious point was the war fought over?
>> while
>> Unitarianism is a direct rejection of the trinity.
>
>An idea that had been around since the 4th century when various Arian
heretics
>were rejecting the trinity.
I never said it was invented by Adams at that time, and Christians
murdered the Arians too.
>For a thorough analysis of the role of religion leading up to the American
>Revolution, see http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/never.html
>
>RG
>
Note, I checked the above, more Christian Right fantasy/opinion.
While it is true that most if not not all of our founding fathers were
religious, they never fought England for religion nor did they
set up the government to promote the Bible. It is like saying
because Einstein was Jewish is to say that relativity is a Jewish religious
concept. Finally, I ran a computer check of the Declaration of
Independence, and Bill of Rights against the Bible; words such
as democracy, Natures God, and no major ideas in those
documents can be found in it. Don't you think they were smart
enough to something in if they wanted a Christian nation?
Like or not we have a secular government or all of the loving
Christians would go back to killing those of us that are not
and then each other.
One last point: What does the religion of the founding fathers
have to do with today? Less than 40% of Americans of all
faiths attend church on a regular basis, and half of those
are non-Protestant. The extreme right and left can just go
on tearing the country apart or the rest of us can put a stop
to it. Democracy for all, like it or not.
Lewis
they fought for?
Gardiner wrote in message <37D3DBDE...@pitnet.net>...
>Lewis wrote:
>>
>> So Mr.. Gardner thinks the American revolution
>> was fought for the Bible? Just what was the religious theme
>> that caused the colonies to rebel? Not enough churches
>> littering the countryside?
>
>Your lack of knowledge in this regard is very telling about your
personality:
>haphazardly throwing around assertions without a clue.
>
>The religious roots of the American Revolution are generally acknowledged
by
>academics and scholars, especially since Carl Bridenbaugh published MITRE
AND
>SCEPTRE (New York: Oxford University Press, 1962). I don't have the time to
>educate you on the details, perhaps you could take a class at your local
>community college. For a synopsis, you could check out Page Smith's
RELIGIOUS
>ORIGINS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. Dr. Gaustad, my prof. at Princeton, has
>published a short piece which is online
>http://americanrevolution.org/gaustad.html. You'll surely dismiss him as
you
>did Dr. Heyrman, whose Ph.D. from Yale University must have been a fraud,
right?
>
>Phillips' book, COUSINS WARS, published just last year covers the issue
with
>more detail than any book I've read in a long time. You also should read
>Bernard Bailyn's The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (1967),
>Nathan Hatch's The Sacred Cause of Liberty (1977), Peter Carroll's Religion
>and the Coming of the Revolution, Alice Baldwin's The New England Clergy
and
>the American Revolution (1928), Alan Heimert's Religion and the American
Mind
>(1965), Mason Lowance's The Language of Canaan, Ursula Brumm's American
>Thought and Religious Typology, and Carl Bridenbaugh's Mitre and Sceptre,
>Keith L. Griffin's Revolution and Religion: American Revolutionary War and
the
>Reformed Clergy (New York: Paragon House, 1994). Then theres Patricia
Bonomi's
>UNDER THE COPE OF HEAVEN, and Jonathan Clark's, The Language of Liberty
>(Cambridge University Press, 1994).
>
>Do I expect you to actually consider any of these books?? Of course not.
>You're not a scholar, but only an uneducated loud mouth who has no clue
about
>what youre saying.
>
>> >> Point 1: Many of those in the 13 colonies were: 1/3 for
>> >> independence, 1/3 for England, 1/3 didn't care.
>> >
>> >You cite John Adams' famous breakdown which has been proven wrong. He
>>
>> I never cited Adams, and what proof does Phillips offer?
>
>Where did you get your 1/3, 1/3, 1/3, then? Are you admitting to making up
>information without a source. Phillips' work is very well documented.
>
>> You mean
>> they took a census?
>
>Yes. Something like that. Recent scholars have looked at various forms of
>documentation from the era which provides clearer evidence than Adams'
guesswork.
>
>> I know, Adams wasn't Christian so that makes him
>> a lier.
>
>Upon what grounds do you say that Adams was not a Christian?
>
>> >> Point 2: Religion of anykind had nothing to do with the American
>> >> Revolution.
>> >
>> >Wow! You really don't see to have any problem going against the
>> preponderance of
>> >the available scholarship. Perhaps you should tell the experts at the
>> library of
>> >Congress that their team of Ph.D.'s in history have no clue what they
are
>> >talking about (http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html)
>>
>> You still haven't answered the question: where was the revolution
>> fought over religion? What was the religious theme?
>
>It's known as the episcopate controversy. It's elementary to most people
with
>a modicum of knowledge about the Revolution. Read Bridenbaugh. Actually,
just
>read John Adams.
>
>> I checked out the above, it is bullshit.
>
>Ah, I see. So the team of Ph.D.'s at the Library of Congress just don't
have
>the training that you have in order to make these judgements.
>
>Do you have any argument whatsoever, to show that the Library of Congress'
>manuscripts which prove the connection of religion to the revolution are
fraudulent?
>
>If not, upon what grounds do you say that the Library of Congress' material
is bullshit?
>
>> Of it was about religion,
>> then the British were just as right as the rebels.
>
>What?
>
>> by the way,
>> where were the Christians on slavery?
>
>Most Puritans had denounced slavery long before the Revolution. At the time
of
>the revolution, Quakers were becoming the movers and shakers toward
>abolitionism. The abolitionist movement in the 19th century was essentially
a
>Christian endeavor.
>
>Southern Christians generally accepted slavery.
>
>So, to answer your question, Christians were essentially divided on the
issue,
>which means, in terms of control group studies, that one cannot infer a
link
>between Christianity and pro-slavery sentiments.
>
>> >While you're at it, tell Professor Heyrman of the University of Delaware
>> that
>> >her Ph.D work in this regard is also bogus
>> >(http://www.nhc.rtp.nc.us:8080/tserve/eighteen/ekeyinfo/erelrev.htm)
>>
>> I can come up with just as many academics that say the opposite,
>
>No you cannot. Quit running at the mouth unless you are willing to back up
>what you say.
>
>> >> Most people came to America for
>> >> mainly economic reasons and a better life.
>> >
>> >So, in your opinion, the reasons the immigrants actually gave were all
lies too?
>> >
>> >(see http://members.aol.com/WinthropSQ/reasons.htm)
>>
>> Winthrop wasn't one of the founding fathers.
>
>When you were talking about "most people who came to America for economic
>reasons" were you referring to the founding fathers?? If you were, you
really
>do need a grade school history education. It was clear from the context of
>your statement that you were referring to the colonial immigrants like
>Winthrop's fleet. Most of the founding fathers were not immigrants.
>
>Geeze, you really don't know what youre talking about do you?
>
>> I'll ask the question
>> again, What religious point was the war fought over?
>
>Liberty of conscience. You probably have not heard of that.
>
>> Note, I checked the above, more Christian Right fantasy/opinion.
>> While it is true that most if not not all of our founding fathers were
>> religious, they never fought England for religion nor did they
>> set up the government to promote the Bible.
>
>You are fighting a straw horse. Although scholarship is clear that religion
>was a major factor in the American revolution, that is not to say that the
>goal was to establish a Biblical government. Where did that tangent come
from??
>
>> It is like saying
>> because Einstein was Jewish is to say that relativity is a Jewish
religious
>> concept. Finally, I ran a computer check of the Declaration of
>> Independence, and Bill of Rights against the Bible; words such
>> as democracy, can't be found in it [the bible].
>
>That's funny! You say that "democracy" is not in the Bible, but you imply
it
>is in the Declaration and the Bill of Rights. You'll have to show me in the
>Declaration or the Bill of Rights you find the word "democracy." You really
>are a joke.
>
>> Don't you think they were smart
>> enough to something in if they wanted a Christian nation?
>
>They did not want the government legislating religious doctrine.
>
>> Like or not we have a secular government
>
>I like it.
>
>> One last point: What does the religion of the founding fathers
>> have to do with today?
>
>I'm posting in alt.history.colonial. A newsgroup which, I would think, is
>interested in American Colonial history. What that has to do with today is
>irrelevant. Whether it has to do with colonial history is what is relevant.
>And I would think that the religion of the colonists is relevant to
colonial history.
>
>RG
Lewis
time: What is the religious theme you keep trying to claim
the Revolutionary war was fought over? Don't quote your book
of Christian propaganda, answer the question! Your contention
of religion being the basis of the conflict is just as much myth
as the Adam and Eve myth. There is nothing in the Bible that
relates in any way to democracy or any major part of our national
documents: The word democracy, Nature's God, etc
doesn't exist in Bible at all. What is the theme? Do these kinds
of claims somehow make the Bible more than just a book of myth?
Can't it stand on its own merits? Guess not.
Lewis
jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote in message
<37dedaf7...@news.pilot.infi.net>...
>Richard Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
>>:|Lewis wrote:
>>:|
>>:|> Interesting discussion, but somewhat inaccurate.
>>:|>
>>:|> Point 1: Many of those in the 13 colonies were: 1/3 for
>>:|> independence, 1/3 for England, 1/3 didn't care.
>>:|
>>:|You cite John Adams' famous breakdown which has been proven wrong. He
>>:|overestimated the number of loyalists in the colonies. See Kevin
Phillips
>>:|COUSINS WARS for the more accurate analysis
>>:|
>
>More accurate?
>
>>:|> Most had little to do
>>:|> with the war because they had enough problems trying
>>:|> to stay alive.
>>:|>
>>:|> Point 2: Religion of anykind had nothing to do with the American
>>:|> Revolution.
>>:|
>>:|Wow! You really don't see to have any problem going against the
preponderance of
>>:|the available scholarship. Perhaps you should tell the experts at the
library of
>>:|Congress that their team of Ph.D.'s in history have no clue what they
are
>>:|talking about (http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html)
>>:|
>
>You trotting out that flawed thing again?
>BTW, are you aware that there are parts of it that disagree strongly with
>some of your claims?
>
>>:|While you're at it, tell Professor Heyrman of the University of Delaware
Lewis
legal standing for any faith, that is the law. Trying to turn
the American Revolution into a war for so-called
Christian values is a waste of time. Let me repeat it again Mr..
Gardner: What is the religious foundation of the
Revolutionary War? Put up or shut up.
Lewis
Gardiner wrote in message <37D41874...@pitnet.net>...
>jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>>
>> >:|> Most had little to do
>> >:|> with the war because they had enough problems trying
>> >:|> to stay alive.
>> >:|>
>> >:|> Point 2: Religion of anykind had nothing to do with the American
>> >:|> Revolution.
>> >:|
>> >:|Wow! You really don't see to have any problem going against the
preponderance of
>> >:|the available scholarship. Perhaps you should tell the experts at the
library of
>> >:|Congress that their team of Ph.D.'s in history have no clue what they
are
>> >:|talking about (http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html)
>> >:|
>>
>> You trotting out that flawed thing again?
>
>There Mr. Allison goes again, criticizing the Federal United States
Government
>as if it is dominated by a bunch of right-wing fundamentalists. You are the
>only one who thinks that the Library of Congress is a sub-organization of
the
>700 club? Do you realize how stupid you look when you make such
non-sensical allegations.
>
>Geeze, Jim, what's next? Are you going to show that Bill Clinton is really
a
>member of the Michigan militia? Perhaps you will criticize Hillary Clinton
as
>a stooge of Phyllis Schlafly or something?
>
>> BTW, are you aware that there are parts of it that disagree strongly with
>> some of your claims?
>
>Enlighten me.
>
>> We have already established a long time ago that you can find a list of
>> people with all sorts of letters after their names who can be found
across
>> the spectrum on most issues.
>
>Wrong, Jim. The poster you are defending (Lewis) made this allegation:
>"Religion of anykind had nothing to do with the American Revolution."
>
>Now, prove your point in this regard: show me a list of people with all
sorts
>of letters after their names who will support this assertion.
>
>You can't. Only uncredentialed persons like yourself or Mr. Curtis will
dare
>to come to the rescue of these crazy anti-religious fanatics who make
>unqualified and indefensible assertions about "all of the founders" and
>"religion of anykind"...
>
>Go ahead and continue to rescue them. It's your reputation as a
pseudo-scholar
>which is being affected.
>
>> What is the generally accepted thinking in the field?
>
>I believe Bailyn's work on the origins of the Revolution is the mainstream
>view. Gordon Wood accentuates slightly different concepts. Page Smith wrote
>with very moderated and careful opinions.
>
>> >:|> Most people came to America for
>> >:|> mainly economic reasons and a better life.
>> >:|
>> >:|So, in your opinion, the reasons the immigrants actually gave were all
lies too?
>> >:|
>> >:|(see http://members.aol.com/WinthropSQ/reasons.htm)
>> >:|
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> Even your Library of Congress thingie you like to mention says that
>> economics was in some cases the major reasons for people coming here,
etc.
>
>Have you read what the poster you are defending said; apparently not, let
me
>remind you since you are unable to just look above a few lines: "MOST
PEOPLE
>came to America for mainly economic reasons..."
>
>Now, Jim, why don't you support your allegation that you just uttered. Show
me
>in the "Library of Congress Thingie" the assertion that "MOST PEOPLE came
to
>America for mainly economic reasons..."
>
>Can you show me that was the motive of SOME people? Of course. When your
>dealing with SOME, you can probably show just about anything. When you are
>dealing with MOST, as this poster is, then you have to show that it is true
of
>the majority.
>
>If the library of congress thingie shows that the majority of immigrants
came
>for economic reasons, then please provide me the Library of Congress URL
where
>that assertion is made.
>
>If not. Shut up.
>
>> >:|> Point: 3: The founding fathers were a little of everything
>> >:|> in the religious sense. There were variations of deism,
>> >:|> Unitarianism, and Christianity. None of these men were
>> >:|> fundamentalist types because they would have
>> >:|> destroyed each other. They tolerated different ideas,
>> >:|> something a Falwell/Robertson fundamentalist
>> >:|> would never do.
>> >:|
>> >:|Apparently you have never read anything like Sam Adams' writings about
>> >:|Catholicism. Sam Adams would have been embarrassed by how tolerant Pat
Robertson
>> >:|types are of Catholicism. Adams believed that Papism was demonic and
should be
>> >:|resisted with violence.
>> >:|
>>
>> (1) The entire world did not spring out of Mass. (anyone who reads your
>> posts knows how enamored you are of those folks, but they are not the
>> center of the universe.)
>>
>> (2) Bigots were quite common, aren't you glad we separated church and
state
>> thus reducing their impact?
>
>Again, who are you arguing with? Lewis wrote "NONE of these men were
>fundamentalist... they tolerated different ideas..."
>
>I'm glad that you are correcting Mr. Lewis' erroneous assertion.
>
>> >:|who is the everybody that ignores the role of the enlightenment in
America?
>> >:|Jonathan Edwards was one american who embraced the scientific
revolution;
>> >:|however, that did not equate with a rejection of Christian orthodoxy.
>>
>> Wonder why so many did then.
>
>so many didnt. a small minority did. Paine did, and he was rejected by the
>preponderance of the founders for it. Franklin wavered, but ultimately he
>adopted the opinion that orthodox Christianity was a good thing, whether it
is
>true or not. Jefferson, although he had an affection for Jesus stronger
than
>most Christians today, denounced the doctrine of the trinity and was
skeptical
>about miracles.
>
>Other than that, the preponderance of the founders were orthodox
Christians.
>
>> Evidence says that the first 6 presidents did,
>> as well as other "famous" men of the period.
>
>I can pontificate as well; with regard to clearly rejecting orthodox
>Christianity, the evidence says:
>
>Washington: no
>Adams: no
>Jefferson: yes
>Madison: no
>Monroe: no
>JQ Adams: no
>
>> >:|> Deism
>> >:|> is an offshoot of both religion and science,
>> >:|
>> >:|Deists were a small minority of the members of the constitutional
convention
>> >:|http://www.universitylake.org/history/denom.html
>>
>> Not nearly as small as you want people to thinK. Lines didn't always hold
>> up so rigid. There was some crossover among those who could fit under a
>> label of Deist, Unitarian, etc.
>
>Which is true of most fundamentalists and evangelicals today too. Even Pat
>Robertson holds views which the Orthodox Christians during the time of the
>revolution would have deemed heretical (i.e., Pelagianism, ordination of
>Women, etc.) So is it unfair to call Robertson an orthodox Christian?
>
>> >:|> while
>> >:|> Unitarianism is a direct rejection of the trinity.
>> >:|
>> >:|An idea that had been around since the 4th century when various Arian
heretics
>> >:|were rejecting the trinity.
>>
>> That is suppose to refute what?
>
>The idea that the denial of the trinity was a late 18th century novelty
which
>accompanied the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightentment.
>
>Warning, the signature file below promotes nothing but ideological
left-wing
>pablum puke.
Richard Gardiner
> Interesting discussion, but somewhat inaccurate.
>
> Point 1: Many of those in the 13 colonies were: 1/3 for
> independence, 1/3 for England, 1/3 didn't care.
You cite John Adams' famous breakdown which has been proven wrong. He
overestimated the number of loyalists in the colonies. See Kevin Phillips
COUSINS WARS for the more accurate analysis
> Most had little to do
> with the war because they had enough problems trying
> to stay alive.
>
> Point 2: Religion of anykind had nothing to do with the American
> Revolution.
Wow! You really don't see to have any problem going against the preponderance of
the available scholarship. Perhaps you should tell the experts at the library of
Congress that their team of Ph.D.'s in history have no clue what they are
talking about (http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html)
While you're at it, tell Professor Heyrman of the University of Delaware that
her Ph.D work in this regard is also bogus
(http://www.nhc.rtp.nc.us:8080/tserve/eighteen/ekeyinfo/erelrev.htm)
I think John Adams had people like you in mind when he wrote about the effect of
religious controversy upon the revolution: "If any gentleman supposes this
controversy to be nothing to the present purpose, he is grossly mistaken."
(Adams to Niles)
> Most people came to America for
> mainly economic reasons and a better life.
So, in your opinion, the reasons the immigrants actually gave were all lies too?
(see http://members.aol.com/WinthropSQ/reasons.htm)
> Point: 3: The founding fathers were a little of everything
> in the religious sense. There were variations of deism,
> Unitarianism, and Christianity. None of these men were
> fundamentalist types because they would have
> destroyed each other. They tolerated different ideas,
> something a Falwell/Robertson fundamentalist
> would never do.
Apparently you have never read anything like Sam Adams' writings about
Catholicism. Sam Adams would have been embarrassed by how tolerant Pat Robertson
types are of Catholicism. Adams believed that Papism was demonic and should be
resisted with violence.
Witherspoon was a vociferous anti-Deist. Students at Princeton had to be able to
"refute the doctrines of the Deists" before they were permitted to graduate.
Roger Sherman's puritanism was also of the strict anti-papist brand.
> One big factor that everybody ignores
> is most of the men were certainly influenced by
> the Scientific Revolution which caused a lot
> of rethinking on the part of many people.
who is the everybody that ignores the role of the enlightenment in America?
Jonathan Edwards was one american who embraced the scientific revolution;
however, that did not equate with a rejection of Christian orthodoxy.
> Deism
> is an offshoot of both religion and science,
Deists were a small minority of the members of the constitutional convention
http://www.universitylake.org/history/denom.html
> while
> Unitarianism is a direct rejection of the trinity.
An idea that had been around since the 4th century when various Arian heretics
were rejecting the trinity.
For a thorough analysis of the role of religion leading up to the American
Gardiner
>
> So Mr.. Gardner thinks the American revolution
> was fought for the Bible? Just what was the religious theme
> that caused the colonies to rebel? Not enough churches
> littering the countryside?
Your lack of knowledge in this regard is very telling about your personality:
> >> Point 1: Many of those in the 13 colonies were: 1/3 for
> >> independence, 1/3 for England, 1/3 didn't care.
> >
> >You cite John Adams' famous breakdown which has been proven wrong. He
>
> I never cited Adams, and what proof does Phillips offer?
Where did you get your 1/3, 1/3, 1/3, then? Are you admitting to making up
information without a source. Phillips' work is very well documented.
> You mean
> they took a census?
Yes. Something like that. Recent scholars have looked at various forms of
documentation from the era which provides clearer evidence than Adams' guesswork.
> I know, Adams wasn't Christian so that makes him
> a lier.
Upon what grounds do you say that Adams was not a Christian?
> >> Point 2: Religion of anykind had nothing to do with the American
> >> Revolution.
> >
> >Wow! You really don't see to have any problem going against the
> preponderance of
> >the available scholarship. Perhaps you should tell the experts at the
> library of
> >Congress that their team of Ph.D.'s in history have no clue what they are
> >talking about (http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html)
>
> You still haven't answered the question: where was the revolution
> fought over religion? What was the religious theme?
It's known as the episcopate controversy. It's elementary to most people with
a modicum of knowledge about the Revolution. Read Bridenbaugh. Actually, just
read John Adams.
> I checked out the above, it is bullshit.
Ah, I see. So the team of Ph.D.'s at the Library of Congress just don't have
the training that you have in order to make these judgements.
Do you have any argument whatsoever, to show that the Library of Congress'
manuscripts which prove the connection of religion to the revolution are fraudulent?
If not, upon what grounds do you say that the Library of Congress' material is bullshit?
> Of it was about religion,
> then the British were just as right as the rebels.
What?
> by the way,
> where were the Christians on slavery?
Most Puritans had denounced slavery long before the Revolution. At the time of
the revolution, Quakers were becoming the movers and shakers toward
abolitionism. The abolitionist movement in the 19th century was essentially a
Christian endeavor.
Southern Christians generally accepted slavery.
So, to answer your question, Christians were essentially divided on the issue,
which means, in terms of control group studies, that one cannot infer a link
between Christianity and pro-slavery sentiments.
> >While you're at it, tell Professor Heyrman of the University of Delaware
> that
> >her Ph.D work in this regard is also bogus
> >(http://www.nhc.rtp.nc.us:8080/tserve/eighteen/ekeyinfo/erelrev.htm)
>
> I can come up with just as many academics that say the opposite,
No you cannot. Quit running at the mouth unless you are willing to back up
what you say.
> >> Most people came to America for
> >> mainly economic reasons and a better life.
> >
> >So, in your opinion, the reasons the immigrants actually gave were all lies too?
> >
> >(see http://members.aol.com/WinthropSQ/reasons.htm)
>
> Winthrop wasn't one of the founding fathers.
When you were talking about "most people who came to America for economic
reasons" were you referring to the founding fathers?? If you were, you really
do need a grade school history education. It was clear from the context of
your statement that you were referring to the colonial immigrants like
Winthrop's fleet. Most of the founding fathers were not immigrants.
Geeze, you really don't know what youre talking about do you?
> I'll ask the question
> again, What religious point was the war fought over?
Liberty of conscience. You probably have not heard of that.
> Note, I checked the above, more Christian Right fantasy/opinion.
> While it is true that most if not not all of our founding fathers were
> religious, they never fought England for religion nor did they
> set up the government to promote the Bible.
You are fighting a straw horse. Although scholarship is clear that religion
was a major factor in the American revolution, that is not to say that the
goal was to establish a Biblical government. Where did that tangent come from??
> It is like saying
> because Einstein was Jewish is to say that relativity is a Jewish religious
> concept. Finally, I ran a computer check of the Declaration of
> Independence, and Bill of Rights against the Bible; words such
> as democracy, can't be found in it [the bible].
That's funny! You say that "democracy" is not in the Bible, but you imply it
is in the Declaration and the Bill of Rights. You'll have to show me in the
Declaration or the Bill of Rights you find the word "democracy." You really
are a joke.
> Don't you think they were smart
> enough to something in if they wanted a Christian nation?
They did not want the government legislating religious doctrine.
> Like or not we have a secular government
I like it.
> One last point: What does the religion of the founding fathers
> have to do with today?
I'm posting in alt.history.colonial. A newsgroup which, I would think, is
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|Lewis wrote:
>:|
>:|> Interesting discussion, but somewhat inaccurate.
>:|>
>:|> Point 1: Many of those in the 13 colonies were: 1/3 for
>:|> independence, 1/3 for England, 1/3 didn't care.
>:|
>:|You cite John Adams' famous breakdown which has been proven wrong. He
>:|overestimated the number of loyalists in the colonies. See Kevin Phillips
>:|COUSINS WARS for the more accurate analysis
>:|
More accurate?
>:|> Most had little to do
>:|> with the war because they had enough problems trying
>:|> to stay alive.
>:|>
>:|> Point 2: Religion of anykind had nothing to do with the American
>:|> Revolution.
>:|
>:|Wow! You really don't see to have any problem going against the preponderance of
>:|the available scholarship. Perhaps you should tell the experts at the library of
>:|Congress that their team of Ph.D.'s in history have no clue what they are
>:|talking about (http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html)
>:|
You trotting out that flawed thing again?
BTW, are you aware that there are parts of it that disagree strongly with
some of your claims?
>:|While you're at it, tell Professor Heyrman of the University of Delaware that
>:|her Ph.D work in this regard is also bogus
>:|(http://www.nhc.rtp.nc.us:8080/tserve/eighteen/ekeyinfo/erelrev.htm)
>:|
Oh yea right. You are the type that any scholar who agrees with you is
really a stellar scholar, and any that doesn't hasn't done their homework,
studied enough, read enough, etc.
We have already established a long time ago that you can find a list of
people with all sorts of letters after their names who can be found across
the spectrum on most issues.
What is the generally accepted thinking in the field?
>:|I think John Adams had people like you in mind when he wrote about the effect of
>:|religious controversy upon the revolution: "If any gentleman supposes this
>:|controversy to be nothing to the present purpose, he is grossly mistaken."
>:|(Adams to Niles)
>:|
>:|> Most people came to America for
>:|> mainly economic reasons and a better life.
>:|
>:|So, in your opinion, the reasons the immigrants actually gave were all lies too?
>:|
>:|(see http://members.aol.com/WinthropSQ/reasons.htm)
>:|
LOL
Even your Library of Congress thingie you like to mention says that
economics was in some cases the major reasons for people coming here, etc.
>:|> Point: 3: The founding fathers were a little of everything
>:|> in the religious sense. There were variations of deism,
>:|> Unitarianism, and Christianity. None of these men were
>:|> fundamentalist types because they would have
>:|> destroyed each other. They tolerated different ideas,
>:|> something a Falwell/Robertson fundamentalist
>:|> would never do.
>:|
>:|Apparently you have never read anything like Sam Adams' writings about
>:|Catholicism. Sam Adams would have been embarrassed by how tolerant Pat Robertson
>:|types are of Catholicism. Adams believed that Papism was demonic and should be
>:|resisted with violence.
>:|
(1) The entire world did not spring out of Mass. (anyone who reads your
posts knows how enamored you are of those folks, but they are not the
center of the universe.)
(2) Bigots were quite common, aren't you glad we separated church and state
thus reducing their impact?
>:|Witherspoon was a vociferous anti-Deist. Students at Princeton had to be able to
>:|"refute the doctrines of the Deists" before they were permitted to graduate.
>:|Roger Sherman's puritanism was also of the strict anti-papist brand.
Whoooppeeeeee.
>:|
>:|> One big factor that everybody ignores
>:|> is most of the men were certainly influenced by
>:|> the Scientific Revolution which caused a lot
>:|> of rethinking on the part of many people.
>:|
>:|who is the everybody that ignores the role of the enlightenment in America?
>:|Jonathan Edwards was one american who embraced the scientific revolution;
>:|however, that did not equate with a rejection of Christian orthodoxy.
>:|
Wonder why so many did then. Evidence says that the first 6 presidents did,
as well as other "famous" men of the period.
>:|> Deism
>:|> is an offshoot of both religion and science,
>:|
>:|Deists were a small minority of the members of the constitutional convention
>:|http://www.universitylake.org/history/denom.html
>:|
Not nearly as small as you want people to thinK. Lines didn't always hold
up so rigid. There was some crossover among those who could fit under a
label of Deist, Unitarian, etc.
Human beings are far more complex then you seem to want to acknowledge.
>:|> while
>:|> Unitarianism is a direct rejection of the trinity.
>:|
>:|An idea that had been around since the 4th century when various Arian heretics
>:|were rejecting the trinity.
That is suppose to refute what?
Doesn't change the reality of what was does it?
>:|For a thorough analysis of the role of religion leading up to the American
>:|Revolution, see http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/never.html
>:|
Warning, the above is a pure plug for his book.
Gardiner
>
> >:|> Most had little to do
> >:|> with the war because they had enough problems trying
> >:|> to stay alive.
> >:|>
> >:|> Point 2: Religion of anykind had nothing to do with the American
> >:|> Revolution.
> >:|
> >:|Wow! You really don't see to have any problem going against the preponderance of
> >:|the available scholarship. Perhaps you should tell the experts at the library of
> >:|Congress that their team of Ph.D.'s in history have no clue what they are
> >:|talking about (http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html)
> >:|
>
> You trotting out that flawed thing again?
There Mr. Allison goes again, criticizing the Federal United States Government
as if it is dominated by a bunch of right-wing fundamentalists. You are the
only one who thinks that the Library of Congress is a sub-organization of the
700 club? Do you realize how stupid you look when you make such non-sensical allegations.
Geeze, Jim, what's next? Are you going to show that Bill Clinton is really a
member of the Michigan militia? Perhaps you will criticize Hillary Clinton as
a stooge of Phyllis Schlafly or something?
> BTW, are you aware that there are parts of it that disagree strongly with
> some of your claims?
Enlighten me.
> We have already established a long time ago that you can find a list of
> people with all sorts of letters after their names who can be found across
> the spectrum on most issues.
Wrong, Jim. The poster you are defending (Lewis) made this allegation:
"Religion of anykind had nothing to do with the American Revolution."
Now, prove your point in this regard: show me a list of people with all sorts
of letters after their names who will support this assertion.
You can't. Only uncredentialed persons like yourself or Mr. Curtis will dare
to come to the rescue of these crazy anti-religious fanatics who make
unqualified and indefensible assertions about "all of the founders" and
"religion of anykind"...
Go ahead and continue to rescue them. It's your reputation as a pseudo-scholar
which is being affected.
> What is the generally accepted thinking in the field?
I believe Bailyn's work on the origins of the Revolution is the mainstream
view. Gordon Wood accentuates slightly different concepts. Page Smith wrote
with very moderated and careful opinions.
> >:|> Most people came to America for
> >:|> mainly economic reasons and a better life.
> >:|
> >:|So, in your opinion, the reasons the immigrants actually gave were all lies too?
> >:|
> >:|(see http://members.aol.com/WinthropSQ/reasons.htm)
> >:|
>
> LOL
>
> Even your Library of Congress thingie you like to mention says that
> economics was in some cases the major reasons for people coming here, etc.
Have you read what the poster you are defending said; apparently not, let me
remind you since you are unable to just look above a few lines: "MOST PEOPLE
came to America for mainly economic reasons..."
Now, Jim, why don't you support your allegation that you just uttered. Show me
in the "Library of Congress Thingie" the assertion that "MOST PEOPLE came to
America for mainly economic reasons..."
Can you show me that was the motive of SOME people? Of course. When your
dealing with SOME, you can probably show just about anything. When you are
dealing with MOST, as this poster is, then you have to show that it is true of
the majority.
If the library of congress thingie shows that the majority of immigrants came
for economic reasons, then please provide me the Library of Congress URL where
that assertion is made.
If not. Shut up.
> >:|> Point: 3: The founding fathers were a little of everything
> >:|> in the religious sense. There were variations of deism,
> >:|> Unitarianism, and Christianity. None of these men were
> >:|> fundamentalist types because they would have
> >:|> destroyed each other. They tolerated different ideas,
> >:|> something a Falwell/Robertson fundamentalist
> >:|> would never do.
> >:|
> >:|Apparently you have never read anything like Sam Adams' writings about
> >:|Catholicism. Sam Adams would have been embarrassed by how tolerant Pat Robertson
> >:|types are of Catholicism. Adams believed that Papism was demonic and should be
> >:|resisted with violence.
> >:|
>
> (1) The entire world did not spring out of Mass. (anyone who reads your
> posts knows how enamored you are of those folks, but they are not the
> center of the universe.)
>
> (2) Bigots were quite common, aren't you glad we separated church and state
> thus reducing their impact?
Again, who are you arguing with? Lewis wrote "NONE of these men were
fundamentalist... they tolerated different ideas..."
I'm glad that you are correcting Mr. Lewis' erroneous assertion.
> >:|who is the everybody that ignores the role of the enlightenment in America?
> >:|Jonathan Edwards was one american who embraced the scientific revolution;
> >:|however, that did not equate with a rejection of Christian orthodoxy.
>
> Wonder why so many did then.
so many didnt. a small minority did. Paine did, and he was rejected by the
preponderance of the founders for it. Franklin wavered, but ultimately he
adopted the opinion that orthodox Christianity was a good thing, whether it is
true or not. Jefferson, although he had an affection for Jesus stronger than
most Christians today, denounced the doctrine of the trinity and was skeptical
about miracles.
Other than that, the preponderance of the founders were orthodox Christians.
> Evidence says that the first 6 presidents did,
> as well as other "famous" men of the period.
I can pontificate as well; with regard to clearly rejecting orthodox
Christianity, the evidence says:
Washington: no
Adams: no
Jefferson: yes
Madison: no
Monroe: no
JQ Adams: no
> >:|> Deism
> >:|> is an offshoot of both religion and science,
> >:|
> >:|Deists were a small minority of the members of the constitutional convention
> >:|http://www.universitylake.org/history/denom.html
>
> Not nearly as small as you want people to thinK. Lines didn't always hold
> up so rigid. There was some crossover among those who could fit under a
> label of Deist, Unitarian, etc.
Which is true of most fundamentalists and evangelicals today too. Even Pat
Robertson holds views which the Orthodox Christians during the time of the
revolution would have deemed heretical (i.e., Pelagianism, ordination of
Women, etc.) So is it unfair to call Robertson an orthodox Christian?
> >:|> while
> >:|> Unitarianism is a direct rejection of the trinity.
> >:|
> >:|An idea that had been around since the 4th century when various Arian heretics
> >:|were rejecting the trinity.
>
> That is suppose to refute what?
The idea that the denial of the trinity was a late 18th century novelty which
accompanied the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightentment.
Warning, the signature file below promotes nothing but ideological left-wing
pablum puke.
> **********************************************
BL
>Interesting discussion, but somewhat inaccurate.
>
>Point 1: Many of those in the 13 colonies were: 1/3 for
>with the war because they had enough problems trying
>to stay alive.
Who knows, you're probably right.
>Point 2: Religion of anykind had nothing to do with the American
>Revolution. I feel the biggest issue was money and who got it.
>If England wasn't so stupid, we would be part of the British
>Commonwealth today. Most people came to America for
>mainly economic reasons and a better life. Freedom
>as we know it today was a concept the common people
>just didn't know about or understand. Most wars of this
>time were fights between the upper classes while the
>common man paid the bills and got killed.
I can't speak for other faiths, but if you listen to sermons from a
Christian pulpit, EVERYTHING has to do with religion:) Please note, I'm not
claiming the revolution was a religious crusade. What I do believe is that
decades upon decades of Christian thought and ideas paved the way.
As you say, the concept of freedom as we know it was probably not something
readily understood by the common people. Yet for some reason, they believed
they had a right (even an obligation) to demand and fight for it. They had
developed a notion of government that does not seem to be present in their
European heritage experience.
Lewis, I think these ideas first came from the pulpit. I think that Luther
and Calvin planted the seeds that caused this nation to dare to believe it
had the right and obligation to rebel against tyranny (as they saw it).
As for coming to America for economic reasons ... Coming to America
represented a substantial risk in the eary colonial period. If you didn't
die on the journey, the grim reaper had a shot at you during the first
winter. Even, after the Jamestown fiasco became common knowledge, this risk
was something that entire families were willing to endure. I think I can
agree to the better life part, as I think that a better life was being
measured by something other than wealth.
>
>Point: 3: The founding fathers were a little of everything
>in the religious sense. There were variations of deism,
>Unitarianism, and Christianity. None of these men were
>fundamentalist types because they would have
>destroyed each other. They tolerated different ideas,
>something a Falwell/Robertson fundamentalist
>would never do. One big factor that everybody ignores
>is most of the men were certainly influenced by
>the Scientific Revolution which caused a lot
>of rethinking on the part of many people. Deism
>is an offshoot of both religion and science, while
>Unitarianism is a direct rejection of the trinity.
Some of the early State Constitutions that I've been able to locate on the
web don't appear real tolerant. In fact, they make Falwell and Robertson
look like pulpit wimps. In more than one case, being a Protestant was a
pre-requisite to citizenship! Diests, Catholics and Unitiarians got the real
short end of the stick in these early constitutions.
Gardiner
>
> Thank you Mr.. Jalison. Now I will ask Mr.. Gardner one last
> time: What is the religious theme you keep trying to claim
> the Revolutionary war was fought over? Don't quote your book
> of Christian propaganda, answer the question! Your contention
> of religion being the basis of the conflict is just as much myth
> as the Adam and Eve myth. There is nothing in the Bible that
> relates in any way to democracy or any major part of our national
> documents: The word democracy, Nature's God, etc
> doesn't exist in Bible at all. What is the theme? Do these kinds
> of claims somehow make the Bible more than just a book of myth?
> Can't it stand on its own merits? Guess not.
Yep. You had to ask again for good luck. I answered your question the first
time you asked, and I provided more evidence to support my answer than you
have ability to read.
Maybe Alison will now come to your aid again and support your claim that the
word "democracy" is used in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.
With regard to the phrase "the Law of Nature and Nature's God" you better take
a close look at what sources men like Locke cited when invoking this phrase.
Your claim that the Bible had no influence upon the development of political
theory leading up to the founding is patently false.
But since you and Mr. Alison think that the Library of Congress is involved in
some right-wing conspiracy against the populace of this country, your lunacy
speaks for itself.
RG
Gardiner
>
> You still haven't answered the question, what was the religious theme
> they fought for?
You truly are mentally deficient, aren't you. The question was answered:
apparently you have the inability to read;
you wrote:> I'll ask the question
> again, What religious point was the war fought over?
And I responded:
> Liberty of conscience. You probably have not heard of that.
I also included a list of about a dozen scholarly books which give the proof
and the details of my answer. If you expect me to retype the entire text of
each of the books, you really are a loser.
Do you want to ask one more time, for good luck sake?
RG
Alan Roth
Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote in message
news:37D4703E...@pitnet.net...
without reference to the Bible. We are an extension of the British
conceptual framework that evolved from the Magna Carta and from
Enlightenment principles. This exploration of this would constitute a
"detailed" look at sources for inspiration and governmental prerogatives.
Having said this, though, I am left with the recognition that many of the
principles of democracy are, indeed, Christian in origin. Some seemingly go
back to Moses and the Ten Commandments.
I think what we undid in our Revolution was "the divine right of kings,"
nothing more, nothing less.
I make the assumption that many of the idealistic goals of our consciousness
can be traced back to the Judeo-Christian ethic. We have access to other
influences fairly easily these days, like Confucianism, for example. But the
history of the Western Hemisphere is seated in the Enlightenment and its
Judeo-Christian basis.
Deism is a doctrinal deviation from this heritage, but not at the level of
governmental institutions and Constitutional guarantees--the concept of
church and state eliminated religiosity from secular affairs, it did not
(and could not) eliminate the idealism of our heritage.
Alan
Lewis
influence are a large part of our culture. The entire world
didn't evolve around it in many cases.
Lewis
BL wrote in message <6vXA3.28737$R84.4...@typ12.nn.bcandid.com>...
Lewis
freedom of anything other than being another Christian
like themselves. Democracy has no basis in the Bible.
Lewis
Gardiner wrote in message <37D46E5E...@pitnet.net>...
>Lewis wrote:
>>
>> You still haven't answered the question, what was the religious theme
>> they fought for?
>
>You truly are mentally deficient, aren't you. The question was answered:
>apparently you have the inability to read;
>
>you wrote:> I'll ask the question
>> again, What religious point was the war fought over?
>
>And I responded:
>
>> Liberty of conscience. You probably have not heard of that.
>
Lewis
Lewis
Gardiner wrote in message <37D4703E...@pitnet.net>...
Lewis
Alan Roth wrote in message <7r1rb2$h6d$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
>
>It seems that our institutional foundation can be justified and understood
>without reference to the Bible. We are an extension of the British
>conceptual framework that evolved from the Magna Carta and from
>Enlightenment principles. This exploration of this would constitute a
>"detailed" look at sources for inspiration and governmental prerogatives.
>Having said this, though, I am left with the recognition that many of the
>principles of democracy are, indeed, Christian in origin. Some seemingly go
>back to Moses and the Ten Commandments.
There is nothing in the Ten Commandments that can be
remotly related to democracy. "Thou shall have no Gods
before me" is not freedon of religion. the founding fathers
were influenced by many things: Bible, Roman law, Greek
philosophy, and even the Iraquos Federation. The Magna Carte
was Saxon in origin, not Biblical. Outside of a few things Jesus
said in how to treat each other, there is nothing relating to
freedom of anykind. Jesus didn't write the thing anyway,
most of it is the work of the Roman Paul who never met Jesus
to start with.
>I think what we undid in our Revolution was "the divine right of kings,"
>nothing more, nothing less.
>
>I make the assumption that many of the idealistic goals of our
consciousness
>can be traced back to the Judeo-Christian ethic. We have access to
correct
other
>influences fairly easily these days, like Confucianism, for example. But
the
>history of the Western Hemisphere is seated in the Enlightenment and its
>Judeo-Christian basis.
The Enlightenment was the rejection of rigid church dogma
>Deism is a doctrinal deviation from this heritage, but not at the level of
>governmental institutions and Constitutional guarantees--the concept of
>church and state eliminated religiosity from secular affairs, it did not
>(and could not) eliminate the idealism of our heritage.
>
>Alan
>
True
BL
Your agreeing with me but disagreeing with Gardiner.
I need to let you know that I find myself more in line with him. ;)
Lewis wrote in message ...
BL
there was no need. Christian values were already codified.
Lewis wrote in message ...
PaulDanaher
news:7r1rb2$h6d$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote in message
> news:37D4703E...@pitnet.net...
> > Lewis wrote:
> > >
> It seems that our institutional foundation can be justified and understood
> without reference to the Bible. We are an extension of the British
> conceptual framework that evolved from the Magna Carta and from
> Enlightenment principles. This exploration of this would constitute a
> "detailed" look at sources for inspiration and governmental prerogatives.
> Having said this, though, I am left with the recognition that many of the
> principles of democracy are, indeed, Christian in origin. Some seemingly
go
> back to Moses and the Ten Commandments.
>
> I think what we undid in our Revolution was "the divine right of kings,"
> nothing more, nothing less.
Excuse me, I'm not going to stand by and watching you hijack our Civil War
in England! The Revolutionary War was a straightforward colonial rebellion
against an oppressive faction which sadly had the upper hand in the British
government and was determined to remove power from local representative
bodies.
> I make the assumption that many of the idealistic goals of our
consciousness
> can be traced back to the Judeo-Christian ethic. We have access to other
> influences fairly easily these days, like Confucianism, for example. But
the
> history of the Western Hemisphere is seated in the Enlightenment and its
> Judeo-Christian basis.
It's an assumption. You might like to recall that the Judaeo-Christian ethic
had been very significantly modified by the incorporation of Roman Law and
forensic analysis before the Enlightenment.
> Deism is a doctrinal deviation from this heritage, but not at the level of
> governmental institutions and Constitutional guarantees--the concept of
> church and state eliminated religiosity from secular affairs, it did not
> (and could not) eliminate the idealism of our heritage.
What "idealism" are we talking about here, exactly?
> Alan
>
>
Mike Curtis
>It wasn't a war for Christian values as you seem to imply, because, well..
>there was no need. Christian values were already codified.
This says nothing historically.
What Christian values were codified?
Codified where?
What makes these values exclusively Christian?
Mike Curtis
Please visit:
Write to time...@flash.net for the Rat Pack LIVE
Show at the 500 Club in Atlantic City in 1962. A 4am
morning show! $19.95 Compact Disc.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
http://www.abebooks.com
http://www.bibliofind.com
BL
Well, I agree. There was no need because...Christian values were ALREADY
codified.
As for which ones? I think I'd have an easier job of detailing those that
weren't. Take a look a English Common Law. I would say that laws against
adultery, witchcraft, homosexuality, incest, and polygamy are codified
Christian values. Take a peak at early State Constitutions which grant
citizenship to Protestants ONLY. Consider early state "blue laws". Heck,
even my childhood home town had a prohibition against having a business open
on the Sabbath. The Christian colonist already had the Christian laws that
he desired.
The exclusivity argument is meaningless in the context of this discussion.
Whether or not these codified values are shared by other world religions
does not change the religion of those that authored them. To the largely
Christian authors, they were Christian values. To many Christians today,
they are still Christian values.
Now if a Deist wants to claim them as Deistic values, go for it. However, I
suspect that a Deist who shares ALL the Christian values codified in
colonial America would be the oddest Deist ever. There would be another name
for that kind of Deist... we'd call him a Protestant.
Mike Curtis wrote in message ...
>"BL" <brit...@pe.net> wrote:
>
>>It wasn't a war for Christian values as you seem to imply, because, well..
>>there was no need. Christian values were already codified.
>
Mike Curtis
>Lewis made the claim that the revolution was NOT a war for Christian values.
I really don't care about Lewis for *I* asked you about prior
codification.
>Well, I agree. There was no need because...Christian values were ALREADY
>codified.
And *I* asked you these questions about you statement alone:
What Christian values were codified?
Codified where?
What makes these values exclusively Christian?
>As for which ones? I think I'd have an easier job of detailing those that
>weren't. Take a look a English Common Law. I would say that laws against
>adultery,
Which were not exclusive to the British empire and were not
exclusively Christian.
> witchcraft,
I must admit that these laws were Christian in a sense.
> homosexuality,
Which were not exclusive to the British empire and were not
exclusively Christian.
> incest,
Which were not exclusive to the British empire and were not
exclusively Christian.
> and polygamy are codified
>Christian values.
Which were not exclusive to the British empire and were not
exclusively Christian.
> Take a peak at early State Constitutions which grant
>citizenship to Protestants ONLY.
Such as Maryland?
> Consider early state "blue laws".
Connecticut? So what?
> Heck,
>even my childhood home town had a prohibition against having a business open
>on the Sabbath.
The Jewish or the Christian?
> The Christian colonist already had the Christian laws that
>he desired.
You need to read a couple of complainers such as William Bradford and
John Winthrop.
>The exclusivity argument is meaningless in the context of this discussion.
>Whether or not these codified values are shared by other world religions
>does not change the religion of those that authored them.
Or any other heritage?
> To the largely
>Christian authors, they were Christian values.
Not always. some of these went back to the Jews or to Rome and Greece.
> To many Christians today,
>they are still Christian values.
Ignorance is bliss.
BL
citizenship to Protestants ONLY.<
Mike Curtis>Such as Maryland?<
First, let me correct my statement to 'full rights of citizenship'. The
link below shows some of the religious clauses from earlier State
Constutions.
http://www.universitylake.org/history/state.html
Pretty narrow I'd say. Not a lot of room for the deist. Heck Catholics
probably had a tough time finding a residence.
BL> Consider early state "blue laws".<
Mike Curtis>Connecticut? So what?<
OK... that's where the term comes from, so yeah, Connecticut counts. Do do
Mass., NH, Vermont, etc...
Aren't blue laws often a codification of Christian rules, beliefes, etc..
BL>Heck,
even my childhood home town had a prohibition against having a business open
on the Sabbath.<
Mike Curtis>The Jewish or the Christian?<
Christian... In New Hampshire. The law relaxed in the late 60's though.
Food stores were allowed to open. However certain sections ( I believe the
beer section) had to be roped off.
Mike Curtis>Which were not exclusive to the British empire and were not
>exclusively Christian
Yeah, so? Other cultures shared similar values. Anyone canHowever, I
challenge you to name a religion that better mirrors English Common Law than
the Old Testament Mosaic Laws.
BL>The exclusivity argument is meaningless in the context of this
discussion.
Whether or not these codified values are shared by other world religions
does not change the religion of those that authored them.<
Mike Curtis>Or any other heritage?
Yup, or any other heritage. However, simply counting headstones probably
would indicate that other heritages were just a slim piece of the pie.
Mike Curtis wrote in message ...
>"BL" <brit...@pe.net> wrote:
>
>>Lewis made the claim that the revolution was NOT a war for Christian
values.
>
>I really don't care about Lewis for *I* asked you about prior
>codification.
>
>>Well, I agree. There was no need because...Christian values were ALREADY
>>codified.
>
>And *I* asked you these questions about you statement alone:
>
>What Christian values were codified?
>
>Codified where?
>
>What makes these values exclusively Christian?
>
>>As for which ones? I think I'd have an easier job of detailing those that
>>weren't. Take a look a English Common Law. I would say that laws against
>>adultery,
>
BL
The discussion about Christian influence upon this nation's history ( for
that matter world history) is not discussion about the behavior of today's
religious right. Those are two different and unconnected topics.
Lewis wrote in message ...
>
Lewis
hates the idea of personal freedom, an their attitude is
not even Christian by traditional standards. Let us not forget
that many Christians were at the forefront of civil rights and
the anti-slavery movements while the Christian Right and its
forerunners would resort to anything, including even murder,
to oppose it. Many if not all of our founding fathers were influenced
in some way by Christianity, but they in no way were like the
Christian Right.
Lewis
BL wrote in message ...
Mike Curtis
>BL> Take a peak at early State Constitutions which grant
>citizenship to Protestants ONLY.<
>
>Mike Curtis>Such as Maryland?<
>
>First, let me correct my statement to 'full rights of citizenship'. The
>link below shows some of the religious clauses from earlier State
>Constutions.
>
>http://www.universitylake.org/history/state.html
>
>Pretty narrow I'd say. Not a lot of room for the deist.
What's this hang up with deists? America din't really have any
European style deists!
> Heck Catholics
>probably had a tough time finding a residence.
No problem in Maryland.
>BL> Consider early state "blue laws".<
>
>Mike Curtis>Connecticut? So what?<
>
>OK... that's where the term comes from, so yeah, Connecticut counts. Do do
>Mass., NH, Vermont, etc...
>Aren't blue laws often a codification of Christian rules, beliefes, etc..
Could be, but so what? We'd have to look at them in detail. I do have
them in original form in my library. They cover militia laws, Indian
laws and all kinds of matters.
>BL>Heck,
>even my childhood home town had a prohibition against having a business open
>on the Sabbath.<
>
>Mike Curtis>The Jewish or the Christian?<
>
>Christian... In New Hampshire.
I see.
> The law relaxed in the late 60's though.
>Food stores were allowed to open. However certain sections ( I believe the
>beer section) had to be roped off.
My point was your use of the term "Sabbath." The law was relaxed in
your state for what reason? How about the other 50 states? Are the
circumstances the same or different?
>Mike Curtis>Which were not exclusive to the British empire and were not
>>exclusively Christian
>
>Yeah, so?
LOL You concede my point.
> Other cultures shared similar values. Anyone canHowever, I
>challenge you to name a religion that better mirrors English Common Law than
>the Old Testament Mosaic Laws.
Well, the common law of England was formed from the laws of Alfred,
Saxon laws (not very Christian), Roman laws from Justinian (not very
Christian) and so on backwards. Common law is the unwritten law that
human beings remember and understand.
I took Gardiner through the common law brought to the colonies in New
Plymouth:
We'll start with the settlers of New Plymouth having already settled.
Based on records it appears they brought no manuals of law with them
until after 1636. (Goebel, 34) We have a group who felt they could
"create a corporate capacity on the civil side by complying with its
own formalities of ecclesiastical association, which looked primarily
to the Bible for substantive norms of conduct." (Goebel, 32) They
brought the experiences of their English burroughs with them along
with an imperfect memory of local laws. They built a set of local laws
based on those experiences and the "Plymouth court records bare a
striking resemblance to those of the English manorial courts of this
period." (Haskins, 41) Not only did they bring their past legal
experiences along with them, as well as their religion, they even
brought aspects of their Dutch experiences with them. (Haskins, 41)
"There were several references to the common law of England, by which
to a substantial degree they felt bound. But there are other
provisions that reflect local English customs of the districts from
which they had come."
They changed law that caused them grief in the home countries. The
laws involving property, debtors, creditors, and the importance of the
family as a unit. (Haskins, 40) Their dissatisfaction with English
land law and with english criminal law and procedure resulted in
something quite different from English common law. They relied upon
and made literal use of biblical texts "in framing provisions relating
to crime provides, in another area, evidence not only of tradition and
design, but the continuing importance of the religious ideals which
had inspired the founding of the colony." (Haskins, 40) I take issue
with Haskins on that score based on the order that Bradford and
Winslow stressed their complaints. I've posted this information in
other threads.
These laws on behavior are Mosaic and the saints did rely quite a bit
on the Mosaic Laws contained in the Old testament which the first five
books used to be the Torah to the Jews. This was a product of various
civilizations also. There was some codification of the law in the
world's history of jurisprudence. We have the Code of Hammurabi, the
Twelve Tables at Rome along with the "primitive Anglo-Saxon
compilations which antedate the Norman Conquest." (Haskins, 39)
One of the innovations by the folks at Plymouth was the civil
marriage. They introduced a legal marriage performed by officers of
the civil government. "Bradford speaks of the practice as having been
founded on the 'laudable custome of the Low-cuntries,' nd appears to
be one of the fruits of the Pilgrims' sojourn in Holland." (Haskins,
43)
Another advance was dealing with primogeniture. As early as 1627 a
visitor commented on the practice of evenly distributing property
evenly among the children. The eldest only " 'has an acknowledgement
for his senority of birth.' The reference to seniority was to the
practice of giving a double portion to the eldest son, pursuant to the
precept of Deuteronomy 21:17, upon which it was ostensibly based."
(Haskins, 43).
Another novel change was for providing the window with one third of
both real and personal property upon the death of her husband. Only by
exception as was the old practice in England could a window share in
personal property. (Haskins 43)
Most important of all and probably as a result of experiences in
England Plymouth introduced a system of recording sales, gifts,
mortgages, and other conveyances of houses and lands. "Stemming in
part from a peasant psychosis bred of years of misery brought on by
the enclosure movements, . . . , the recording system furnished basic
guarantees of security of land titles." (Haskins, 43)
They codedified their laws to prevent arbitrary actions of the state
from occurring as was their experience elsewhere. These colonists
lived under the rule of law. No man was above the law.
So "if we remember that these men were English commoners and religious
zealots, the records of civilization in their motherland will enable
us to effect that meticulous and microscopic reconstruction essential
to the true depiction of transplantation of any culture. Local custom,
substantive as the Winchester measure, pretentious as the notion of
the code, ineradicable as the methods of law administration,
fortuitous as a form of tenure; bitter experience at the hands of a
zealous bishop and his pursuivants, or a stony-hearted evicting
landlord; hope and salvation in the Word of god preached by word or
pamphlet, these things are the materials that went with settlers to
Plymouth and out of which their law was fashioned." (Goebel, 36)
"As in ancient Greece, where the promotion of good order in the
community was believed to give individuals a wider freedom, so in
Plymouth the community was believed to thrive in the right living of
its members. Indeed, there is more than casual relation between
Plymouth ideals and the recurrent statements throughout Greek
literature that to obey the law is to be free. That idea was echoed
and given wide currency by Cicero, and later was reinforced by Puritan
doctrine which prescribed obedience to the law as a religious duty."
(Haskins, 45) This does not mean that all law is religious.
This as things were in 1636. Changes would result in the colony's
laws. Additions would be made. Other colonies would develop local laws
based on their customs and experiences that would be quite different
from those of the Puritans. This doesn't exclude the thought of them
borrowing from each other. The examples cited above show that though
behavioral law was along biblical and mosaic lines there was also a
body of civil law. There was law that was English common law made in
ways that they could best remember and then there was new innovative
laws.
So when one persons asserts that Christianity was a part of the common
law, I suppose one can say that is a true assertion but then go on to
explain what else the law was also. Mentioning only one part is rather
devious and deceptive.
This article was quickly put together from two articles in _American
Law and the Constitutional Order - Historical Perspectives_, edited by
Lawrence M. Freedman and Harry N. Scheiber, Harvard, Second Edition,
1988. The page number I referenced above are from that edition.
Mike Curtis
as algernon sidney wrote:
Liars ought to have good memories.
Discourses on Government. Chap. ii. Sect. xv.
>BL>The exclusivity argument is meaningless in the context of this
>discussion.
>Whether or not these codified values are shared by other world religions
>does not change the religion of those that authored them.<
>
>Mike Curtis>Or any other heritage?
>
>Yup, or any other heritage. However, simply counting headstones probably
>would indicate that other heritages were just a slim piece of the pie.
Prove it.
>>>Well, I agree. There was no need because...Christian values were ALREADY
>>>codified.
>>
>>And *I* asked you these questions about you statement alone:
>>
>>What Christian values were codified?
>>
>>Codified where?
>>
>>What makes these values exclusively Christian?
Which you have yet to answer.
University Lake School
>
> Fine Mr.. Gardner, show me the word democracy in the Bible.
There are a number of problems with your challenge. First is the fact that
none of the founders of the U.S. advocated a democracy. They gave us a
Republic, and, to the best of my knowledge, we still live in a republic. If we
were a pure democracy, no legislation would take place until all of the people
were consulted for their vote. As it is, we elect representatives to vote
their conscience in the legislature. That is the essence of a Republican form
of government. That form of government was borrowed from Presbyterian polity
as developed by Christians such as John Calvin, George Lawson, John Locke,
Montesqueiu, Algernon Sydney, et al.
Second, your allegation that the word "democracy" is found in the Declaration
of Independence and the Bill of Rights illustrates your profound ignorance
upon this subject.
Thirdly, the concept of Republicanism as developed in the American colonies
upon the political writings of the likes of Locke, Sydney, Harrington, Vane,
Rutherford, Puffendorf, et al, was originally rooted in 16th century writers
such as Calvin, Beza, Brutus, and Althusius, who used, as their model, the
system of Judges as explicated in the Book of Deuteronomy chapter 17. Granted,
Plato's concept of a republic played an important role in the development of
Republican ideals in this time frame, but it is also a fact that the Biblical
concept of Senators (Presbyter=Greek for Senator), was of profound
significance in shaping the Republicanism which was instituted by the founders.
So, yes, in a nutshell the Bible was at the root of Republicanism. In terms of
democracy, you have yet to show me that the founders even intended a
democracy. They didn't. So your challenge to show you where the Bible
advocates democracy is a moot point.
>
Mike Curtis
Speaking of the origins of English Common Law:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/corpus1.html
This is a group of Roman law that an article on english common law
asserts became recognized as common law. It is adapted Roman law.
It's a beginning!
Mike Curtis
Ambrose Bierce wrote:
ACADEME, n. An ancient school where morality and philosophy were
taught.
ACADEMY, n. [from ACADEME] A modern school where football is
taught.
The Shoe
to revise history. They want to portray Washington as one of them so those
of us who admire Washington will want to join their party. Of course, they
know it is not correct. For one thing George had a sense of accountability,
felt that God would reward him according to his deeds. Fundamentalist have
rejected accountability, except in the context of jailing everybody who
will not join them.
Gardiner
> >without reference to the Bible. We are an extension of the British
> >conceptual framework that evolved from the Magna Carta and from
> >Enlightenment principles. This exploration of this would constitute a
> >"detailed" look at sources for inspiration and governmental prerogatives.
> >Having said this, though, I am left with the recognition that many of the
> >principles of democracy are, indeed, Christian in origin. Some seemingly go
> >back to Moses and the Ten Commandments.
>
> remotly related to democracy.
There may not be; but there is a lot in the "ten commandments" and the
pentateuch which is the foundation of common law and republicanism, two
concepts which pressed hard upon the founders and the development of political
theory in the United States.
> "Thou shall have no Gods
> before me" is not freedon of religion. the founding fathers
> were influenced by many things: Bible, Roman law, Greek
> philosophy, and even the Iraquos Federation. The Magna Carte
> was Saxon in origin, not Biblical.
Please tell me, if you know, who the author was of the Magna Carta. What was
his background?
> Outside of a few things Jesus
> said in how to treat each other, there is nothing relating to
> freedom of anykind.
The Americans during the time of the founding believed very much otherwise. To
wit, see http://www.universitylake.org/howard.html which is only one of
literally hundreds of documents of the same flavor.
> Jesus didn't write the thing anyway,
> most of it is the work of the Roman Paul who never met Jesus
> to start with.
According to the Roman Paul, he indeed did meet Jesus (I Corinthians 15:8).
Where are you getting your evidence otherwise?
> >I make the assumption that many of the idealistic goals of our
> consciousness
> >can be traced back to the Judeo-Christian ethic. We have access to
>
> correct
Correct.
> >But the history of the Western Hemisphere is seated in the Enlightenment and its
> >Judeo-Christian basis.
>
> The Enlightenment was the rejection of rigid church dogma
Many Enlighteners were defenders of Christianity. E.g., Locke wrote "The
Reasonableness of Christianity," Berkeley wrote his "three dialogues" to prove
God's existence; Jonathan Edwards has been considered the principal American
philosopher to embrace the enlightenment, and it is crazy to say that he
rejected rigid church dogma. John Witherspoon, president of Princeton, signer
of the Declaration, was a principle representative of the Scottish
Enlightenment. He was an Ordained Presbyterian clergyman and a defender of
orthodox Calvinism. Leibniz and Newton, the initiators of the enlightenment,
both wrote lengthy treatises in defense of Christianity.
In France during the revolution, there was an anti-religious sentiment
embraced by enlighteners there, e.g., Voltaire, but you are incorrect in
alleging that the enlightenment was, by nature, a rejection of orthodox
Christianity.
Perhaps you can begin to provide some grounds for your assertions.
RG
Gardiner
>
> "BL" <brit...@pe.net> wrote:
>
> >BL> Take a peak at early State Constitutions which grant
> >citizenship to Protestants ONLY.<
> >
> >Mike Curtis>Such as Maryland?<
> >
> >First, let me correct my statement to 'full rights of citizenship'. The
> >link below shows some of the religious clauses from earlier State
> >Constutions.
> >
> >http://www.universitylake.org/history/state.html
> >
> >Pretty narrow I'd say. Not a lot of room for the deist.
>
> What's this hang up with deists? America din't really have any
> European style deists!
Yea, good question. Perhaps you should ask Mr. Johnson, who constantly
barrages this group with assertions about how central deism was in the founding.
Now, my question for you is whether you are trying to provide wiggle room for
yourself by using the adjective "european style." If so, and you agree with
Mr. Johnson that deism was "the big deal" in the founding, then that is the
"hang up" with deists that you are asking about.
Gardiner
>
> http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/corpus1.html
>
> This is a group of Roman law that an article on english common law
> asserts became recognized as common law. It is adapted Roman law.
>
> It's a beginning!
>
> Mike Curtis
Yes, but for the rest of the "story," see http://www.universitylake.org/history/story.html
RG
Lewis
democracy. The early government it seems was more
interested in some thing to unite the colonies and establish
a functioning government based on something other
than kings and bishops. They certainly excluded many
people (slaves, women, etc) They did one thing that is
probably the main reason the country has survived
to this day: They left the system open to change. That
is why women, blacks, etc have rights today that would
make the founding fathers cringe.
When the Christian Right says that we should return to
the kind of government originally established in 1776,
they mean what they say. They want a white/male/Protestant
only government where all others are little more than slaves or
silent domestic servants. To go back to that system would
plunge this country into another bloodbath such as Yugoslavia,
Lebanon, or Northern Ireland where people still live in the past
Everytime the Christian Right feels threatened they resort to
attacking others: I never said the word democracy appeared
In the Bill of Rights, etc. It certainly doesn't, any more than
Jesus, Moses, Christian, or any other Bible bullshit. It doesn't
matter if words such as Christian or democracy don't appear
in the original documents because today we do have a
democracy and that is why the Christian Right hates
this country so much.
Lewis
University Lake School wrote in message
<37D6711D...@universitylake.org>...
Lewis
sense of the word. Even if the founding fathers were all
Christians (which many were not), they still wouldn't be members of the
Christian Right.
Lewis
The Shoe wrote in message <01befa4e$53a88a20$214a56d1@default>...
Gardiner
>
> Right on. the Christian Right is not even Christian in any moral
> sense of the word. Even if the founding fathers were all
> Christians (which many were not), they still wouldn't be members of the
> Christian Right.
It is one thing for you to be in a tizzy about the "Christian Right," whatever
the heck that means (your caricature sounds strangely akin to the way
Christians labeled Deists "atheists" in the founding era), it is quite another
thing for you to turn your personal problems into historical inaccuracies and
distortions. Whether Sam Adams would be a member of the Christian Coalition
today is so hypothetical and speculative a question that it really cannot be
addressed responsibly.
The question, however, of the religious sentiments of the founders is one
which can be fairly dealt with. Their writings are plentiful. The fact remains
that the preponderance of the founders of the United States were Protestant
Christians. That is where this thread started out (particularly with regard to
George Washington); your tangential tirade against the Christian Right is
evidence that your interest is far less with history than it is with political
ideology. And your ideology seems to blind you to history.
RG
Lewis
Gardiner wrote in message <37D71A53...@pitnet.net>...
>Lewis wrote:
>>
>> Jesus didn't write the thing anyway,
>> most of it is the work of the Roman Paul who never met Jesus
>> to start with.
>
>According to the Roman Paul, he indeed did meet Jesus (I Corinthians 15:8).
>Where are you getting your evidence otherwise?
Paul wrote (supposed) Corinthians, and in Acts 9 says Paul heard a voice,
flash of light, whatever. Jesus had died about 20 years prior
to this. He never met Jesus becuase talking to dead people is bullshit..
That is why James ran him out as the lier and fraud he was. This
is the way all cults begin, some holy man claiming voices, visions,
and dreams are the word of God.
If you don't believe me check out www.sullivan-county.com/paul/
This was taken word for word from an encyclodedia.
Of course being in the Bible it has to be true dispite the
facts otherwise. Again, Jesus, the actual Apostle, or anyone
that actually knew him left any writings. Like all revealed religions,
we only have the claims of questionable charactors with no proof.
If their are any originals, tell everybody where they are. (Not Paul)
>
>> >I make the assumption that many of the idealistic goals of our
>> consciousness
>> >can be traced back to the Judeo-Christian ethic. We have access to
>>
>> correct
>
>Correct.
>
>> >But the history of the Western Hemisphere is seated in the Enlightenment
and its
>> >Judeo-Christian basis.
>>
>> The Enlightenment was the rejection of rigid church dogma
>
>Many Enlighteners were defenders of Christianity. E.g., Locke wrote "The
>Reasonableness of Christianity," Berkeley wrote his "three dialogues" to
prove
>God's existence; Jonathan Edwards has been considered the principal
American
I said "rigid Christian dogma" not all of Christianity.
>orthodox Calvinism. Leibniz and Newton, the initiators of the
enlightenment,
>both wrote lengthy treatises in defense of Christianity.
True. but they were still not mindless fundamentalists.
>In France during the revolution, there was an anti-religious sentiment
>embraced by enlighteners there, e.g., Voltaire, but you are incorrect in
>alleging that the enlightenment was, by nature, a rejection of orthodox
>Christianity.
>Perhaps you can begin to provide some grounds for your assertions.
>
Define orthodox, because Christians can't seem to agree on it
themselves. Catholics are Christians, dispute the claims of
Protestants otherwise.
Gardiner
> >> Liberty of conscience. You probably have not heard of that.
>
> Liberty of conscience?
>
> I will have to admit that this is a new one to me.
>
> One is allowed to have whatever conscience they choose? (Perhaps a defense for
> some of our miscreants?)
The phrase "liberty of conscience" was commonplace in the 17th and 18th
centuries as a central Protestant principle (see the Confession, chapter 20 http://home.earthlink.net/~andrepar/creed18.htm#twenty)
This phrase became a rallying cry by the colonists against the crown in the
middle 18th century. (see e.g.,
http://www.founding.com/library/lbody.cfm?id=230&parent=52). If you look at
the position paper of the Committees of Correspondence and the Sons of Liberty
under the leadership of Sam Adams, you'll find that religious liberty was
considered a central matter proclaimed by the colonists against the crown (http://www.constitution.org/bcp/right_col.htm)
I'm sorry this is all new to you. It indeed was very central in the lives of
the American Revolutionaries.
Gardiner
>
> It seems that our institutional foundation can be justified and understood
> without reference to the Bible. We are an extension of the British
> conceptual framework that evolved from the Magna Carta and from
> Enlightenment principles.
I don't disagree that U.S. political theory is an heir to the Magna Carta,
British Common Law, and some enlighteners such as Locke and Puffendorf;
however, to say that this can be understood without reference to the Bible is
not tenable. The British legal tradition and the Scientific Revolution and
Enlightenment all took place within a context where the Bible was a central
influence. These institutions cannot be understood without first understanding
the Christian milieu in which they evolved.
> This exploration of this would constitute a
> "detailed" look at sources for inspiration and governmental prerogatives.
> Having said this, though, I am left with the recognition that many of the
> principles of democracy are, indeed, Christian in origin. Some seemingly go
> back to Moses and the Ten Commandments.
I think that is probably true, too.
> I think what we undid in our Revolution was "the divine right of kings,"
> nothing more, nothing less.
I would agree with the "nothing less" part. But to limit the function of the
revolution in such narrow terms seems too untenable.
> I make the assumption that many of the idealistic goals of our consciousness
> can be traced back to the Judeo-Christian ethic. We have access to other
> influences fairly easily these days, like Confucianism, for example. But the
> history of the Western Hemisphere is seated in the Enlightenment and its
> Judeo-Christian basis.
That is a pretty simple and basic assertion which bothers people these days.
Their being bothered, however, does not change the facts of history.
> Deism is a doctrinal deviation from this heritage, but not at the level of
> governmental institutions and Constitutional guarantees--the concept of
> church and state eliminated religiosity from secular affairs, it did not
> (and could not) eliminate the idealism of our heritage.
Good point.
BL
Mike Curtis wrote in message ...
>"BL" <brit...@pe.net> wrote:
>
>Speaking of the origins of English Common Law:
>
>http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/corpus1.html
>
>This is a group of Roman law that an article on english common law
>asserts became recognized as common law. It is adapted Roman law.
>
>It's a beginning!
>
>Mike Curtis
>
BL
Mike Curtis>What's this hang up with deists? America din't really have any
European style deists!<
Talk to the resident deistic spam artist giving regular shameless plugs for
his ezine.
BL>>Aren't blue laws often a codification of Christian rules, beliefes,
etc..<
Mike Curtis>Could be, but so what? We'd have to look at them in detail. I do
have
them in original form in my library. They cover militia laws, Indian
laws and all kinds of matters.<
Trace the discussion back to it's roots and you'll find that I said that
Christian beliefs were already codified. I think blue laws against
blasphemy, working on the sabath and the state constitutional examples I
given you make the point.
Mike Curtis>My point was your use of the term "Sabbath." The law was relaxed
in
your state for what reason? How about the other 50 states? Are the
circumstances the same or different?<
I don't know the reason for the relaxation. At the moment, I don't care. I'm
still trying to figure out where your going.
Mike Curtis>Which were not exclusive to the British empire and were not
exclusively Christian<
BL>Yeah, so?<
Mike Curtis>LOL You concede my point.<
Law against adultery aren't exclusive to Christianity, so what? Does it make
the law against adultery any less Christian? That's MY POINT. Who cares who
else on earth shared it? Jeeeeeeez... this shouldn't be a terrifically hard
concept to grasp. If we were in Iran, we'd probably call the law a
codification of an Islamic belief! And.... it would be true.
As quoted by Mike Curtis>"The examples cited above show that though
behavioral law was along biblical and mosaic lines there was also a
body of civil law."<
LOL. This IS rich. YOU enter this discussion challenging me to detail where
Christianity was codified. And here we find that you knew and agree with
this all along.
Mike Curtis>So when one persons asserts that Christianity was a part of the
common
law, I suppose one can say that is a true assertion but then go on to
explain what else the law was also. Mentioning only one part is rather
devious and deceptive.<
LOL, talk about devious and deceptive.
Sir, my interest here is learning about Colonial History. Where I have a
question, I ask. Where I might have something to add, I do. Save your
judgements for the politically motivated historians.
BL>Yup, or any other heritage. However, simply counting headstones probably
would indicate that other heritages were just a slim piece of the pie.<
Mike Curtis>Prove it<
Oh please.. Do I REALLY have to argue that the colonists were for the most
part Christian? Heck, if experience is a teacher, I'll bet you already have
the data to prove it yourself...LOL
This is getting silly.
Mike Curtis>What makes these values exclusively Christian? Which you have
yet to answer.<
Show me the pertinence of this question. I would dearly like to know a
belief failing to be exclusive to Christianity fails to be Christian belief.
Mike Curtis
>
>Mike Curtis>What's this hang up with deists? America din't really have any
>European style deists!<
>
>Talk to the resident deistic spam artist giving regular shameless plugs for
>his ezine.
Don't let it bother you.
>BL>>Aren't blue laws often a codification of Christian rules, beliefes,
>etc..<
>Mike Curtis>Could be, but so what? We'd have to look at them in detail. I do
>have
>them in original form in my library. They cover militia laws, Indian
>laws and all kinds of matters.<
>
>Trace the discussion back to it's roots and you'll find that I said that
>Christian beliefs were already codified. I think blue laws against
>blasphemy,
There were laws prior to the blue laws. Yet we have no laws today
concerning blasphemy. We outgrew that kind of intolerance.
> working on the sabath and the state constitutional examples I
>given you make the point.
Not at all. There were various laws in various states and not all of
them were alike. You are generalizing and falling into the hole most
generalizers fall into.
>Mike Curtis>My point was your use of the term "Sabbath." The law was relaxed
>in
>your state for what reason? How about the other 50 states? Are the
>circumstances the same or different?<
>I don't know the reason for the relaxation. At the moment, I don't care. I'm
>still trying to figure out where your going.
The reason for the relaxation was separation of church and state.
>Mike Curtis>Which were not exclusive to the British empire and were not
>exclusively Christian<
>
>BL>Yeah, so?<
>
>Mike Curtis>LOL You concede my point.<
>
>Law against adultery aren't exclusive to Christianity, so what?
Period. Laws against adultery are not exclusive to Christianity. so
your point is arguable and not as you would like it to be. That's so
what.
> Does it make
>the law against adultery any less Christian?
Does it make it any less Jewish? Get it yet?
> That's MY POINT.
You have no point.
> Who cares who
>else on earth shared it?
Human beings who do not share your beliefs about what is or isn't
their religion.
> Jeeeeeeez... this shouldn't be a terrifically hard
>concept to grasp.
I wouldn't think so.
> If we were in Iran, we'd probably call the law a
>codification of an Islamic belief! And.... it would be true.
They, if I understand properly do not have religious freedom.
>As quoted by Mike Curtis>"The examples cited above show that though
>behavioral law was along biblical and mosaic lines there was also a
>body of civil law."<
>
>LOL. This IS rich. YOU enter this discussion challenging me to detail where
>Christianity was codified. And here we find that you knew and agree with
>this all along.
Actually, I know where most of the traditions come from and they are
not exclusively Christian. They are, in some cases moral behaviors
passed down through the generations in various guises and made into
some law. Much of it no longer in force now. The other convenience is
that Western European society founded settlements in the new world as
the luck of the draw would have it, they were Christians. What they
were not was the same kind of Christians. The rich part is the
foundation of Christianity in Western Civilization doesn't start in
the First Century.
>Mike Curtis>So when one persons asserts that Christianity was a part of the
>common
>law, I suppose one can say that is a true assertion but then go on to
>explain what else the law was also. Mentioning only one part is rather
>devious and deceptive.<
>
>LOL, talk about devious and deceptive.
>
>Sir, my interest here is learning about Colonial History. Where I have a
>question, I ask. Where I might have something to add, I do. Save your
>judgements for the politically motivated historians.
You aren't politically motivated?
>BL>Yup, or any other heritage. However, simply counting headstones probably
>would indicate that other heritages were just a slim piece of the pie.<
>
>Mike Curtis>Prove it<
>
>Oh please.. Do I REALLY have to argue that the colonists were for the most
>part Christian? Heck, if experience is a teacher, I'll bet you already have
>the data to prove it yourself...LOL
>
>This is getting silly.
Yes, you are quite silly.
>Mike Curtis>What makes these values exclusively Christian? Which you have
>yet to answer.<
>
>Show me the pertinence of this question.
The values were not exclusively Christian. If you can't realize that
then you can't learn much about colonial history.
> I would dearly like to know a
>belief failing to be exclusive to Christianity fails to be Christian belief.
Thanks for cutting the article I wrote.
Mike Curtis
>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>
>> "BL" <brit...@pe.net> wrote:
>>
>> >BL> Take a peak at early State Constitutions which grant
>> >citizenship to Protestants ONLY.<
>> >
>> >Mike Curtis>Such as Maryland?<
>> >
>> >First, let me correct my statement to 'full rights of citizenship'. The
>> >link below shows some of the religious clauses from earlier State
>> >Constutions.
>> >
>> >http://www.universitylake.org/history/state.html
>> >
>> >Pretty narrow I'd say. Not a lot of room for the deist.
>>
>> What's this hang up with deists? America din't really have any
>> European style deists!
>
>Yea, good question. Perhaps you should ask Mr. Johnson, who constantly
>barrages this group with assertions about how central deism was in the founding.
>
>Now, my question for you is whether you are trying to provide wiggle room for
>yourself by using the adjective "european style." If so, and you agree with
>Mr. Johnson that deism was "the big deal" in the founding, then that is the
>"hang up" with deists that you are asking about.
You know I don't agree with Johnson, Gardiner. You ought to know that.
But you'd rather make this something other than an historical
discussion don't you. You do not have my respect and never will again.
Gardiner
>
> Mike Curtis>What's this hang up with deists? America din't really have any
> European style deists!<
>
> his ezine.
I think that there is a fear that if they attack Mr. Johnson's crazy
assertions about Deism, they will somehow be conceding points to those who
assert a central role for Christianity.
I haven't seen much more than defending Mr. Johnson.
> BL>>Aren't blue laws often a codification of Christian rules, beliefes,
> etc..<
>
> Mike Curtis>Could be, but so what? We'd have to look at them in detail. I do
> have
> them in original form in my library. They cover militia laws, Indian
> laws and all kinds of matters.<
>
> Trace the discussion back to it's roots and you'll find that I said that
> Christian beliefs were already codified. I think blue laws against
> blasphemy, working on the sabath and the state constitutional examples I
> given you make the point.
Believe me, your point was abundantly clear. Mr. Curtis is simply one who
enjoys ignoring the obvious.
> Mike Curtis>My point was your use of the term "Sabbath." The law was relaxed
> in
> your state for what reason? How about the other 50 states? Are the
> circumstances the same or different?<
>
> I don't know the reason for the relaxation. At the moment, I don't care. I'm
> still trying to figure out where your going.
I've been trying to figure it out for more than a year.
> Mike Curtis>Which were not exclusive to the British empire and were not
> exclusively Christian<
>
> BL>Yeah, so?<
>
> Mike Curtis>LOL You concede my point.<
>
> Law against adultery aren't exclusive to Christianity, so what? Does it make
> the law against adultery any less Christian? That's MY POINT. Who cares who
> else on earth shared it? Jeeeeeeez... this shouldn't be a terrifically hard
> concept to grasp.
Right you are. It's quite elementary. School kids can get it. I think the
problem is that it somehow bothers people.
> If we were in Iran, we'd probably call the law a
> codification of an Islamic belief! And.... it would be true.
of course.
> As quoted by Mike Curtis>"The examples cited above show that though
> behavioral law was along biblical and mosaic lines there was also a
> body of civil law."<
>
> LOL. This IS rich. YOU enter this discussion challenging me to detail where
> Christianity was codified. And here we find that you knew and agree with
> this all along.
Yes. Mr. Curtis' long post about the Pilgrims and their laws is filled with
the evidence that what you have said about the role of Christianity embedded
in their laws is absolutely true. For some reason he seems to think that
because common law also involved elements of Roman law, that this is proof
that Christianity was not "codified" into their laws, as you have alleged.
You are not alone in your confusion about Mr. Curtis' views and where he is going.
> Mike Curtis>So when one persons asserts that Christianity was a part of the
> common
> law, I suppose one can say that is a true assertion but then go on to
> explain what else the law was also. Mentioning only one part is rather
> devious and deceptive.<
>
> LOL, talk about devious and deceptive.
>
> Sir, my interest here is learning about Colonial History.
That's a unique approach. Good stuff. One willing to put ideology aside? I
like it. You have brought some sense to this news group.
> BL>Yup, or any other heritage. However, simply counting headstones probably
> would indicate that other heritages were just a slim piece of the pie.<
>
> Mike Curtis>Prove it<
>
> Oh please.. Do I REALLY have to argue that the colonists were for the most
> part Christian? Heck, if experience is a teacher, I'll bet you already have
> the data to prove it yourself...LOL
You don't have to count the headstones. You might as well go out and prove
that the colonists were predominantly humans and not apes. Your assertion is
not controversial at all.
> This is getting silly.
getting?
> Mike Curtis>What makes these values exclusively Christian? Which you have
> yet to answer.<
>
> Show me the pertinence of this question. I would dearly like to know a
> belief failing to be exclusive to Christianity fails to be Christian belief.
Good question. I hope he answers it.
PaulDanaher
> Alan Roth wrote:
> >
> > It seems that our institutional foundation can be justified and
understood
> > without reference to the Bible. We are an extension of the British
> > conceptual framework that evolved from the Magna Carta and from
> > Enlightenment principles.
>
> I don't disagree that U.S. political theory is an heir to the Magna Carta,
> British Common Law, and some enlighteners such as Locke and Puffendorf;
> however, to say that this can be understood without reference to the Bible
is
> not tenable. The British legal tradition and the Scientific Revolution and
> Enlightenment all took place within a context where the Bible was a
central
> influence. These institutions cannot be understood without first
understanding
> the Christian milieu in which they evolved.
They most certainly can. The understanding will certainly be enriched by
adding the Christian milieu, just as it will be enriched by an extensive
grounding in the pagan Roman and Greek writings. Even more important for the
legal tradition, however, are the Roman legal codes which had a direct
influence through (a) Church law and (b) Norman law, with its Roman
foundations.
> > This exploration of this would constitute a
> > "detailed" look at sources for inspiration and governmental
prerogatives.
> > Having said this, though, I am left with the recognition that many of
the
> > principles of democracy are, indeed, Christian in origin. Some seemingly
go
> > back to Moses and the Ten Commandments.
>
> I think that is probably true, too.
Moses brought down a lot more than ten commandments, none of which seem to
me to have anything whatsoever to do with democracy. The only picture I see
there is a theocracy coexisting (and occasionally coextensive) with a
secular leadership. No jury of peers, no habeas corpus, no councils of
elected representatives debating issues - just "and G-d said" (to whichever
prophet was leading off at the time). We have a Burning Bush, but no
fireside chats.
> > I think what we undid in our Revolution was "the divine right of kings,"
> > nothing more, nothing less.
>
> I would agree with the "nothing less" part. But to limit the function of
the
> revolution in such narrow terms seems too untenable.
The DRK had already been thoroughly undone in the English Civil War, and
nobody was even pretending that George was God's representative. The rebels
were fighting a British administration, not a divinely-appointed king.
> > I make the assumption that many of the idealistic goals of our
consciousness
> > can be traced back to the Judeo-Christian ethic. We have access to other
> > influences fairly easily these days, like Confucianism, for example. But
the
> > history of the Western Hemisphere is seated in the Enlightenment and its
> > Judeo-Christian basis.
>
> That is a pretty simple and basic assertion which bothers people these
days.
> Their being bothered, however, does not change the facts of history.
I repeat my point that the Roman input is massively important, not least as
a channel for Greek and Asian influences.
Gardiner
>
> Gardiner wrote in message <37D71A53...@pitnet.net>...
> >Lewis wrote:
> >>
>
> >> Jesus didn't write the thing anyway,
> >> most of it is the work of the Roman Paul who never met Jesus
> >> to start with.
> >
> >According to the Roman Paul, he indeed did meet Jesus (I Corinthians 15:8).
> >Where are you getting your evidence otherwise?
>
> Paul wrote (supposed) Corinthians, and in Acts 9 says Paul heard a voice,
> flash of light, whatever. Jesus had died about 20 years prior
> to this. He never met Jesus becuase talking to dead people is bullshit..
> That is why James ran him out as the lier and fraud he was.
If I grant your premise that Jesus was not resurrected, then you might be
correct about the Paul being a liar in I Corinthians 15:8.
However, your assertion that that was the reason James rejected Paul is
probably not accurate. James' rejection of Paul had more to do with the fact
that Paul wanted to include Greeks and Romans in Christianity, and James
wanted to limit it to Jews. Also, Paul spoke of justification by faith without
works, and James insisted that faith without works is dead. This conflict of
ideas is was divided the two.
I have never seen any material which indicates that the reason James rejected
Paul is because Paul claims to have met Jesus. Can you provide any such material?
RG
Mike Curtis
>BL wrote:
>>
>> Mike Curtis>What's this hang up with deists? America din't really have any
>> European style deists!<
>>
>> Talk to the resident deistic spam artist giving regular shameless plugs for
>> his ezine.
>
>I think that there is a fear that if they attack Mr. Johnson's crazy
>assertions about Deism, they will somehow be conceding points to those who
>assert a central role for Christianity.
>
>I haven't seen much more than defending Mr. Johnson.
Yes, you have and you are lying. You even commented on one of my posts
to him.
Here's my post and following it is your reply:
Path:
news15.ispnews.com!hub1.ispnews.com!news21.ispnews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam (Mike Curtis)
Newsgroups: soc.history.war.us-revolution,alt.history.colonial
Subject: Re: America & Deism
Message-ID: <37317437....@news.sig.net>
References: <37307130...@deism.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 72
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.241.47.57
X-Trace: news21.ispnews.com 925923284 205.241.47.57 (Wed, 05 May 1999
12:54:44 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 12:54:44 EDT
Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 16:52:26 GMT
Xref: hub1.ispnews.com soc.history.war.us-revolution:3943
alt.history.colonial:1947
"Robert L. Johnson" <b...@deism.com> wrote:
>When all is said and done, the fact remains that the Declaration of
>Independence is a Deistic document.
It is actually a political document of the Enlightenment Era. Since
not all those who signed the document were deists, what do you think
they thought of when they read the phrases "nature's god" or "created
equal" or "endowed by their creator with inalienable . . ."?
> It refers to God only in Deistic
>terms such as Nature's God, the Creator and divine Providence.
Gee, what does divine Providence mean to you?
This creator is doing things is giving humans things. What would the
above say to John Adams for example?
> Nowhere
>does it refer to the Bible, Jesus, Moses, etc.
No it doesn't. Yet we are discussing human beings who lived in a
religious age much unlike our own. Jefferson had to be aware of those
factors.
Also, don't you think he was also taking apart, again, the divine
right of kings?
>The US Constitution doesn't refer to God at all.
No, it doesn't. It's a political document designing a new government.
>Since the United States of America didn't exist before the Declaration
>it's logical to say it was founded on Deistic ideas.
Explain.
> It's not logical to
>say it's founded on Christian ideas.
This would be incorrect in the extremity of your statement. It was the
people of Plymouth who wrote the first American Bill of Rights in
1636. It was the Religious Puritans who codified laws which was not
the practice in the mother country. These people set the character of
written law in this country. Other colonies did the same when they saw
what the New Englander's had done. Did their doing this have anything
to do with the fact they happen to be Christians? I can't presume to
say. Maybe had also to do with the kind of society they wanted to
build. The Europeans who first settled here in this land happen to be
Christians. Simply a fact and the way the cards fell. So one could
actually argue that since they are Christians then these would be the
ideas of Christians. Funny that. But you know what? Most all of the
members of the Declaration convention were religious after some form
or another.
>To learn more about Deism, and for hard to find essays by Tom Paine,
>visit the site of the World Union of Deists at: http://www.deism.com
I see.
Mike Curtis
************************************** You replied:
Darn that's an email praising my post. So I won't post that without
your permission. But I replied to another and you replied to that
immediately in the same thread. I'll post the email you wrote if you
wish. That'll just prove how easy it is for to lie.
snipped rest unread.
Gardiner
> > >
> > > It seems that our institutional foundation can be justified and
> understood
> > > without reference to the Bible. We are an extension of the British
> > > conceptual framework that evolved from the Magna Carta and from
> > > Enlightenment principles.
> >
> > I don't disagree that U.S. political theory is an heir to the Magna Carta,
> > British Common Law, and some enlighteners such as Locke and Puffendorf;
> > however, to say that this can be understood without reference to the Bible
> is
> > not tenable. The British legal tradition and the Scientific Revolution and
> > Enlightenment all took place within a context where the Bible was a
> central
> > influence. These institutions cannot be understood without first
> understanding
> > the Christian milieu in which they evolved.
>
> They most certainly can.
It would be like attempting to understand the Civil War as entirely a states
rights matter without first understanding the conflict over slavery. Some may
argue that the Civil War was not directly about slavery, but when we are being
honest with ourselves, we truly can't understand the Civil War without
understanding the antebellum slavery controversy. Likewise, you can attempt to
understand the British legal tradition without first understanding the
Catholic context in which it evolved, but that would be just as dishonest. For
example, Cardinal Langton (a Catholic Bishop) authored the Magna Carta; Henri
de Bracton, another Catholic theologian is called "the father of the Common
Law." If you think that their theological worldview is not necessary for
understanding their writings, you really have no clue as to how to do history.
> The understanding will certainly be enriched by
> adding the Christian milieu, just as it will be enriched by an extensive
> grounding in the pagan Roman and Greek writings. Even more important for the
> legal tradition, however, are the Roman legal codes which had a direct
> influence through (a) Church law and (b) Norman law, with its Roman
> foundations.
I think you are slightly overemphasizing the role of Roman Law, but at least
you grant that the Roman law tradition finds its way to us via Canon Law of
the Catholic Church, which, I hope you have the honesty to admit, added a good
bit of a Christian flavor to the legal tradition we are speaking about.
> Moses brought down a lot more than ten commandments, none of which seem to
> me to have anything whatsoever to do with democracy.
Who ever said that the United States is a democracy? It is a republic. Are you
also alleging that the Pentateuch has no references to presbyterian
(republican) systems of government. Doesn't Deuteronomy 17 speak to forms of
government that were adapted around the time of the Reformation? If you don't
think so, I can provide you with direct citations in the primary literature
where political theorists based much of their thinking on the old system of
Judges found in Deuteronomy.
> The only picture I see
> there is a theocracy coexisting (and occasionally coextensive) with a
> secular leadership. No jury of peers, no habeas corpus, no councils of
> elected representatives debating issues
You will find a jury system. the idea of "peers" is nebulous in any context.
You will find a council which debates controversies, the idea of elections is
also nebulous.
In addition, you will find a system of rules which protect the accused, the
poor and indigent, and a system which grants reprieves and liberty on a
routine basis (very akin to public welfare). Many rights-theorists who study
the development of common law privileges trace the idea of rights of indigents
to Leviticus.
> The DRK had already been thoroughly undone in the English Civil War, and
> nobody was even pretending that George was God's representative.
the DRK revived itself in the time of James II Stuart. I know of no one who
contests that. The Glorious Revolution is usually considered the "undoing" of
the DRK.
Although it may be true that the DRK may not have been in place during the
time of Geo III, the colonists were successful at portraying the situation as
if the DRK were still in place, and saw themselves in the same vein as the
Puritans in the ENglish Civil War, and the Whigs and Lockeans in the Glorious Revolution.
> > That is a pretty simple and basic assertion which bothers people these
> days.
> > Their being bothered, however, does not change the facts of history.
>
> I repeat my point that the Roman input is massively important, not least as
> a channel for Greek and Asian influences.
Agreed. But not at the exclusion of Christian input.
Mike Curtis
>PaulDanaher wrote:
>
>> > >
>> > > It seems that our institutional foundation can be justified and
>> understood
>> > > without reference to the Bible. We are an extension of the British
>> > > conceptual framework that evolved from the Magna Carta and from
>> > > Enlightenment principles.
>> >
>> > I don't disagree that U.S. political theory is an heir to the Magna Carta,
>> > British Common Law, and some enlighteners such as Locke and Puffendorf;
>> > however, to say that this can be understood without reference to the Bible
>> is
>> > not tenable. The British legal tradition and the Scientific Revolution and
>> > Enlightenment all took place within a context where the Bible was a
>> central
>> > influence. These institutions cannot be understood without first
>> understanding
>> > the Christian milieu in which they evolved.
>>
>> They most certainly can.
>
>It would be like attempting to understand the Civil War as entirely a states
>rights matter without first understanding the conflict over slavery. Some may
>argue that the Civil War was not directly about slavery, but when we are being
>honest with ourselves, we truly can't understand the Civil War without
>understanding the antebellum slavery controversy.
We should I guess forget the battles over tariffs?
Maybe we should forget all the bank controversies?
Maybe we should forget the differences between industrial northern
states and agricultural southern states?
Maybe we should forget Lincoln's words to the effect that he would be
willing that slavery remain as long as the state were united.
> Likewise, you can attempt to
>understand the British legal tradition without first understanding the
>Catholic context in which it evolved, but that would be just as dishonest.
Speaking of the origins of English Common Law:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/corpus1.html
Which tells us it isn't exactly catholic at all.
> For
>example, Cardinal Langton (a Catholic Bishop) authored the Magna Carta; Henri
>de Bracton, another Catholic theologian is called "the father of the Common
>Law."
Speaking of honesty, how honest are you being about Bracton?
Thomas Jefferson wrote a couple letters speaking of Bracton. I'll only
post the passages from those letters here.
[Letter written by Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Thomas
Cooper, January 16, 1814, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Library
Edition, Ed Albert Ellery Bergh, Vol XIV, Issued under the Auspices of
The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, Washington D C, 1903, pp
54-63)]
"Your edition will be very useful to our lawyers, some of whom
will need the translation as well as the notes. But what I had wanted
to say to you on the subject, was that I much regret that instead of
this work, useful as it may be, you had not bestowed the same time and
research rather on a translation and notes on Bracton, a work which
has never been performed for us, and which I have always considered as
one of the greatest desiderata in the law. The laws of England, in
their progress from the earliest to the present times, may be likened
to the road of a traveller, divided into distinct stages or resting
places, at each of which a review. is taken of the road passed over so
far. The first of these was Bracton's De legibus Angliae; the second,
Coke's Institutes; the third, the Abridgment of the law by Matthew
Bacon; and the fourth, Blackstone's Commentaries. Doubtless there were
others before Bracton which have not reached us. ALfred, in the
preface to his laws, says they were compiled from those of Ina, Offa,
and Aethelbert, into which, or rather preceding them, the clergy have
interpolated the 20th , 21st , 22nd , 23rd and 24th chapters of
Exodus, so as to place Alfred's preface to what was really his,
awkwardly enough in the body of the work. An interpolation the
more glaring, as containing laws expressly contradicted by those of
Alfred.
[ . . .]
But, all records previous to the Magna Charta having been early lost,
Bracton's is the first digest of the whole body of law which has come
down to us entire. What materials for it existed in his time we know
not, except the unauthoritative collections of Lambard and Wilkins,
and the treatise of Glanville, tempore H. 2. Bracton's is the more
valuable, because being written a very few years after the Magna
Charta, which commences what is called the statute law, it gives us
the state of the common law In its ultimate form, and exactly at the
point of division between the common and statute law. It is a most
able work, complete in its matter and luminous in its method.
[ . . .]
4. A succeeding interval of changes and additions of matter
produced Blackstone's Commentaries, the most lucid in arrangement
which had yet been written, correct in its matter, classical in style,
and rightfully taking its place by the side of the Justinian
Institutes. But, like them it was only an elementary book. It did not
present all the subjects of the law in all their details. It still
left it necessary to recur to the original works of which it was the
summary. The great mass of law books from which it was extracted, was
still to be consulted on minute investigations. It wanted, therefore,
a species of merit which entered deeply into the value of those of
Bracton, Coke and Bacon. They had in effect swept the shelves
of all the materials preceding them. To give Blackstone, therefore, a
full measure of value, another work is still wanting, to wit: to
incorporate with his principles a compend of the particular cases
subsequent to Bacon, of which they are the essence. This might be done
by printing under his text a digest like Bacon's continued to Black-
stone's time. It would enlarge his work, and increase its value
peculiarly to us, because just there we break off from the parent stem
of the English law, unconcerned in any of its subsequent changes or
decisions.
[ . . .]
URL: http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl227.htm
To Dr. Thomas Cooper Monticello, February 10, 1814
[ . . .]
"Bracton gives us a very complete and scientific treatise of the whole
body of the common law. He wrote this about the close of the reign of
Henry III., a very few years after the date of the Magna Charta. We
consider this book as the more valuable, as it was written about fore
gives us the former in its ultimate state. Bracton, too, was an
ecclesiastic, and would certainly not have failed to inform us of the
adoption of Christianity as a part of the common law, had any such
adoption ever taken place. But no word of his, which intimates
anything like it, has ever been cited. Fleta and Britton, who wrote in
the succeeding reign (of Edward I.), are equally silent. So also is
Glanvil, an earlier writer than any of them, (viz.: temp. H. 2,) but
his subject perhaps might not have led him to mention it. Justice
Fortescue Aland, who possessed more Saxon learning than all the judges
and writers before mentioned put together, places this subject on more
limited ground. "
**********************************************************************
There is much on Bracton in Norman F. Cantor's IMAGINING THE LAW -
COMMON LAW AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE AMERICAN lEGAL SYSTEM but if one
turns to page 288 we find this:
"The doctrine of judicial liberalism that Bracton propounded in the
mid-thirteenth century, that law was superior to the king, that the
rule of law and due process made royal power possible rather than the
reverse, sat uneasily with many people in Bracton;'s time and the
following century."
If there is a conduit of any kind it appears to be Bracton through to
Jefferson. :-)
Mike Curtis
Ambrose Bierce wrote:
COMFORT, n. A state of mind produced by contemplation of a neighbor's
uneasiness.
CONVERSATION, n. A fair to the display of the minor mental
commodities, each exhibitor being too intent upon the arrangement of
his own wares to observe those of his neighbor.
> If you think that their theological worldview is not necessary for
>understanding their writings, you really have no clue as to how to do history.
Yup, there's the personal attack. Gardiner always has one.
>> The understanding will certainly be enriched by
>> adding the Christian milieu, just as it will be enriched by an extensive
>> grounding in the pagan Roman and Greek writings. Even more important for the
>> legal tradition, however, are the Roman legal codes which had a direct
>> influence through (a) Church law and (b) Norman law, with its Roman
>> foundations.
>
>I think you are slightly overemphasizing the role of Roman Law, but at least
>you grant that the Roman law tradition finds its way to us via Canon Law of
Well, then so does everyone else who doesn't agree with you. It must
be quite lonely for you.
>the Catholic Church, which, I hope you have the honesty to admit, added a good
>bit of a Christian flavor to the legal tradition we are speaking about.
I really like this from Bolingbroke:
"Who are to be reputed good Christians? Go to Rome, they are papists.
Go to Geneva, they are Calvinists. Go to the north of Germany, they
are Lutherans. Come to London, they are none of these. Orthodoxy is a
mode. It is one thing at one time and in one place. It is something
else at another time, and in another place, or even in the same place:
for in this religious country of ours, without seeking proofs in any
other, men have been burned under one reign, for the very same
doctrines they were obliged to profess in another."
[snip]
>> I repeat my point that the Roman input is massively important, not least as
>> a channel for Greek and Asian influences.
>
>Agreed. But not at the exclusion of Christian input.
It all depends upon what Gardiner and his minion want to emphasize.
LOL
Vaughan James Sanders
<wa...@earthlink.net> writes
>> > I think what we undid in our Revolution was "the divine right of kings,"
>> > nothing more, nothing less.
>>
>> I would agree with the "nothing less" part. But to limit the function of
>the
>> revolution in such narrow terms seems too untenable.
>
>were fighting a British administration, not a divinely-appointed king.
>
the King and transferred to the Republic. I understood this notion had
only recently been challenged successfully in the US legal system.
Jamie
--
Vaughan James Sanders
PaulDanaher
news:37D7C215...@universitylake.org...
attempt to
> understand the British legal tradition without first understanding the
> Catholic context in which it evolved, but that would be just as dishonest.
> example, Cardinal Langton (a Catholic Bishop) authored the Magna Carta;
Henri
> de Bracton, another Catholic theologian is called "the father of the
Common
> understanding their writings, you really have no clue as to how to do
history.
If you're going to make wildly sweeping claims about what is necessary to
understand "the British legal tradition", "the Scientific Revolution" and
"the Enlightenment", you must expect to be called on them. You most
certainly can understand the British legal tradition without "understanding
the Christian milieu in which [it] evolved", which is why you won't find a
course on Christianity in the programme of studies leading to a degree in
British law, or in the examinations for the English bar. To accuse the
English bar of dishonesty on this basis is preposterous.
Langton - well, I don't know about being the "author" of Magna Charta, since
you claim to be a historian, but there's no reason to doubt his involvement.
For my taste Henry de Bracton came a little late to English common law to
qualify as the real "father" (surely Henry II has a better claim), but
that's a personal quibble. In any case, your little sneer "If you think that
their theological worldview is not necessary for understanding their
writings, you really have no clue as to how to do history " is a cheap
debating trick, since I made no such claim.
Similar points can be made for the other two phenomena (not
"institutions")..
> > The understanding will certainly be enriched by
> > adding the Christian milieu, just as it will be enriched by an extensive
> > grounding in the pagan Roman and Greek writings. Even more important for
the
> > legal tradition, however, are the Roman legal codes which had a direct
> > influence through (a) Church law and (b) Norman law, with its Roman
> > foundations.
>
> I think you are slightly overemphasizing the role of Roman Law, but at
least
> you grant that the Roman law tradition finds its way to us via Canon Law
of
> the Catholic Church, which, I hope you have the honesty to admit, added a
good
> bit of a Christian flavor to the legal tradition we are speaking about.
You're very free with accusations of dishonesty, for someone who's just
tried to steal my point - which is precisely that Catholic canon law was the
channel for Roman law to enter the western Christian legal tradition.
> > Moses brought down a lot more than ten commandments, none of which seem
to
> > me to have anything whatsoever to do with democracy.
>
> Who ever said that the United States is a democracy? It is a republic. Are
you
> also alleging that the Pentateuch has no references to presbyterian
> (republican) systems of government. Doesn't Deuteronomy 17 speak to forms
of
> government that were adapted around the time of the Reformation? If you
don't
> think so, I can provide you with direct citations in the primary
literature
> where political theorists based much of their thinking on the old system
of
> Judges found in Deuteronomy.
You're saying the United States isn't a democracy? Which very specific
definition of democracy are you using for this purpose?
It's one thing to point out that (religious) political theorists mined the
bible for their own purposes, another to claim that the bible portrays a
democratic society.
> > The only picture I see
> > there is a theocracy coexisting (and occasionally coextensive) with a
> > secular leadership. No jury of peers, no habeas corpus, no councils of
> > elected representatives debating issues
>
> You will find a jury system. the idea of "peers" is nebulous in any
context.
What on earth do you mean? Are you saying that your dearl Cardinal Langton
was confused about what a "peer" was when he "wrote" Magna Charta?
> You will find a council which debates controversies, the idea of elections
is
> also nebulous.
What do you mean, "the idea of elections is nebulous"?
> In addition, you will find a system of rules which protect the accused,
the
> poor and indigent, and a system which grants reprieves and liberty on a
> routine basis (very akin to public welfare). Many rights-theorists who
study
> the development of common law privileges trace the idea of rights of
indigents
> to Leviticus.
It has other sources - English common law goes back to an ancient pagan
tradition, and I wouldn't be too sure about the sources for the notions in
Leviticus. At times the Hebrews were almost as xenophobic as the Southern
Baptists, but they seem to have got around a lot more.
> > The DRK had already been thoroughly undone in the English Civil War, and
> > nobody was even pretending that George was God's representative.
>
> the DRK revived itself in the time of James II Stuart. I know of no one
who
> contests that. The Glorious Revolution is usually considered the "undoing"
of
> the DRK.
You ought to get out and meet more people. Napoleon did a damn sight more
than the Thirteen Colonies to spread that notion, anyway.
> Although it may be true that the DRK may not have been in place during the
> time of Geo III, the colonists were successful at portraying the situation
as
> if the DRK were still in place, and saw themselves in the same vein as the
> Puritans in the ENglish Civil War, and the Whigs and Lockeans in the
Glorious Revolution.
They needed every myth they could lay their hands on to stiffen their
resolve.
> > > That is a pretty simple and basic assertion which bothers people these
> > days.
> > > Their being bothered, however, does not change the facts of history.
> >
> > I repeat my point that the Roman input is massively important, not least
as
> > a channel for Greek and Asian influences.
>
> Agreed. But not at the exclusion of Christian input.
I've never sought to exclude Christian input, I'm simply pointing out that
the inputs are a lot more diversified than your overly simplified
presentation suggests. If you want to be scholarly, you can't let yourself
get carried away in polemics.
> RG
> http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
Gardiner
>
> Gardiner <ul...@universitylake.org> wrote:
>
> >> These institutions cannot be understood without first
> >> understanding the Christian milieu in which they evolved.
> >>
> > They most certainly can.
> >
> >It would be like attempting to understand the Civil War as entirely a states
> >rights matter without first understanding the conflict over slavery. Some may
> >argue that the Civil War was not directly about slavery, but when we are being
> >honest with ourselves, we truly can't understand the Civil War without
> >understanding the antebellum slavery controversy.
>
> We should I guess forget the battles over tariffs?
Who is saying that?
> Maybe we should forget all the bank controversies?
Who is saying that?
> Maybe we should forget the differences between industrial northern
> states and agricultural southern states?
Who is saying that?
> Maybe we should forget Lincoln's words to the effect that he would be
> willing that slavery remain as long as the state were united.
It was Lincoln's view that slavery should not extend into the newly acquired
territories and states that made the south to threaten to secede if Lincoln
were elected. Since Lincoln was elected, the South seceded. The fundamental
issue, from the Southern perspective, was Lincoln's stand on preventing the
extension of slavery. Granted, Lincoln's perspective was simply to keep the
states together, but he was not willing to do that at the expense of allowing
slavery to extend into new states.
the upshot is, that it's not as simple as you are implying.
> > Likewise, you can attempt to
> >understand the British legal tradition without first understanding the
> >Catholic context in which it evolved, but that would be just as dishonest.
>
> Speaking of the origins of English Common Law:
>
> http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/corpus1.html
>
> Which tells us it isn't exactly catholic at all.
Speaking of common law, the Harvard Professor and Supreme Court justice who
was an expert on common law tells us it is more "christian" than you admit (http://www.universitylake.org/history/story.html)
> > For
> >example, Cardinal Langton (a Catholic Bishop) authored the Magna Carta; Henri
> >de Bracton, another Catholic theologian is called "the father of the Common
> >Law."
>
> Speaking of honesty, how honest are you being about Bracton?
Entirely. Even Your information below, quoting Jefferson, states "Bracton,
too, was an ecclesiastic"? Do you know what an ecclesiastic is??
> Thomas Jefferson wrote a couple letters speaking of Bracton. I'll only
> post the passages from those letters here.
Here is the authoritative refutation of the letters of Jefferson that you
posted, by a law professor:
Mr. Jefferson, in a letter to Major Cartwright, recently published, insists
that the maxim, that Christianity is a part of the common law, has no
foundation in the cases cited to support it, they all referring to the Year
Book, 34 Henry VI. 38, 40; which he says has no such meaning.
The substance of the case in 34 Henry, VI. 38, 40, is this. It was a quare
impedit against the bishop and others; and the bishop pleaded, that the church
was in litigation between the plaintiff and his co-defendant, as to the right
of patronage. The argument by counsel in one part of the case was, that every
advowson and right of patronage depended upon both laws, namely, the law of
the church and the common law ; For every presentment commenced at the common
law and took effect by the law of the church, as to the ability or non-ability
of the clerk presented or his being criminal. And it was said by Ashton, that
if the bishop
should refuse the clerk on account of alleged inability, and a quare impedit
was brought, and the bishop excused himself on that account, and the parties
were at issue upon the fact of ability, another judge should decide that,
namely, the metropolitan. But that was denied by Danby, who said it should be
tried by the jury. Ashton, however, persisted in his opinion, arguing that the
right of advowuon must be tried by both laws, and that before judgment was
given, knowledge ought to be of the ecclesiatical law. Prisot then said: "A
tiels leys gue eux de sainte Esgliue, ont en auncien Scripture convenit pui
nous a doner credence, quia ceo est comen ley, sur quel toutes maners leys
sont foudues; et, auxi, sir, nous sumus obliges de conustre leur ley de saint
Esglise; et semble, ils sount obliges de coniustre- notre ley." The literal
traslation is, "As to those laws which those of holy church have in ancient
scripture, it behooves us to give them credence, for this is common law, upon
which all manner of laws are founded; and thus, sir, we are obliged to take
notice of their law of holy church; and it seems they are obliged to notice of
our law."
Mr. Jefferson supposes that the words "auncien scripture" do not refer to the
Holy Scriptures or Bible, but. to writings, or the written code of the church.
But if this be so, how could Prisot have said that they were common law, upon
which all manner of laws are founded? Do not these words suppose that he was
speaking of some superior law, having a foundation in nature or the Divine
appointment, and not merely a positive ancient code Of the church ?
Mr. Jefferson asserts, that in subsequent cases, which he refers to, the
expression has been constantly understood referring to the Holy Scriptures;
but he thinks it a mistake of Prisot's meaning. Now it is some argument in
favor of the common interpretation, that it has always been cited as clear --
Mr. J.'s interpretation is novel.
This case is cited in Brook's Abrid.s. Title Quare Impedit, pl..12, and in
Fitzherbert's Abridg. s. t. 89; but no notice is taken of Prisot's saying.
Mr. Jefferson quotes sundry cases, where this saying been relied on in proof
of the maxim, that Christianity is a part of the common law.
Thus, in Taylor's case, 1 Vent. 293, indictment for blasphemous words, Hale,
C. J., said, Such blasphemous words are not only an offense against God and
religion, but a crime against the laws and government, and therefore
punishable in this court, &c.; and Christianity is a part of the laws of
England; and therefore to reproach the Christian religion is to speak in
subversion of the law. In the same case in 3 Keble, 607, Hale, C. J. is
reported to have said, "Religion is a part of the law itself, therefore,
injuries to God are as punishable as to the King, or any common power." The
case of 34 Hen. VI. 38, 40, is not here cited by the Court as a foundation of
their opinion. But it proceeds upon a general principle.
So in Rex v. Woolston, 2 Strange, R. 834, S. C. Fitzgibb. 64, the Court said
they could not suffer it to be debated whether to write against Christianity
in general was not an offence punishable in the temporal courts, at common
law, it having been settled so to be in Taylor's case, 1 Vent. R. 293, and
Rex. v. Hall, 1 Strange, R. 416. No reference was here made to the case in 84
Hen. VI.
A reference is made by Mr. J. to Sheppard's Abridgment, title Religion; but
the only position there found is, " that to such laws as have warrant in Holy
Scripture our law giveth credence;" and "laws made against the known law of
God are void;" and for these positions, he cites, among others, the case of 34
Hen. VI. 40.
But independently of any weight in any of these authorities, can any man
seriously doubt, that Christianity is recognized as true, as a revelation, by
the law of England, that is, by the common law? What becomes of her whole
ecclesiastical establishment, and the legal rights growing out of it on any
other supposition? What of her test acts, and acts perpetually referring to it
as a divine system, obligatory upon all? Is not the reviling of any
establishment, created and supported by the public law, held a libel by the
common law?
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: "Christianity a part of the Common Law" by Joseph
Story, written in 1824 but unpublished until published in the American Jurist
Vol. IX, 1833. The Life and Letters of Joseph Story, ed. William Story, Vol.
I, Charles C. Little and James Brown, (1851), 429-434).
> There is much on Bracton in Norman F. Cantor's IMAGINING THE LAW -
> COMMON LAW AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE AMERICAN lEGAL SYSTEM but if one
> turns to page 288 we find this:
>
> "The doctrine of judicial liberalism that Bracton propounded in the
> mid-thirteenth century, that law was superior to the king, that the
> rule of law and due process made royal power possible rather than the
> reverse, sat uneasily with many people in Bracton;'s time and the
> following century."
And where did Bracton get the idea that their was a higher authority than the
king? Do you think that he had never read of the Hebrew prophets challenging
the Jewish Kings on the grounds of "higher law"?
> If there is a conduit of any kind it appears to be Bracton through to
> Jefferson. :-)
You mean OLD TESTAMENT -> THE REV. BRACTON -> JEFFERSON
Right on.
RG
PaulDanaher
> Mike Curtis wrote:
> >
> > Gardiner <ul...@universitylake.org> wrote:
> >
> > >> These institutions cannot be understood without first
> > >> understanding the Christian milieu in which they evolved.
> > >>
> > > They most certainly can.
> > >
> > >It would be like attempting to understand the Civil War as entirely a
states
> > >rights matter without first understanding the conflict over slavery.
Some may
> > >argue that the Civil War was not directly about slavery, but when we
are being
> > >honest with ourselves, we truly can't understand the Civil War without
> > >understanding the antebellum slavery controversy.
> >
> > Speaking of the origins of English Common Law:
> >
> > http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/corpus1.html
> >
> > Which tells us it isn't exactly catholic at all.
>
> Speaking of common law, the Harvard Professor and Supreme Court justice
who
> was an expert on common law tells us it is more "christian" than you admit
(http://www.universitylake.org/history/story.html)
"*The* Harvard Professor and Supreme Court justice who was an expert on
common law" - Story, your reference dated 1829. Oh. Wow. Good grief,
Gardiner, scholarship (if not, sadly, the quality of SC justices) has
advanced somewhat since Story parked his arse on a Harvard chair and an SC
seat.
The same old Story. (The same reference, too!)
"Tell me the old, old Story" [Moody & Sankey, as recorded by yours truly]
> > There is much on Bracton in Norman F. Cantor's IMAGINING THE LAW -
> > COMMON LAW AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE AMERICAN lEGAL SYSTEM but if one
> > turns to page 288 we find this:
> >
> > "The doctrine of judicial liberalism that Bracton propounded in the
> > mid-thirteenth century, that law was superior to the king, that the
> > rule of law and due process made royal power possible rather than the
> > reverse, sat uneasily with many people in Bracton;'s time and the
> > following century."
>
> And where did Bracton get the idea that their was a higher authority than
the
> king? Do you think that he had never read of the Hebrew prophets
challenging
> the Jewish Kings on the grounds of "higher law"?
Where exactly do you see the Hebrew prophets (about as coherent a group as
the Israeli prime ministers IMHO) fitting into this debate about events in
the second millennium CE?
Lewis
Mr. gardiner said:.
>
>If I grant your premise that Jesus was not resurrected, then you might be
>correct about the Paul being a liar in I Corinthians 15:8.
>
There was no resurection, prove it. Again, nobody carries on
conversations with dead people. That is nonsense. I don't
believe in ghost.
>However, your assertion that that was the reason James rejected Paul is
>probably not accurate. James' rejection of Paul had more to do with the
fact
>that Paul wanted to include Greeks and Romans in Christianity, and
Not true, Judaism had always excepted converts. One just had
to conform to Jewish Law. Judaism was widespread by the first century and
wasn't that rigid everywhere.
James
>wanted to limit it to Jews. Also, Paul spoke of justification by faith
without
>works,
Is that way so many Christians ignore the teachings of love taught
by Jesus because just "faith" excuses them for not following a
single thing Jesus was supposed to have said?
and James insisted that faith without works is dead. This conflict of
>ideas is was divided the two.
>I have never seen any material which indicates that the reason James
rejected
>Paul is because Paul claims to have met Jesus. Can you provide any such
material?
I never said he was booted for because he never met Jesus, he was
run out for being a lier and a fraud. Paul introduced pagan nonsense
(Virgin Birth, raising from the dead, etc)
into the reformed Judaism taught by Jesus. Paul invented the
man-god Jesus silliness and also concocted original sin. (yes the
story of the Garden is in Genesis, Paul linked it Jesus) Most
of Pauls bullshit came from a popular pagan cult called the
Mithras.
Lewis
Gardiner
>
> > Speaking of common law, the Harvard Professor and Supreme Court justice
> who
> > was an expert on common law tells us it is more "christian" than you admit
> (http://www.universitylake.org/history/story.html)
>
> "*The* Harvard Professor and Supreme Court justice who was an expert on
> common law" - Story, your reference dated 1829. Oh. Wow. Good grief,
> Gardiner, scholarship (if not, sadly, the quality of SC justices) has
> advanced somewhat since Story parked his arse on a Harvard chair and an SC
> seat.
I was responding to a poster who attempted to prove the absence of
Christianity in the common law by citing letters of Thomas Jefferson, which
were dated even before 1829; I'm surprised that you didn't say to that poster
"Oh Wow, good grief... scholarship has advanced since Thomas Jefferson parked
his arse in Monticello."
You see, it's not the age of the scholarship that you really want to
criticize, it's whether or not the scholarship supports your own ideology.
> > And where did Bracton get the idea that their was a higher authority than
> the
> > king? Do you think that he had never read of the Hebrew prophets
> challenging
> > the Jewish Kings on the grounds of "higher law"?
>
> Where exactly do you see the Hebrew prophets (about as coherent a group as
> the Israeli prime ministers IMHO) fitting into this debate about events in
> the second millennium CE?
The challenges against monarchical authority in the time of the Gregorian
reforms to the time of Magna Carta were largely modeled in the fact that
hebrew prophets such as Jeremiah and Isaiah openly challenged the decisions of
Jewish Kings on the grounds of higher law.
These references are easily seen in the writings of the Barons from the time
of William the Conquerer up through the 18th century. The writings of the
Hebrew prophets were taken by the lords spiritual and temporal to indicate
that they had warrant to challenge the authority of the likes of King John I,
who they eventually forced to sign the Magna Carta and grant them individual rights.
It's really quite a simple fact of history.
RG
Gardiner
>
> Where exactly do you see the Hebrew prophets (about as coherent a group as
> the Israeli prime ministers IMHO) fitting into this debate about events in
> the second millennium CE?
>
> > > If there is a conduit of any kind it appears to be Bracton through to
> > > Jefferson. :-)
> >
> > You mean OLD TESTAMENT -> THE REV. BRACTON -> JEFFERSON
Lest you think that I am just blowing hot air with this assertion, I would
turn the reader's attention to Bracton's "On the Laws of England" (1268),
where Bracton indicates that individual rights are derived from the Levitical
laws in the Old Testament where certain rights of property, etc. were mandated
by God.
The text of Bracton in this regard is available through Cornell University.
The section I am citing is found at: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/bracton/Unframed/English/v2/28.htm
BL
I did.
You asked me if those believes were exclusive to Christianity.
I agreed that they aren't exclusive and I asked you to show the revelance.
You haven't.
Instead, I'm treated to host of disconnected ramblings that seem to want to
spark debate. So far I'm several pages into your ramblings and I've yet to
find a thesis statement. If I wanted this, I'd call my mother in law.
BL>>Sir, my interest here is learning about Colonial History. Where I have a
question, I ask. Where I might have something to add, I do. Save your
judgements for the politically motivated historians.<<
Mike Curtis>>You aren't politically motivated?<<
Nope. I have an interest in colonial history. Maybe because I spent my
childhood in New England. Maybe because my father was an antique dealer.
Maybe because I've always wanted to know who built the stone walls that
stretch for miles and miles into the forest.
About the only practical value history has to modern politics is to help us
learn from our successes and failures. My limited knowledge of history
**might** help me to cast a wiser ballot. Outside of that it does little to
pay my mortgage.
BL>I don't know the reason for the relaxation. At the moment, I don't care.
I'm
still trying to figure out where your going.<
Mike Curtis>The reason for the relaxation was separation of church and
state.<
And I still don't care. We're talking about a relaxation during the 60's.
The ONLY reason I brought it up was to further support my statement that
Christian beliefs were codified early America by showing that some were
still codified in our recent history.
As it appears that you want to drag this discussion into modern political
issues, here goes..
IMHO, ***both*** of sides of modern seperation and church and state
discussions have approached silliness. EACH side is intent on being a victim
and EACH side distorts history to support it's case. That's the extent of my
interest in that topic.
BL>>Trace the discussion back to it's roots and you'll find that I said that
Christian beliefs were already codified. I think blue laws against
blasphemy,<<
Mike Curtis>There were laws prior to the blue laws. Yet we have no laws
today
concerning blasphemy. We outgrew that kind of intolerance.<
Well bully for you. You're compassionate and tolerant. However, I'm not
interested in your moral fiber. Laws against blasphemy were Christian
beliefs codified.
BL>> If we were in Iran, we'd probably call the law a
codification of an Islamic belief! And.... it would be true.<<
Mike Curtis>>They, if I understand properly do not have religious freedom.<<
A flag waiver to boot! Now that you've impressed us with your moral
credentials, perhaps you'll be genuine enough to address peoples comments
directly.
Mike Curtis>The values were not exclusively Christian. If you can't realize
that
then you can't learn much about colonial history.<
STILL doesn't show revelance. Instead of dodging issue by questioning my
ability to grasp the simple try addressing the question.
I would STILL dearly like to know how a belief failing to be exclusive to
Christianity fails to be Christian belief?
BL>> Does it make
the law against adultery any less Christian?<<
Mike Curtis>>Does it make it any less Jewish? Get it yet?<<
STILL doesnt show revelance. So no, I don't get it. Oh wait... are you
saying that the colonials were predominantly Jewish? LOL...maybe we oughta
count headstones!
BL>Who cares who
else on earth shared it?<
Mike Curtis>Human beings who do not share your beliefs about what is or
isn't
their religion.<
oh... I've tried to remain civil, but my blue collar heritage is getting the
best of me. So.....BITE ME you arrogant fool. I'm not impressed with your
mental masturbation.
BL
and prove
that the colonists were predominantly humans and not apes. Your assertion is
not controversial at all.<<
lol... I fear that is EXACTLY where we are going.
BL
Hey Mike... thanks for the repost. One paragraph caught my eye..
Mike Curtis>>This would be incorrect in the extremity of your statement. It
was the
people of Plymouth who wrote the first American Bill of Rights in
1636. It was the Religious Puritans who codified laws which was not
the practice in the mother country. These people set the character of
written law in this country. Other colonies did the same when they saw
what the New Englander's had done. Did their doing this have anything
to do with the fact they happen to be Christians? I can't presume to
say. Maybe had also to do with the kind of society they wanted to
build. The Europeans who first settled here in this land happen to be
Christians. Simply a fact and the way the cards fell. So one could
actually argue that since they are Christians then these would be the
ideas of Christians. Funny that. But you know what? Most all of the
members of the Declaration convention were religious after some form
or another. <<
Out of curiousity, how do you square this with our recent conversations.
Lewis
Gardiner wrote in message <37D8C098...@pitnet.net>...
>Lewis wrote:
>>
>> Mr. gardiner said:.
>> >
>> >If I grant your premise that Jesus was not resurrected, then you might
be
>> >correct about the Paul being a liar in I Corinthians 15:8.
>>
>> There was no resurection, prove it. Again, nobody carries on
>> conversations with dead people. That is nonsense. I don't
>> believe in ghost.
>
I don't have to, I'm not claiming people talk to dead people.
I can't disprove the tooth fairy, but not being able to prove it
false doesn't make it true. There is no tooth fairy, resurection,
Satan, or pink elephants except in the minds of those that
want to believe it.
>
>> >However, your assertion that that was the reason James rejected Paul is
>> >probably not accurate. James' rejection of Paul had more to do with the
>> fact
>> >that Paul wanted to include Greeks and Romans in Christianity, and
>>
>> Not true, Judaism had always excepted converts. One just had
>> to conform to Jewish Law. Judaism was widespread by the first century
and
>> wasn't that rigid everywhere.
>
>According to Acts 15 and portions of Galatians, the Christians in Jerusalem
>believed that Paul should not accept any Greeks into the church who were
not
>circumcised and who were not kosher; Paul did not believe that these
>conditions should be put on Greeks and Romans, so James and his ilk
rejected Paul.
No shit that what Galations and Acts said. Paul wrote Galations,
Luke was supposed to have written Acts. He was a follower of the
Roman Paul who also never met Jesus. Paul was a Roman
who promoted Greco/Roman culture, That why he wanted to
seperate Jesus from the Judaism he stood for. Next...
>> James
>> >wanted to limit it to Jews. Also, Paul spoke of justification by faith
>> without
>> >works,
>>
>> Is that way so many Christians ignore the teachings of love taught
>> by Jesus because just "faith" excuses them for not following a
>> single thing Jesus was supposed to have said?
>
>perhaps.
>>
>> and James insisted that faith without works is dead. This conflict of
>> >ideas is was divided the two.
>>
>> >I have never seen any material which indicates that the reason James
>> rejected
>> >Paul is because Paul claims to have met Jesus. Can you provide any such
>> material?
>>
>> I never said he was booted for because he never met Jesus, he was
>> run out for being a lier and a fraud.
>
>Nope. As I stated above, the central issue of the conflict had to do with
>eating meat of strangled animals, circumcision, and other Jewish rules.
James
>embraced them, Paul didn't.
>
Doesn't matter Paul believed, he is still a lier, a pagan, and a Roman
that never met Jesus and rejected everything he stood for. Why is
he even in the Bible? Better yet, why is Jesus in it, 90% of
the thing is Paul anyway.
>> Paul introduced pagan nonsense
>> (Virgin Birth, raising from the dead, etc)
>> into the reformed Judaism taught by Jesus. Paul invented the
>> man-god Jesus silliness and also concocted original sin. (yes the
>> story of the Garden is in Genesis, Paul linked it Jesus) Most
>> of Pauls bullshit came from a popular pagan cult called the
>> Mithras.
>>
>> Lewis
>
>Okay. Would you perhaps be willing to tell me what this has to do with
George
>Washington's beliefs regarding Christianity?
My point exactly. You try too claim everything that relates
to the foundations of this nation are Christian in origin
when they are not. Yes, Christianity certainly influenced
the founding fathers but they based their works on many
non-Christian sources as well. You even make the absurd claim
this is not a democracy, if that is what you believe and
want, then I suggest you go talk to dead people and write
your own holy book. This sir, is a deist newsgroup,
as a deist I don't buy into magic, miracles, voices silliness.
At the same time, I don't think it is right to exclude the influence
of Christianity in our history books in school, etc. Both the
atheists and the fundamentalists are dead wrong and the world
is many shades of gray. I know you mean well, best wishes
to you.
Lewis
João Manuel Tocha
SECURITY CONSIL TO SEND TROPS TO EAST TIMOR?
DILI, the East Timor capital is hunder a major fire caused by Indonesia and
the Milicia Groups.
USA, stand up for the HUMAN RIGHTS, DEFEND the east timor people from the
major Genocide, that is Hapenig
USA, citizens please pressure the congress and BILL CLINTON.
DON'T LET East Timor DIE
This is a desperate CALL for help...
Just this afternnom 100 persons die in EAST TIMOR 1 of them was a USA
citizen that was shot ?
You have made intervencions in SOMALIA, KOSOVO, IRAQUE, PANAMA, why dont you
now do the same in east TIMOR
THE PEOPLE OF EAST TIMOR HAVE Decided democrataly for the independecy 78.5%
VOTES IN FAVOR OF INDEPENDECY
Lewis <use...@mounet.com> wrote in message
news:rt8udi...@corp.supernews.com...
> Hardcore fundamentalist Christians have never stood for
> freedom of anything other than being another Christian
> like themselves. Democracy has no basis in the Bible.
>
> Lewis
>
> Gardiner wrote in message <37D46E5E...@pitnet.net>...
> >Lewis wrote:
> >>
> >> You still haven't answered the question, what was the religious theme
> >> they fought for?
> >
> >You truly are mentally deficient, aren't you. The question was answered:
> >apparently you have the inability to read;
> >
> >you wrote:> I'll ask the question
> >> again, What religious point was the war fought over?
> >
> >And I responded:
> >
> >> Liberty of conscience. You probably have not heard of that.
> >
> >I also included a list of about a dozen scholarly books which give the
> proof
> >and the details of my answer. If you expect me to retype the entire text
of
> >each of the books, you really are a loser.
> >
> >Do you want to ask one more time, for good luck sake?
> >
> >RG
>
>
Gardiner
>
> You ask me to tell you what and where Christian beliefs were codified.
>
> I did.
>
> You asked me if those believes were exclusive to Christianity.
>
> I agreed that they aren't exclusive and I asked you to show the revelance.
>
> You haven't.
>
> Instead, I'm treated to host of disconnected ramblings that seem to want to
> spark debate. So far I'm several pages into your ramblings and I've yet to
> find a thesis statement. If I wanted this, I'd call my mother in law.
You have quickly discovered that your good common sense and no-brainer
assertions about the role of Christianity in American history have no place
among the ideologues who ramble in this newsgroup.
If you are expecting Mr. Curtis to advance and support a thesis, you will be
waiting a long time. He sees his role here as one whose job is to divert your
attention away from proving a point by inserting tangential comments.
For example, if you say, "cows give milk" you can expect him to say, "yes, but
goats give milk, too" as if he has proven your statement wrong.
You have pointed out very clearly that Colonial laws were predominantly
Christian in character, and Mr. Curtis has pointed out the fact that Muslims
outlaw adultery just as Christians do. As a matter of fact, there may be
martians who criminalize adultery on planet vulcan. That doesn't change the
fact that the Pilgrims outlawed adultery on biblical grounds, which is all you
were saying in the first place.
> BL>>Sir, my interest here is learning about Colonial History. Where I have a
> question, I ask. Where I might have something to add, I do. Save your
> judgements for the politically motivated historians.<<
>
> Mike Curtis>>You aren't politically motivated?<<
>
> Nope. I have an interest in colonial history. Maybe because I spent my
> childhood in New England. Maybe because my father was an antique dealer.
> Maybe because I've always wanted to know who built the stone walls that
> stretch for miles and miles into the forest.
But surely anyone who would allege that the American colonists were
predominantly Christians must be politically motivated.
> BL>>Trace the discussion back to it's roots and you'll find that I said that
> Christian beliefs were already codified. I think blue laws against
> blasphemy,<<
>
> Mike Curtis>There were laws prior to the blue laws. Yet we have no laws
> today
> concerning blasphemy. We outgrew that kind of intolerance.<
In this score, Mr. Curtis is just factually wrong, again. In many states and
in even more municipalities, saying "god damn" in public is still punishable
by a fine, although these blasphemy laws are seldom enforced. Adultery is
still illegal in a number of states. Nudity remains outlawed in many
jurisdictions. Sodomy is a crime in a multitude of places.
> Well bully for you. You're compassionate and tolerant. However, I'm not
> interested in your moral fiber. Laws against blasphemy were Christian
> beliefs codified.
But what about the fact that the Japanese might have had blasphemy laws too?
And what about the fact that the the price of eggs in timbuktu has risen 4
percent since 1913?
> BL>> If we were in Iran, we'd probably call the law a
> codification of an Islamic belief! And.... it would be true.<<
>
> Mike Curtis>>They, if I understand properly do not have religious freedom.<<
>
> A flag waiver to boot! Now that you've impressed us with your moral
> credentials, perhaps you'll be genuine enough to address peoples comments
> directly.
You mean that your point had nothing to do with whether Saddam Hussein
believes in Separation of Church and state? And I thought that's where you
were going with this all along.
> Mike Curtis>The values were not exclusively Christian. If you can't realize
> that
> then you can't learn much about colonial history.<
>
> STILL doesn't show revelance. Instead of dodging issue by questioning my
> ability to grasp the simple try addressing the question.
>
> I would STILL dearly like to know how a belief failing to be exclusive to
> Christianity fails to be Christian belief?
You do see Mr. Curtis' strategy. He believes that if he can show that any part
of the ideals of the colonists were drawn from extra-Christian sources, then
he can refute the assertion that Christianity was the predominant influence in
Early American politics and law. You have rightly challenged this strategy,
and you'll probably not get a straight answer.
> BL>> Does it make
> the law against adultery any less Christian?<<
>
> Mike Curtis>>Does it make it any less Jewish? Get it yet?<<
>
> STILL doesnt show revelance. So no, I don't get it. Oh wait... are you
> saying that the colonials were predominantly Jewish? LOL...maybe we oughta
> count headstones!
I still think that you haven't disproven the "ape" theory.
> Mike Curtis>Human beings who do not share your beliefs about what is or
> isn't
> their religion.<
>
> oh... I've tried to remain civil, but my blue collar heritage is getting the
> best of me. So.....BITE ME you arrogant fool. I'm not impressed with your
> mental masturbation.
This is what you should have said from the beginning. You wasted your time
trying to reason with someone who refuses to be reasonable.
RG
Gardiner
>
> Mr. gardiner said:.
> >
> >If I grant your premise that Jesus was not resurrected, then you might be
> >correct about the Paul being a liar in I Corinthians 15:8.
>
> There was no resurection, prove it. Again, nobody carries on
> conversations with dead people. That is nonsense. I don't
> believe in ghost.
I can't prove it. But I'm not sure you can disprove it.
> >However, your assertion that that was the reason James rejected Paul is
> >probably not accurate. James' rejection of Paul had more to do with the
> fact
> >that Paul wanted to include Greeks and Romans in Christianity, and
>
> Not true, Judaism had always excepted converts. One just had
> to conform to Jewish Law. Judaism was widespread by the first century and
> wasn't that rigid everywhere.
According to Acts 15 and portions of Galatians, the Christians in Jerusalem
believed that Paul should not accept any Greeks into the church who were not
circumcised and who were not kosher; Paul did not believe that these
conditions should be put on Greeks and Romans, so James and his ilk rejected Paul.
> James
> >wanted to limit it to Jews. Also, Paul spoke of justification by faith
> without
> >works,
>
> Is that way so many Christians ignore the teachings of love taught
> by Jesus because just "faith" excuses them for not following a
> single thing Jesus was supposed to have said?
perhaps.
>
> and James insisted that faith without works is dead. This conflict of
> >ideas is was divided the two.
>
> >I have never seen any material which indicates that the reason James
> rejected
> >Paul is because Paul claims to have met Jesus. Can you provide any such
> material?
>
> I never said he was booted for because he never met Jesus, he was
> run out for being a lier and a fraud.
Nope. As I stated above, the central issue of the conflict had to do with
eating meat of strangled animals, circumcision, and other Jewish rules. James
embraced them, Paul didn't.
> Paul introduced pagan nonsense
PaulDanaher
> PaulDanaher wrote:
> >
> > > Speaking of common law, the Harvard Professor and Supreme Court
justice
> > who
> > > was an expert on common law tells us it is more "christian" than you
admit
> > (http://www.universitylake.org/history/story.html)
> >
> > "*The* Harvard Professor and Supreme Court justice who was an expert on
> > common law" - Story, your reference dated 1829. Oh. Wow. Good grief,
> > Gardiner, scholarship (if not, sadly, the quality of SC justices) has
> > advanced somewhat since Story parked his arse on a Harvard chair and an
SC
> > seat.
>
> Christianity in the common law by citing letters of Thomas Jefferson,
which
> were dated even before 1829; I'm surprised that you didn't say to that
poster
> "Oh Wow, good grief... scholarship has advanced since Thomas Jefferson
parked
> his arse in Monticello."
>
> You see, it's not the age of the scholarship that you really want to
> criticize, it's whether or not the scholarship supports your own ideology.
I've gone back over the sequence. Curtis (who I don't always agree with
either) wrote "Thomas Jefferson wrote a couple letters speaking of Bracton.
I'll only post the passages from those letters here." That seemed (and, on
rereading, seems) a perfectly relevant and rather interesting sideline
rather than an attempt "to prove the absence of Christianity in the common
law by citing letters of Thomas Jefferson".
You know nothing of my "ideology", you're just making personal assumptions.
> > > And where did Bracton get the idea that their was a higher authority
than
> > the
> > > king? Do you think that he had never read of the Hebrew prophets
> > challenging
> > > the Jewish Kings on the grounds of "higher law"?
> >
> > Where exactly do you see the Hebrew prophets (about as coherent a group
as
> > the Israeli prime ministers IMHO) fitting into this debate about events
in
> > the second millennium CE?
>
> The challenges against monarchical authority in the time of the Gregorian
> reforms to the time of Magna Carta were largely modeled in the fact that
> hebrew prophets such as Jeremiah and Isaiah openly challenged the
decisions of
> Jewish Kings on the grounds of higher law.
>
> These references are easily seen in the writings of the Barons from the
time
> of William the Conquerer up through the 18th century. The writings of the
> Hebrew prophets were taken by the lords spiritual and temporal to indicate
> that they had warrant to challenge the authority of the likes of King John
I,
> who they eventually forced to sign the Magna Carta and grant them
individual rights.
What on earth do you mean by "the writings of the Barons from the time of
William the Conquerer up through the 18th century"?
> It's really quite a simple fact of history.
You're skittering around in his argument like a fart in a colander - what
are we talking about here? George Washington being a deist? Whether the
Declaration of Independence was a rebuttal of the divine right of kings?
One thing that is abundantly clear about the American Revolution is that the
rebels were abundantly clear that they didn't want a religious
administration any more than they wanted a British one. Freedom of
conscience also meant freedom from somebody else's religion. Under these
circumstances, an appeal to the "higher law" of God was much too dangerous
to be a general rallying cry, however much it may have soothed the
conscience of the individual. These people had very direct and unpleasant
experience of the secular effects of other people's version of God!
> RG
PaulDanaher
> PaulDanaher wrote:
> >
> > Where exactly do you see the Hebrew prophets (about as coherent a group
as
> > the Israeli prime ministers IMHO) fitting into this debate about events
in
> > the second millennium CE?
> >
> > > > If there is a conduit of any kind it appears to be Bracton through
to
> > > > Jefferson. :-)
> > >
> > > You mean OLD TESTAMENT -> THE REV. BRACTON -> JEFFERSON
>
> turn the reader's attention to Bracton's "On the Laws of England" (1268),
> where Bracton indicates that individual rights are derived from the
Levitical
> laws in the Old Testament where certain rights of property, etc. were
mandated
> by God.
>
> The text of Bracton in this regard is available through Cornell
University.
> The section I am citing is found at:
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/bracton/Unframed/English/v2/28.htm
>
feel you're overstating your case here. Bracton is actually talking about
the jus gentium in this passage, which is a natural line of thought given
his theological worldview and inheritance. However, individual rights in
English common law have a pagan origin, however Bracton may have recast
their justification.
Having said this, let me make it very clear that I'm not denying the
Judaeo-Christian influences at work. My point - once again - is that other
influences had formative status.
> RG
> http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
Mike Curtis
>> Not true, Judaism had always excepted converts. One just had
>> to conform to Jewish Law. Judaism was widespread by the first century and
>> wasn't that rigid everywhere.
>
>According to Acts 15 and portions of Galatians, the Christians in Jerusalem
>believed that Paul should not accept any Greeks into the church who were not
>circumcised and who were not kosher; Paul did not believe that these
>conditions should be put on Greeks and Romans, so James and his ilk rejected Paul.
Gardiner, Galatians and Acts were written at least 70 or more years
after the death of Jesus. Jeez.
Mike Curtis
>
>Hey Mike... thanks for the repost. One paragraph caught my eye..
>
>Mike Curtis>>This would be incorrect in the extremity of your statement. It
>was the
>people of Plymouth who wrote the first American Bill of Rights in
>1636. It was the Religious Puritans who codified laws which was not
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the practice in the mother country. These people set the character of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>written law in this country. Other colonies did the same when they saw
>what the New Englander's had done. Did their doing this have anything
>to do with the fact they happen to be Christians? I can't presume to
>say. Maybe had also to do with the kind of society they wanted to
>build. The Europeans who first settled here in this land happen to be
>Christians. Simply a fact and the way the cards fell. So one could
>actually argue that since they are Christians then these would be the
>ideas of Christians. Funny that. But you know what? Most all of the
>members of the Declaration convention were religious after some form
>or another. <<
>
>Out of curiousity, how do you square this with our recent conversations.
You didn't bother to read it very well did you? You also conveniently
CUT what laws they did make such as laws giving women rights above and
beyond the English common law. Property laws were also vastly
different from their experiences in England. These laws had not one
wit to do with the Bible.
Mike Curtis
Thanks for handling the Joseph Story stuff. It is an old technique
from Mr. Gardiner.
More on Bracton:
There is much on Bracton in Norman F. Cantor's IMAGINING THE LAW -
COMMON LAW AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE AMERICAN lEGAL SYSTEM but if one
turns to page 288 we find this:
"The doctrine of judicial liberalism that Bracton propounded in the
mid-thirteenth century, that law was superior to the king, that the
rule of law and due process made royal power possible rather than the
reverse, sat uneasily with many people in Bracton;'s time and the
following century."
People of Bracton's time like "Langton, Albert the German, and Aquinas
were in the full sense of the term churchmen; Bracton was not. to be a
student at Paris in the thirteenth century you had to be in holy
orders--that is, nominally a churchman--but Bracton's ambition and
interest focused not on serving ther church, but rather on working as
a lawyer in the royal administration. In temperament he was a secular
lawyer, Pursuing that inclination, he had a very successful career,
becoming the leading royal judge of his time." He made notes of his
cases and those along with his ideas have survived to our time. he
heard both civil and criminal cases. "His treatise shows that he was
particularly interested in contract law, the exposition of which in
his treatise he makes extensive use of Roman law. but Bracton also
appears to have been fascinated by criminal trials and to have
reflected much on the developing jury-of-verdict system." He was
interested also in constitutional law and the "relationship between
royal government and judicial operations. "the treatise that bears
Bracton's name is the work of a man learned in Roman law derived from
clerical and continental traditions, as well as a master of the
procedures and ideas of the common law." [Cantor pages 122-124]
[snip]
Oh, you may not always agree with me but at least we can carry on a
discussion?
[snip]
>What on earth do you mean by "the writings of the Barons from the time of
>William the Conquerer up through the 18th century"?
>
>> It's really quite a simple fact of history.
>
>You're skittering around in his argument like a fart in a colander - what
>are we talking about here? George Washington being a deist? Whether the
>Declaration of Independence was a rebuttal of the divine right of kings?
>
>One thing that is abundantly clear about the American Revolution is that the
>rebels were abundantly clear that they didn't want a religious
>administration any more than they wanted a British one.
Though we must agree that many resulting states did establish
religions. Not always the same one but they did establish religions.
> Freedom of
>conscience also meant freedom from somebody else's religion.
Freedom of conscience did not mean one was free of another's religion.
That religion was always there. Freedom of conscience meant that the
state could not tell an individual what his conscience should be.
> Under these
>circumstances, an appeal to the "higher law" of God was much too dangerous
>to be a general rallying cry,
Yet it was general. The problem we must deal with is what no one at
either extreme want to deal with. That problem is that general calls
mean different things to different folks in the generality. People
were free to interpret calls to supernatural beliefs in any way they
wanted to. What has changed today is that those who do not wish to
have beliefs in an organized faith should be free by right not to have
to make their disbeliefs known. Freedom of conscience.
> however much it may have soothed the
>conscience of the individual. These people had very direct and unpleasant
>experience of the secular effects of other people's version of God!
The last bit I can't seem to put together with an historical event or
sense. In other words, I don't understand.
BL
Mike Curtis wrote in message <6DXZNxuF=FMOYFXOVK...@4ax.com>...
LOL... Ready, Fire, Aim??? YOUR post from which I excerpted YOUR paragraph
said NOTHING about laws giving women rights above and beyond English common
law. It might help to get the facts right before taking pot shots. The
sequence is Ready, Aim, then Fire.
Shucks, and I wasted all that time re-reading your re-post because I thought
an apology might be due!
Still though, in or out of context this little piece of work stands on it's
own merits....
"The Europeans who first settled here in this land happen to be
Christians. Simply a fact and the way the cards fell. So one could
actually argue that since they are Christians then these would be the
ideas of Christians. "
Well, I guess everyone experiences flashes of common sense at one time or
another.
Lewis
How right you are BL. Let's face the fact that both Christian
and non-Christian ideas both influenced our society. As BL
said, it is foolish to write off either one.
Lewis
BL wrote in message ...
>Yup. I've heard from *some* fundamentalists that would have us believe that
>the intent of the fathers was to establish a theocracy. I've also heard
>*some* of the more humanistic ilk try to take and erase serious mention of
>Christianity from our history.
>
>Both are wrong and both are failing to serve their own interests. True
>history *can* be our teacher. False history robs us of an opportunity to
>learn from our past.
>
>Minimizing the Salem witch trials doesn't help Christians to learn from
past
>mistakes. Becoming blinded to the contributions that Christians have made
>because of the Salem witch trials, robs the humanist of an opportunity to
>learn from success.
BL
The Shoe wrote in message <01befa4e$53a88a20$214a56d1@default>...
>I'm not so sure. I think the so-called Fundamentalist Christians are trying
>to revise history. They want to portray Washington as one of them so those
>of us who admire Washington will want to join their party. Of course, they
>know it is not correct. For one thing George had a sense of accountability,
>felt that God would reward him according to his deeds. Fundamentalist have
>rejected accountability, except in the context of jailing everybody who
>will not join them.
BL
a sailor walking into a bar full of marines, he'd probably learn that I can
agree with much of what he has to say.
I think that there is a lot of truth to what he is saying. Not only are
there shared beliefs among world religions, but some of the traditions of
Christianity do have their roots in other religions.
But... so what? Despite it's origins, most of us would consider the
tradition of a Christmas tree a Christian tradition in America. And.. it is.
In a sense, I would think the same would be true of laws that have their
roots in non-Christian cultures. If Christians choose to accept an ancient
Roman Law tradition because they believe that it is consistent their system
of beliefs, that in itself would be a codification of their beliefs. It
shouldn't have to be found word for word in Leviticus. The fact that a
Christain culture might use it's beliefs as a litmus test to gauge the
suitability of a law is sufficient.
Heck, isn't that what we here from the more politically active Christians
today when the argue issues such as taxes? Don't they appeal to ideals of
fairness that find their roots in their religion? Why should the behavior of
Christain founding fathers be any different? In fact, I wonder if the
appeals by non-Christian founders using Christain arguments helps to prove
that Christian founders did use their beliefs as a test for new ideas about
goverment?
Gardiner wrote in message <37D8BEB9...@pitnet.net>...
PaulDanaher
news:3lbZN24sXfe8i9...@4ax.com...
> "PaulDanaher" <wa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Thanks for handling the Joseph Story stuff. It is an old technique
> from Mr. Gardiner.
>
> More on Bracton:
>
> COMMON LAW AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE AMERICAN lEGAL SYSTEM but if one
> turns to page 288 we find this:
>
> "The doctrine of judicial liberalism that Bracton propounded in the
> mid-thirteenth century, that law was superior to the king, that the
> rule of law and due process made royal power possible rather than the
> reverse, sat uneasily with many people in Bracton;'s time and the
> following century."
>
> were in the full sense of the term churchmen; Bracton was not. to be a
> student at Paris in the thirteenth century you had to be in holy
> orders--that is, nominally a churchman--but Bracton's ambition and
> interest focused not on serving ther church, but rather on working as
> a lawyer in the royal administration. In temperament he was a secular
> lawyer, Pursuing that inclination, he had a very successful career,
> becoming the leading royal judge of his time." He made notes of his
> cases and those along with his ideas have survived to our time. he
> heard both civil and criminal cases. "His treatise shows that he was
> particularly interested in contract law, the exposition of which in
> his treatise he makes extensive use of Roman law. but Bracton also
> appears to have been fascinated by criminal trials and to have
> reflected much on the developing jury-of-verdict system." He was
> interested also in constitutional law and the "relationship between
> royal government and judicial operations. "the treatise that bears
> Bracton's name is the work of a man learned in Roman law derived from
> clerical and continental traditions, as well as a master of the
> procedures and ideas of the common law." [Cantor pages 122-124]
>
education.
> [snip]
>
> Oh, you may not always agree with me but at least we can carry on a
> discussion?
I would certainly hope so - why ever not? Also, the fact that I don't agree
with someone doesn't mean that I'm necessarily right!
> [snip]
>
> >What on earth do you mean by "the writings of the Barons from the time of
> >William the Conquerer up through the 18th century"?
> >
> >> It's really quite a simple fact of history.
> >
> >You're skittering around in his argument like a fart in a colander - what
> >are we talking about here? George Washington being a deist? Whether the
> >Declaration of Independence was a rebuttal of the divine right of kings?
> >
> >One thing that is abundantly clear about the American Revolution is that
the
> >rebels were abundantly clear that they didn't want a religious
> >administration any more than they wanted a British one.
>
> Though we must agree that many resulting states did establish
> religions. Not always the same one but they did establish religions.
What is there to agree about? That's a historical fact. I should have
written that the rebels didn't want a *specific* religious administration,
since of course there were 365 different flavours of Christianity in play
here.
> > Freedom of
> >conscience also meant freedom from somebody else's religion.
>
> Freedom of conscience did not mean one was free of another's religion.
> That religion was always there. Freedom of conscience meant that the
> state could not tell an individual what his conscience should be.
Well, that was what I meant - the freedom to be a Christian Type A (Jesus
positive?) although your neighbours are Christian Type B.
> > Under these
> >circumstances, an appeal to the "higher law" of God was much too
dangerous
> >to be a general rallying cry,
>
> Yet it was general. The problem we must deal with is what no one at
> either extreme want to deal with. That problem is that general calls
> mean different things to different folks in the generality. People
> were free to interpret calls to supernatural beliefs in any way they
> wanted to. What has changed today is that those who do not wish to
> have beliefs in an organized faith should be free by right not to have
> to make their disbeliefs known. Freedom of conscience.
I'm not clear what you're saying in the last two sentences here - are you
talking about religious tests? It seems to me that Article VI with its
"bound by oath or affirmation" formulation is covering not only Christians
who object to swearing oaths but also nonbelievers.
> > however much it may have soothed the
> >conscience of the individual. These people had very direct and unpleasant
> >experience of the secular effects of other people's version of God!
>
> The last bit I can't seem to put together with an historical event or
> sense. In other words, I don't understand.
>
I was thinking of religious persecution of "Christians" by "Christians"
(including secular discrimination).
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|BL> Take a peak at early State Constitutions which grant
>:|citizenship to Protestants ONLY.<
>:|
>:|Mike Curtis>Such as Maryland?<
>:|
>:|First, let me correct my statement to 'full rights of citizenship'. The
>:|link below shows some of the religious clauses from earlier State
>:|Constutions.
>:|
>:|http://www.universitylake.org/history/state.html
>:|
>:|Pretty narrow I'd say. Not a lot of room for the deist. Heck Catholics
>:|probably had a tough time finding a residence.
>:|
You might want to check out the following as well:
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/cnstntro.htm
**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
Page is a member of the following web rings:
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
Legal Research Ring
**********************************************
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|
>:|Mike Curtis>What's this hang up with deists? America din't really have any
>:|European style deists!<
>:|
>:|Talk to the resident deistic spam artist giving regular shameless plugs for
>:|his ezine.
Whom might that be?
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|
>:|Trace the discussion back to it's roots and you'll find that I said that
>:|Christian beliefs were already codified. I think blue laws against
>:|blasphemy, working on the sabath and the state constitutional examples I
>:|given you make the point.
>:|
What is the status of such laws today?
See
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/cnstntro.htm