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 Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

(History) Christianity and the Founders

3 views

Skip to first unread message

buckeye

unread,

Jul 4, 2008, 1:49:44 PM7/4/08

A LESSON IN HISTORY

Mar 7 1999, 4:00 am
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: jali...@pilot.infi.net
Date: 1999/03/07
Subject: Re: Christianity and the Founders
Gardiner <Gardi...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|In regards to the fascinating new book on the founding of the U.S.,
found at http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
>:|
>:|Robert L. Johnson wrote:
>:|>
>:|> I just visited the site and the way it looks to me is the book
makes the
>:|> claim that America owes its existence to Christianity and that
>:|> Christianity permeates the founding of our country. If this were true
>:|> Jesus would at least be mentioned in the Declaration of
Independence or
>:|> the Constitution. Jesus and the Bible are NOT mentioned in either
one.
>:|> The Declaration mentions God only in Deistic terms. And that's what
>:|> Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, and many other key founders were -
Deists.
>:|>
>:|> Bob
>:|
>:|Dear Bob,
>:|
>:| I perceive you are a committed deist, and I don't want to
quarrel with
>:|you about the merits of your religion, but your assertions about
American
>:|history are wrong-headed and unsupportable.
>:|
>:| Six facts, I hope you will have the integrity to admit are
indisputable:
>:|
>:| 1) Neither Jefferson nor Paine were part of the assembly of
founders
>:|who wrote the U.S. Constitution in 1787.

This is true, So, what is your point?

>:|
>:| 2) Paine was a first generation immigrant to the U.S. at
the behest of
>:|Benjamin Franklin, and although his book, COMMON SENSE, was a best
seller as a
>:|political tract, his views on religion led him to be labelled an
infidel by
>:|the majority of the key founders. As an immigrant it is not fair to
say that
>:|Paine's perspective was the product of six generations of life in
the American
>:|Colonies.

This is irrelevant

>:|His religious perspective did not represent the consensus of the
>:|colonists.
>:|In key places such as Princeton, all students had to refute Paine
>:|as a part of their graduation requirements.

Evidence?

>:|
>:| 3) The following "key founders" were strongly Christian,
and by that,
>:|I mean traditional orthodox believers in the trinity:
>:|

Before we get into all this let me post the following:

********************************************************************************\
**

As students of the separation debate quickly discover, the
"quotation war" between accomodationists and separationists tends to
produce a lot more heat than light. There are at least two reasons
for this. First, most quotations are ripped out of the context of the
documents from which they are quoted, which leads to misinterpretation
and misrepresentation. Second, it's easy to read too much into a
quotation, especially if the quotation does not directly address the
claim one is attempting to prove. The best historical studies on
church/state separation take these issues into account when drawing
conclusions from quotations; we hope we have done the same in this
webpage.

Having said this, we want to argue that there are some systematic
problems with way many accomodationists use quotations. In particular,
we believe that many of their quotations are not sufficient to
establish their primary claim that the framers intended the
Constitution to favor either Christianity or theism, or provide aid to
religion. In what follows, we present some guidelines accomodationists
should follow if they want to successfully use quotations to prove
their points.

Quote the framers, and not just famous early
Americans:
If you want to prove something about what the framers of the
constitution believed, you have to quote the framers themselves, and
not just famous Americans that lived around the turn of the 19th
century. Many accomodationists, for example, are fond of quoting the
famous lawyer and statesman Daniel Webster, who was a staunch
proponent of Christian influence in government, but Webster played no
role whatsoever in the formation of the Constitution (he did not even
begin to practice law until 1805, 14 years after the ratification of
the Bill of Rights). Webster's opinions may have been
well-articulated, but they are not the same as the views of the framers.

Quote supporters of the Constitution, not detractors:
If you want to find out how the Constitution was understood in 1787,
quote people that supported the Constitution, and not those who
thought the Constitution was evil. Patrick Henry, for example, made a
number of statements suggesting that our nation was founded on belief
in God, and that it was important to acknowledge God in civic affairs,
but Henry lost the battle to put religion in the Constitution. More
to the point, Henry was an anti-federalist, and vigorously opposed the
Constitution when Virginia discussed ratification. [In addition, Henry
very much favored establishments of religion, he butted heads with
James Madison on this issue and LOST] Quoting Henry to prove things
about the constitution is like quoting the chairman of the Republican
National Committee to prove things about the platform of the
Democratic party.

Recognize that being sympathetic to religion is
not the same as being sympathetic to accomodationism:
While many of the framers were devoutly religious men, not all
devoutly religious men were accomodationists. It is not sufficient to
quote a framer saying that religion is good, or even that religion is
important to government; one can believe these things and at the same
time believe that the government has no business supporting religion.
Jefferson, for example, believed that a generalized belief in a future
state of rewards and punishments was important to maintain public
morality, but he was staunchly opposed to government support of
religion. If the sum of your case in favor of accomodationism is that
the framers were religious people, you have no case in favor of
accomodationism.

States are not federal government:
Accomodationists are fond of quoting state constitutions, state laws,
and state practices in their efforts to support their claims about the
federal government. But the First Amendment originally limited only
Congress, not the states. State practices, in other words, tell us
nothing about what is legal for the federal government. Jefferson, for
example, made official declarations of days of prayer as Governor of
Virginia, but refused to do the same as President on the grounds that
the First Amendment limited him in ways that the Virginia State
Constitution did not.

Make sure you have the right time frame:
Between 1781 and 1789 the United States operated under the Articles of
Confederation, which contained no provisions for religious liberty.
During this time Congress acted in a variety of ways that might well
have violated the First Amendment. But since the First Amendment was
not ratified until 1791, these actions cannot be used to prove
anything about that Amendment, or about the meaning of the
Constitution, which was ratified in 1788 (the first Congress did not
convene under the Constitution until 1789).

So what would a good accomodationist quote look like?
Simply put, it would be an authentic quote from someone who was a
framer of the Constitution, or someone who was qualified to express a
learned opinion about the Constitution, that directly addresses the
issue of federal power over religion under the Constitution and the
First Amendment.

We think it's interesting that there are plenty of good
quotations on the separationist side of this this issue. Many framers
were adamant that (in the words of Richard Dobbs Spaight of North
Carolina), "(n)o power is given to the general government to interfere
with it [religion] at all. Any act of Congress on this subject would
be an usurpation."
Conversely, there is almost nothing that meet our
standards on the accomodationist side. We think this discrepancy is
both significant and telling.
TOM PETERS, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
*******************************************************************************

Not all of the above applies to what follows, but a lot does.

>:|Patrick Henry (give me liberty)

Patrick Henry is mentioned above.

>:|Samuel Adams (boston tea party)

Something to bear in Mind. The mindset regarding religion carried by
many who lived in or came from one of the New England states was quite
different then the mind set regarding religion of people from most of
the other states. Three of those New England states continued with
established religions long after all other states had ended theirs.
(Mass. didn't end its establishment of religion until the 1830's)

>:|Roger Sherman (member of the Dec of Ind committee)
>:|James Otis (taxation w/o rep)
>:|James Madison (father of the constitution)

Whoa, you will find little if any evidence that Madison was highly
religious, highly Christian, etc.

And as is stated on the section I posted on quotations, it really
doesn't matter how religious or non religious a person was. The
founders separated religion and government.

Charles Pinckney offered the clause that directly separated church and
state at the Constitutional convention. He also led the fight in his
home state to disestablish religion in the revised South Carolina
Constitution in 1790.

>:| 4) Harvard, William & Mary, Yale, and Princeton were the
institutions
>:|where most of the founders received their intellectual formation;
all of these
>:|institutions were traditional orthodox Christian academies until
the 19th century.

So?

Jefferson went to W&M, he was one of the major forces for religious
liberty in this nation. He founded a secular University

Madison went to Princeton, and his role in religious liberty in this
country is well documented

>:|
>:| 5) The two most often quoted sources by the founders were,
first, the
>:|Bible, and second, William Blackstone's Common Law Commentaries
(See Hyneman &
>:|Lutz).

You had better go back and read those people's findings again. You are
leaving out a very large part of what they discovered.

On page 17 of Mr. Eidsmoe's advidavit he mentions the work of Dr.
Donald S Lutz and Dr. Charles Hyneman. In Feb past, Tom Peters was
preparing for a debate with some Fundamentalists in Louisville, Ky
over one of David Barton's commercial videos claiming this is a
Christian nation, separation is a myth, etc. On the Video in question
which was going to be used as the focus of the debate, David Barton
had made mention of this same material. Tom Peters asked me via email
what I (Jim Allison) knew about this information, and the following
was my answer back to him in regards to that matter. Uncensored I
might add, :-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ok here we go, CHRISTIANITY AND THE CONSTITUTION, The Faith of Our
Founding Fathers, by John Eidsmoe with forward by D. James Kennedy
Page 51

"Two professors (now u know you can't trust professors, LOL) Donald S
Lutz, and Charles S Hyneman have reviewed an estimated 15,000 items,
and closely read 2,200 books (these must be two really old people
2,200 books closely read? ) pamphlets, newspaper articles, and
monographs with explicitly political content printed between 1760 and
1805. They reduced this to 916 items, about 1/3 of all public
political writings longer than 2000 words.

From these items, Lutz and Hyneman identified 3,154 references to
other sources. The source most often cited by the founding fathers was
the bible, which accounted for 34 percent of all citations. The Fifth
book of the bible, Deuteronomy, because of its heavy emphasis on
biblical law, was referred to frequently.

At the top of page 52 there is a chart and the first line of the chart
shows the percentage the bible was referred to
1760's 24%
1770's 44%
1780's 34%
1790's 29%
1800 - 05 38% for an over all average of 34%

Next in line was enlightenment and it carries an overall average of
22% Whig is next with an overall average of 18% Next is Common Law
which is listed at 11% followed by classical at 9% peers at 4% and
others at 2%

Where this was published is suppose to have been Donald S Lutz, THE
RELATIVE INFLUENCE OF EUROPEAN WRITERS ON LATE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
POLITICAL THOUGHT." AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW 189 (1984) 189-197.

Ok that's it, there are some other charts listing individual people
like Blackstone, Locke, Hume, Coke Milton etc in the order he claims
they were cited and Blackstone came in second at 7.9% with Montesquieu
leading among individuals with 8.3%..

I have some problems with the above information. All the numbers seems
like just that a lot of numbers but I am not sure any real bridges are
established between them defining exactly what all is considered. We
also are covering a 45 year period of time and only the vague term
founding fathers used. Lower case letters at that for founding fathers
so how many people and who exactly are these people. How many were
fire and brimstone New England preachers of the time frame 1760 to
1780 are there using speeches delivered from Sunday Pulpits prior to
and during the war of Independence.

How many of these people were the people who really were Founders and
were considered for the time frame of the creation of this government.

Now to be fair he lists 216 items were examined for the 1760s, 544 for
the 1770's, 1306 for the 1780's 674 for the 1790's, and 414 for the
1800-05

But again no way of knowing just what those items are or who said them
or wrote them etc.

But here is what I have to offer as rebuttal show and tell again.

if you want to go to which ever one of your libraries (regular or law)
that has them and look at the 12 published volumes of THE DOCUMENTARY
HISTORY OF THE RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION. (Don't be fooled by
the numbering, the books aren't published in a proper order. The
published volumes thus far are 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18

if you look at volume 13 you will find on page 601 of the index the
heading Biblical References and it contains 24 page numbers listed for
it. Volume 13 contains at least 579 pages of material from the people
of those times.

For the three Virginia volumes you will find in the index under
Biblical References 46 page numbers which contain Biblical references
on them. These three books contain at least 1692 pages of historical
material from the men of those times.

So what we find is 67 pages listed as containing some reference to the
Bible out of a total of at least a total of 2271 pages of actual
historical documents, letters, newspaper articles, pamphlets, etc.

You can look at the remaining volumes there and you will find some
indexes don't even list Biblical references but the % doesn't change
for the other volumes that do contain such references.

If you take one of these book to your debate and let people see for
themselves I think the point will be made quite clearly.

(Our Secret, Susan's and mine. We go to Pat Robertson's Regent
University, School of Law and use the law Library there to research a
lot of the material we gather to use against the Christian Coalition,
and the religious right in general. its is such an enjoyable ironic
situation.)

Ok first level of stuff from Regent.

While there we found and copied the ten pages that make up the Lutz
article as it appeared when it was published in 1984 in the AMERICAN
POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW.

Some additional light is shed on the information. Some of the
material that was used is given after all and some of it was THE
COMPLETE ANTI-FEDERALIST,

I have researched those six volumes that make up THE COMPLETE
ANTI-FEDERALIST in the past, and am aware of the religious references
that are in those books and was not impressed with their quanity.

Some other anti-federalist material unnamed, and some federalist
material which is unnamed.

It does say that "the proceedings of legislatures and conventions were
not included." it doesn't say why.

Another point made was that, "a citation count need not distinguish
between positive and negative citations."

The bible could have been cited in a positive way or negative way,
doesn't matter it was counted both ways..

Weaknesses of this method is, "that it cannot distinguish among
citations that represent the borrowing of an idea, the adapting of an
idea, the approval of an idea, the opposition of an idea, or an appeal
to authority."

The purpose of this research was to try and determine the influence
European writers etc had on American political thought and in regards
to the Bible no real effort was made to determine just why the results
or the actual meaning of the results. But the highest % in regards to
the Bible was in the 1760's to 1780's period, the period of time when
the actual Constitution and BOR was being written debated ratified etc
had the lowest Biblical citations the 1780's and 1790's were 34% and
29% respectively which was the lowest citation periods. (we know from
the experiment above had that material been included it would have
been even lower)

Much of the Bible citations were a result of sermons that were
published in pamphlet forms and handed out much of the pre war of
Independence period. In fact this form of publishing represented about
10% of the total publishing done in this nation at that time. Of
course we have 16 years of this 45 year period of time (1760 to 1776)
with 9 of the colonies still being under various forms of
establishments. This study may give some insights into what influence
the Europeans had on American Political thought but it is a far cry
from giving any meaning or insight as to what if any accurate meaning
the figures they came up with concerning the bible citation indicated
or really meant.

The pattern of citations during the years 1787 and 1788 was, "The
Bible's prominence disappears, which is not surprising since the
debate centered upon specific institutions which the bible had little
to say. The anit-federalists do drag it in with respect to basic
principles of government but the federalists inclination to
enlightenment is most evident here in their failure to consider the
bible relevant."

They include a chart here that lists the total for citations for the
bible for 1780's at 34% a repeat of the other chart but it lists only
federalists and anti-federalits and list federalists at 0% and
anti-federalists at 9% apparently whomever made up the other 25% were
neither federalists or anti-federalists. So it makes one think who
were they? They didn't appear to be very political since the two named
groups mad up the bulk of the political thinking of the times.

There is no further additions to the Bible findings added in the
conclusion and that isn't surprising since it was just an interesting
sidelight found while conducting a study of something else totally
different.

So depending on exactly what Barton tries to make of this information
it really isn't that important. I also don't particularly like the
fact that so much of the entire political debate as indicated in the
12 volume set of books appears to have been left out. Those results
would have lowered the overall Bible citation % quiet a bit for that
time period. I also cannot for the life of me recall anything like one
third of any possible citations in the Complete anti federalist being
religious in any form There just wasn't that much in there and I made
note of and checked out every reference to religion that was given in
the index for all six volumes.

Anyways that is that.

I just sent you the results of my work with this claim and have only
one more thing to add.

The selection process predetermines the outcomes.

While in the world of scholarship and academia the research that was
done might have been acceptable, I find that the lack of naming the
source material in any better way then they did and the total opposite
results to be found in the books I consulted is disturbing.

Of course there is also the issue of who cited anything and how often
did people cite anything.

That wasn't addressed and is important to know.

I suppose that cites on 67 pages out of roughly 2100 pages pertaining
to the bible might represent 34% of the total cites to be found in
those 2100 pages. But what does it mean if that was the case. It means
people didn't cite anything much and the bible even less. No
conclusions such as Barton might be trying to form or might want to
imply to others is gonna be supported by that information.
(BTW one additional item. In those 67 pages the reference might have
only been one single sentence on the entire page, it doesn't mean all
that was contained on that page was about the Bible.)

********************************************************************************\
*
And

Separation of Church and State Home Page
How often did the founders quote the Bible?
Research by Jim Allison and Tom Peters.
In the first version of his videotape, America 's Godly Heritage,
David Barton makes reference to two University of Houston researchers
who studied the most frequently cited authors in the writings of the
founding fathers.

According to Barton, these researchers concluded that 94% of all the
citations found in these writings were either to the Bible, or to
authors who based their conclusions on the Bible. This, he concludes,
demonstrates the profound influence of the Bible on the Constitution.

While Barton doesn't name the researchers in his videotape, he refers
to them in his recent book, Original Intent. Barton's reference is to
The Origins of American Constitutionalism (hereafter, Origins), a 1988
book by political scientist Donald Lutz. On pages 136-149 of Origins,
Lutz summarizes the results of a 1984 paper in which he and colleague
Charles Hyneman analyze some 15,000 items of American political
commentary published between 1760 and 1805 ("The Relative Influence of
European Writers on Late Eighteenth-Century American Political
Thought," The American Political Science Review, 78 (1984), pp.
189-197; hereafter, Relative Influence). The purpose of the paper was
to determine the sources that most influenced the development of
American political thought during our nation's founding period.

Does Lutz's and Hyneman's research support Barton's conclusions about
the Bible and the Constitution? In some ways, the answer is "yes." In
particular, Lutz and Hyneman demonstrate that the Bible was the most
frequently quoted source between 1760 and 1805, and he concludes that
future research on the development of American political thought
should include increased attention to "biblical and common law
sources" (Relative Influence, p. 190). It is perfectly reasonable that
Barton would use this evidence to support his argument, and we have no
quarrel with that aspect of Barton's case.

But this isn't all that Lutz concludes. Lutz also devotes a full
section of his article to political writings about the Constitution,
and these data largely refute Barton's conclusions. Needless to say,
Barton doesn't report these data, despite their relevance to his
argument. Additionally, Barton attributes to Lutz and Hyneman
conclusions they do not reach about the importance of the Bible during
the founding period. Accordingly, Barton's treatment of Lutz's data is
both selective and dishonest.

Let's begin with Barton's 94% figure. In the videotape, Barton breaks
it down as follows: 34% ofthe founder's quotations were taken directly
from the Bible, and 60% were from authors that base their conclusions
on the Bible. The 34% figure, at least, is accurate; this corresponds
exactly to Lutz's and Hyneman's conclusions with respect to the total
percentage of citations between 1760 and 1805. But where does the 60%
figure come from? Not from the paper; Lutz and Hyneman provide no
category of citations that even remotely corresponds to "authors that
base their conclusions on the Bible." Rather, the 60% figure is
manufactured by Barton himself on the basis of his own reading of
other authors that scored highly in Lutz and Hyneman's survey people
like Montesquieu, Blackstone, and Locke. You would
not know this from the videotape, which reports the 60% figure as if
it were the conclusions of Lutz and Hyneman themselves. [Note: there
are a number of problems with this 60% figure. In particular, Barton
overstates the degree to which these authors used the Bible in
reaching their own conclusions. We'll do an article on this issue at a
later time.]

Beyond this, what exactly does this 94% figure prove? Barton wants us
to think that because the founders quoted at length from the Bible, or
people that quoted the Bible, the Constitution must somehow embody
Biblical law, be "based" on the Bible. or otherwise have the Bible in
mind. But this doesn't follow; the fact that the Bible was frequently
quoted is not the same thing as saving it was quoted for the purpose
of creating a legal code or the Constitution, Indeed, Lutz's and
Hyneman's data suggest that the Bible was for the most part irrelevant
to the Constitution, and that what connections there were between the
Bible and the Constitution are not of the type that support Barton's
claims.

First, Barton does not report the most relevant evidence from Lutz's
article: in addition to their general citation count from 1760 to
1805, Lutz and Hyneman compile a count specific to political debate on
the Constitution between the years 1787 and 1788 (the years
corresponding to the drafting and ratification of the Constitution).
According to Lutz, this sample "comes close to exhausting" the
literature written on the Constitution during this period (Relative
Influence, p. 194). If the founders believed that the Bible was truly
relevant to the Constitution, Biblical citations should appear in
abundance in this sample, but, they don't. On the contrary, Biblical
citations are virtually nonexistent in this sample. According to Lutz,
federalist (i.e., pro-Constitution) writers never quoted the Bible in
their political writings between 1 787 and 1 788.
Conversely. anti-federalist writers quoted the Bible only 9% of the time.
According to Lutz:
The Bible's prominence disappears, which is not surprising since
the debate centered upon specific institutions about which the Bible
has little to say. The Anti-Federalists do drag it in with respect to
basic principles of government, but the Federalist's inclination to
Enlightenment rationalism is most evident here in their failure to
consider the Bible relevant....The debate surrounding the adoption of
the Constitution was fought out mainly in the context of
Montesquieu, Blackstone, the English Whigs, and major writers of the
Enlightenment (Relative /nfluence, pp. 194-195, emphasis ours).

Additionally, Barton omits Lutz's breakdown of sources for his 34% figure.
Three fourths of the Biblical citations in Lutz's 1760 to 1805 sample
come, not from secular sources, but from reprinted sermons (one of the
most popular types of political writing during these years).
Conversely the Bible accounts for only 9% of all citations in secular
literature, about equal to the number of citations from classical
authors (Origins, p. 140).
Hence, were it not for the political activity of religious clergy, the
Bible would be tied for fourth place among source citations during
1760 and 1805.

Interestingly, Barton's reference to Lutz's work in Original Intent is
not to Lutz's article, but to Origins, Lutz's later book. Lutz's book
reports his 1984 data in abbreviated form, and does not refer to his
citation count for the years 1787 to 1788, or the conclusions he draws
from that count. A reader that simply follows Barton's citations, in
other words, would be ignorant of this data. At the same time, no
reader of Lutz book would likely come away with the feeling that the
Constitution was written with the Bible particularly in mind. As Lutz
documents, by the time of the Constitution, American political theory
was a rich tapestry of ideas drawn from many different sources; the
Bible and colonial covenant theology were
simply two of many influences that played in the minds of the American
founders.

In the end, Lutz's work is far more supportive of separation than of
accomodationism. Did the founder's quote the Bible in their political
writings? Of course they did, and there is nothing remarkable about
that fact. Lutz's data suggest that, whatever the cultmal influence of
the Bible, it did not play much of a role in the construction of the
Constitution. On the contrary, the Constitution is a secular document
concerned with the nuts and bolts issues of how to create a workable
nation in a land of economic, cultural, and religious diversity. It
simply did not touch on matters relevant to the Bible.
TOM PETERS, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE

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

>:|Blackstone was a full fledged believer in revealed religion (i.e., the
>:|bible),

Irrelevant
His works that were cited were Commentaries on the Laws of England.
There was only one chapter or so that had anything to do with
Religion, and one must remember, England had an established church.
religion and government were very much in a union with each other.

>and most of his content was rooted in medieval (Catholic) political
>:|philosophy (e.g., the Magna Carta).

I don't even know what that is suppose to mean.

>:|What's more, the entire Common Law
>:|tradition was rooted in orthodox Christianity.
>:|

The above is disputed, Disputed in fact by Thomas Jefferson, who
presents a great deal of evidence showing that Christianity is not
part of the English Common Law

>:| 6) The First Great Awakening was the generation in which
the founders
>:|were born and reared. The First Great Awakening was led by Jonathan
Edwards,
>:|George Whitefield, and John Wesley...their views permeated the
colonies; and
>:|they were hardly deists!
>:|

In 1776 only 17% of the American population was churched.

In 1800 when the government began functioning in Washington D C there
was only one church in D C and it had less then 20 members. The
following year the church had shut its doors.

>:| Now a quick word about the men whom I'm sure you will claim
for your band:
>:|
>:| GEORGE WASHINGTON: I am quite aware that his religious
sentiments are
>:|a great matter of controversy. You mentioned in your post your
interest in
>:|Boller's book on Washington. The most celebrated biography of
Washington is
>:|Mason Weems' THE LIFE OF GEORGE WASHINGTON, 1809; this book portrays
>:|Washington as a committed orthodox Christian. E.C. McGuire
published The
>:|Religious Opinions and Character of Washington in 1836; it debunks the
>:|"Washington the Deist" myth. Finally, I refer you to William J.
Johnson,
>:|GEORGE WASHINGTON THE CHRISTIAN (1919).
>:| In a nutshell, there are an abundance of documents authored by
>:|Washington which prevent an honest historian from classifying
Washington as a
>:|deist. One example of this is the following prayer: "O most
Glorious God, in
>:|Jesus Christ my merciful and loving Father, I acknowledge and
confess the weak
>:|and imperfectconfess my guilt, in performances of the duties of
this day...for
>:|the sacrifice of Jesus Christ offered upon the cross for me, for
his sake,
>:|ease the burden of my sin...direct me to the true object Jesus
Christ, the
>:|way, the truth, and the life...These weak petitions I humbly
implore thee to
>:|hear and accept and ans. for the sake of thy Dear Son, Jesus Christ
our Lord, Amen."
>:|
>:|Bob, it'll take some manipulation of words to derive DEISM from
that prayer!!

The historical facts are that Washington was not a very committed
Christian. The common accepted preception is, he shared Deist
thought, was a Mason, fully believed in religious freedom and equality
and attended church regularly at times in his life and very infrequent
at other times. He was never known to partake of communion, his wife
would but Washington would leave first.

Do you have a original cite for the above "prayer"

Without an original cite it is meaningless. Second hand sources that
do not provide original sources cites are highly suspect.

[7/4/08 UPDATE: The "Washington Prayer Journal" is not considered
authentic by the Smithsonian. The handwriting doesn't match known
samples from Washington at the time, and the spelling is too good
(Washington was a lousy speller). It was later discovered that the
prayers in the journal document came from a book in the Library of
Congress that was published during the reign of James the 1st.
http://zerointelligence.net/archives/000526.php
**** SEE additional info at the end of this post ]

>:|
>:| JOHN ADAMS: a graduate of Harvard, a place steeped in
Puritanism; like
>:|Washington, he used some deistic language, but his explicit creed
(1813) was
>:|as follows: "My religion is founded on the hope of pardon for my
offenses."

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

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

>:|It
>:|was his son, John Quincy Adams who made this bold statement in
1821: "The
>:|highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one
>:|indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the
principles of Christianity."
>:|

THE ABOVE IS A BOGUS QUOTE

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

Research by Jim Allison.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

********************************************************************************\
**

>:| BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: Of all the founders, Franklin is most
deistic. I
>:|will grant him to your cause, with Paine. But you need to be honest
enough to
>:|admit that Franklin, as an 81 year old man at the Constitutional
Convention
>:|was too feeble to provide the erudition he possessed as a younger man.
>:|Further, you must admit that Franklin was steeped in Puritanism and
>:|Presbyterianism...he studied for the ministry, he wrote a defense of
>:|Predestination, and he was a huge fan of Christianity, even though
he demurred
>:|from its precepts. Although Franklin explicitly identified with the
Deists
>:|(per AUTOBIOGRAPHY), Puritanism ran through his blood. That is why
Franklin is
>:|perhaps the one individual in America most closely identified with "the
>:|Protestant Work Ethic."
>:|
>:| THOMAS JEFFERSON: You might think it outrageous to say that
Jefferson
>:|had a Christian view of law and rights. You will point out that
Jefferson was
>:|very clearly outside the mainstream in his views of Christ as
Savior. He did
>:|not believe Jesus was God. If he did not have an orthodox view of the
>:|Christianity, how could he have a Christian view of law and rights?
>:| Regardless of whatever his personal views of religion were,
>:|Jefferson's political writings were saturated with ÒChristianÓ
ideas. This is
>:|a result of Jefferson's immersion in a Christian culture. Whether he
>:|personally confessed Jesus as his savior is of little issue in terms of
>:|whether his theories were Christian. Jefferson adopted, by osmosis,
much of
>:|the general Christian world-view of his mentors. Armchair
historians easily
>:|forget Jefferson's cultural context; Jefferson's educational
training did not
>:|occur in the classroom of Deists in Paris, but at the feet of
clergymen in
>:|Virginia. From the time he was nine years old until the time he was
sixteen,
>:|he was tutored by two orthodox ministers: Rev. James Maury and Rev.
William
>:|Douglas. When he studied law at William and Mary he was not the
pupil of
>:|Voltaire. His mentor was Mr. George Wythe, "a devout Christian and
by no means
>:|a deist." And although the same cannot be said of Jefferson, it is
recorded
>:|that Jefferson admired Wythe's Christian virtue. Jefferson called
Wythe "my
>:|second father, my earliest and best friend." Though Jefferson became a
>:|Unitarian who was quite fond of the French deists, he was instilled
with
>:|orthodox Christianity in his formative years. Despite his private
doubts about
>:|the deity of Christ, as a statesman he complied with tradition,
referring to
>:|Jesus as "Our Savior" and "Lord" in the ordinary Christian sense
(see the
>:|Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom). In other words, as a son of a
>:|Christian culture, JeffersonÕs blood was Christian. And that blood
permeates
>:|the concepts set forth in his political writings.
>:|

You will have to do better then the above. You really seem to be
working hard at trying to claim Jefferson as one of your own.
Solid examples would go much father in trying to establish your
claims. Do yoo have any examples of his writings etc that would do this?

>:| Critics like yourself, both Christian and non-Christian,
have often
>:|insisted that the U.S. Constitution is not "Christian" because it
nowhere
>:|refers to "our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." Over the years there
have been
>:|repeated efforts by some Christian groups to make the Constitution
"Christian"
>:|by an amendment that would change the preamble to include a
reference to "our
>:|Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." This cosmetic change would add
ecclesiastical
>:|language almost as a decoration. It would have no material effect
on any of
>:|the concepts in the document. Yet it is supposedly required in the
eyes of
>:|some to make the Constitution "Christian." The issue is one of
surface versus
>:|substance. It is the substance of the document that makes it a
product of Christianity.
>:| In the Puritan outlook, Christian jargon was not the key.
The content
>:|and the underlying concepts were the key. The fact that terms such as
>:|"federalism" and "due process of law" had an explicit Christian
heritage, and
>:|that the entire Constitution rested on a Puritan view of the ordinary
>:|depravity of man was the kind of evidence that was relevant to
showing the
>:|Christian impact on the Constitution.
>:| The language of the Founders was creator-oriented because
it dealt
>:|with civil government, law, and individual rights. The Founders did
not apply
>:|redeemer-oriented language--Christian jargon--to these documents of
public
>:|law, because Calvin, Luther, and dozens of other Protestant political
>:|theorists called it a corruption of the gospel. By using
creator-oriented
>:|language, the founders were squarely within the mainstream of the
English
>:|Common Law heritage. And they were completely in harmony with the
traditional
>:|Puritan use of legal terms and rights terms.
>:| In the Puritan approach, concepts were very important. Some
concepts
>:|dealt with law. Others dealt with rights. By 1776, the Puritans
were fully
>:|convinced that concepts about the equality of all human beings,
individual
>:|inalienable rights, and government by the consent of the governed
were fully
>:|biblical ideas. It is not surprising in light of the Puritan
impact, that
>:|these ideas were foundational to the American colonial outlook at
the time of independence.
>:| These were not Enlightenment concepts or Deistic concepts.
They were
>:|Puritan concepts, and fully Christian. And they were more than just
Puritan
>:|concepts. They were part of that broader stream of Christian
thought in which
>:|the Puritans stood. Where the colonies were concerned, the concepts
were
>:|Puritan for the simple fact that for decades the Puritans were
purveyors of
>:|these concepts and were intellectual leaders prior to 1776. The
concepts were
>:|Christian even though they were expressed in natural terms rather than
>:|ecclesiastical language. In the Puritan approach to the
creator-redeemer
>:|distinction, natural language was the right language to use.
>:| To the critics, however, naturalistic language is automatically
>:|suspect. Such language could not be "Christian" because it does not
sound
>:|religious enough. People are prone to test the founding documents
not by their
>:|concepts and content, but by whether they used Christian jargon. If
redemptive
>:|language was not used, many simply assume that the documents were not
>:|"Christian." That is not only a foolish and narrow-minded approach to
>:|evaluating the founders and their writings, it leads to a patently
erroneous conclusion.

There is much that could be offered to the above but for this
installment I
will only add the following:

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

Did Montesquieu base his theory of separation of powers on the Bible?

Barren Charles Louis Joseph de Secondat Montesquieu was a nobleman
who wrote extensively about political theory. In his famous work The
Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieu became the first to articulate in a
detailed way the doctrine of separation of powers (i.e., the theory
that liberty is best protected when government distributes executive,
legislative, and judicial power among three branches of government, so
that no one branch can control all three). By all accounts America's
founding fathers were deeply influenced by Montesquieu; citations to
Montesquieu pop up with great frequency in the political discourse of
revolutionary America, and his work was a major justification for the
structure of the American Constitution.

In his book America's God and Country (p. 453), William Federer
claims that Montesquieu based his theory of divided powers on two
Biblical passages: Isaiah 33:22, and Jeremiah 17:19. The Isaiah
passage reads as follows:

The LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our
king.

The Jeremiah passage reads:

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked:
who can know it?

According to Federer, the Jeremiah passage provides the motive for
separated powers; since the heart is wicked it's best to divide
powers to minimize the amount of power that any one individual person
can possess. The Isaiah passage, on the other hand, provided
Montesquieu with the structure for a divided government. Federer
references these verses to page 457 of Anne Cohler's 1989 translation
of The Spirit of the Laws, These same verses are also referred to by
David Barton in his work The Myrh of Separation, pp. 195-196. Unlike
Federer, howevever, Barton does not explicitly claim that Montesquieu
based his work on these verses, and does not provide relevant
citations to Montesquieu's text.

The problem with Federer's argument is that it is not true.
Montesquieu develops his argument for separation of powers in Book XI
of The Spirit of the Laws, and nowhere in this book does he reference
Isaiah, Jeremiah, or am other book of the Bible. On the contrary.
Montesquieu's examples in this section are all drawn from contemporary
European and pre-Christian Roman and Germanic history. Nor can we find
references to Isaiah and Jeremiah elsewhere in the book. While
Montesquieu does occasionally reference the Bible in The Spirit of
the Laws, these references are mostly to the Pentateuch, and are never
to the prophetic books of the Old Testament.

It is difficult to argue that Montesquieu based his theory of divided
powers on Isaiah and Jeremiah when he doesn't quote from these books,
and when he bases his examples on other sources. We conclude that
Federer has either misunderstood Montesquieu, is simply repeating
someone else's inaccurate argument, or is intentionally misleading his
readers.

But what of Federer's reference to page 457 of Cohler's translation of
The Spirit of the Laws? We've located a copy of this work, and this
page turns out to be nothing more than the title page for the fifth
section of Cohler's translation; it has no text except the words "Part
5. We will charitably assume that the reference is a misprint, but
sloppy editing on Federcr's part does little to convince us that he
knows what he's talking about with respect to Montesquieu.
Additionally, Cohler's work contains an detailed appendix in which she
indexes all the sources Montesquieu used in
writing The Spirit of the Laws, and while we find several references
to various books of the Bible, there are no references to Isaiah and
Jeremiah. Far from proving his argument Cohler's translation is
further proof that Federer's claim is incorrect..

For what it's worth, we don't think Federer is the originator of the
myth that Montesquieu derived his theory from the Bible. Barton's The
Myth of Separation predates Federer, and Barton makes essentially the
same argument (albeit without footnotes). The idea was probably
circulating long before either Federer or Barton wrote their books.
But it makes no difference. It is a myth. There is absolutely no
reason to believe that Montesquieu derived his ideas from the Bible.
The myth should be put to rest before it does am more disservice.
TOM PETERS, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
________________________________________________________________________

Does the Constitution Embody Christian Thought and Morality?

Contrary to the claims of many accomodationists, virtually nothing in
the Constitution references Christian thought and morality. The only
explicit mention of religion is the article VI declaration that "no
religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office
or public Trust under the United Stales. Otherwise, the Constitution
is wholly concerned with the secular issues of defining federal power.
and distributing that power among the various branches of government.
Quite against the practice of state constitutions, the federal
Constitution does not quote or refer to the Bible, does not set up any
religion above another, does not refer to God. and does riot raise or
rule upon religious questions. It is a remarkably secular document for
its day and age.

Our e-mail correspondents have occasionally argued that that the
structure of our federal government is derived from the Bible: this
claim rests on little more than wishful thinking. The most inuportant
features of our federal government include (1) a separation of powers
among three branches of government, (2) a bicameral legislature, (3)
different modes of representation in each chamber of the legislature,
(4) a limited executive, (5) and independent judiciary and (G) a
complex system of checks and balances. No model of government found in
the Bible corresponds to this outline. Ancient Israel was governed
first by Judges and then by Kings: in neither system was there
separation of powers (i.e., the executive acted as both lawmaker and
judge). nor was there am clear distinction between secular and
religious law. Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find anything
like a bicameral legislature, or an independent judiciary. Conversely
the New Testament does not contain a model of government: It simply
does not fanction as a political document in the same way as, eg., the
Q'uran does in Islam.

Some accommodationists claim that founders derived the principle of
separation of powers from Isaiah 33:22, "For the LORD is our judge,
the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our King: he will save us. Apart
from the fact that there is no evidence that this verse was ever
referred to by the founders in this context, this argument fails on
it's own assumptions: the Constitution sets up an elected executive,
riot a King. and the tenor of the verse is anti separation-of-powers;
it says that all three branches are properly united in one person, the
LORD. That the founders would read this verse and derive from it a
mandate for divided powers is neither logical nor plausible.

Nor is there any relationship between the Constitution and the 10
Commandments. The Constitution fairly repudiates the first two
commandments (i.e., it leaves us free to worship other Gods than the
LORD, and to make graven images), and is silent on commandments three
through ten. Laws against blasphemy, Sabbath breaking, dishonoring
parents, murder, adultery, stealing, false witness. and coveting are
left entirely to the states.

The secular ethos of the Constitution extends even to the taking of
the oath of office. Quite against the practices of the states, the
oath of office described in Article II section 2 of the Constitution
is completely secular; it is described as an "oath or affirmation."
contains no religious references, and need not be taken on the Bible.
The practice of saying "so help me God" is not required by the
Constitution; it is a voluntary practice initiated by later presidents.

The absence of Christian thought and morality in the Constitution is a
powerful evidence that the founders did not intend to create a
Christian nation. Indeed, a popular early criticism of the
Constitution is that it allowed non-Christians to serve in federal
offices. and did nothing to promote Christianity (see Isaac Kramnick
and R. Laurence Moore. The Godless Constitution. ch. 2). If the
founders wanted to favor Christianity or Judeo- Christian morality,
they failed utterly in that task. This should make us suspect that the
Constitution was never intended to set up Christianity as a preferred
religion in the first place.
TOM PETERS, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
********************************************************************************\
****

>:|
>:| In summary, Bob, although deism played a peripheral role in
the U.S.
>:|founding, its influence pales in comparison to the central role of
orthodox
>:|Christianity. You can find a discounted copy of the book at
http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
>:|
>:|Thanks for your response and I'd be glad to continue this dialogue
further...
>:|

Kewl then I can assume you will respond to this?

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

jali...@pilot.infi.net & sba...@infi.net
Web masters of
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE PAGE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

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

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

**** Debunked

in published works twice -- in 1926 and 1936. Also, as noted below, it
was offered to and rejected by the Smithsonian as inauthentic.

Some 30 years ago it was proclaimed that in his youth he composed
a prayer book for his own use, containing a prayer for five days,
beginning with Sunday and ending with Thursday. The manuscript of this
prayer book was said to have been found among the contents of an old
trunk. It was printed and facsimiles published. Clergymen read it from
the altar, one of them saying it contained so much "spirituality" that
he had to stop, as he could not control his emotions while reading it.

Yet, while this prayer book was vociferously proclaimed to have
been written by Washington, there was not an iota of evidence that he
ever had anything to do with it, or that it even ever belonged to him.
A little investigation soon pricked the bubble. Worthington C. Ford,
who had handled more of Washington's manuscripts than any other man
except Washington himself, declared that the penmanship was not that
of washington. Rupert Hughes (Washington, vol. 1, p. 658) gives
facsimile specimens of the handwriting in the prayer book side by side
with known specimens of Washington's penmanship at the time the prayer
book was supposed to have been written. A glance proves that they are
not by the same hand.

Then in the prayer book manuscript all of the words are spelled
correctly, while Washington was a notoriously poor speller. But the
greatest blow it received was when the Smithsonian Institute refused
to accept it as a genuine Washington relic. That Washington did not
compose it was proved by Dr. W.A. Croffutt, a newspaper correspondent
of the Capital, who traced the source of some of the prayers to an old
prayer brook in the Congressional Library printed, in the reign of
James the First.

Even the Rev. W. Herbert Burk, rector of the Episcopal Church of
Valley Forge, although a firm believer in Washington's religiosity,
thus speaks of these prayers: "At present, the question is an open
one, and its settlement will depend on the discovery of the originals,
or upon the demonstration that they are the work of Washington."

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/franklin_steiner/presidents.html

Fortunately, there are available photos of excerpts from the document,
juxtaposed with other samples of Washington's handwriting, so anyone
can judge for themselves. Scroll to the bottom of this page:

http://s93614334.onlinehome.us/religion/George_Washingt...
[no longer works]

http://www.horsesass.org/?p=786
George Washington's Mythical Prayer Journal

I noted in my last post on the Steve Williams lawsuit that I had
contacted a Washington scholar to confirm that the "George Washington
Prayer Journal" was indeed known to be fraudulent. That scholar is
Frank Grizzard of the University Virginia, a senior associate editor
of the George Washington Papers collection housed there. Here is his
response:

The so-called prayer journal is not in GW's writing, although I'm not
sure it's actually a forgery. The manuscript dealer (Burk I think) who
first sold it when it came to light in the 19th century printed a
facsimile edition in which he admits that the Smithsonian rejected it
as a non-GW document, but it did have Washington family provenance, so
he said. Thus it apparently was a descendant's. Johnson's version is
taken from Burk. The prayers are based on the English prayer book.

06/27/2005 at 12:46 pm

http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/henriques/hist615/steiner.htm
Washington must have been "powerful in prayer" if we are to believe
two other stories told of his attempts to reach the "throne of grace."
Some 30 years ago it was proclaimed that in his youth he composed a
prayer book for his own use, containing a prayer for five days,
beginning with Sunday and ending with Thursday. The manuscript of this
prayer book was said to have been found among the contents of an old
trunk. It was printed and facsimiles published. Clergymen read it from
the altar, one of them saying it contained so much "spirituality" that
he had to stop, as he could not control his emotions while reading it.

Yet, while this prayer book was vociferously proclaimed to have been
written by Washington, there was not an iota of evidence that he ever
had anything to do with it, or that it even ever belonged to him. A
little investigation soon pricked the bubble. Worthington C. Ford, who
had handled more of Washington's manuscripts than any other man except
Washington himself, declared that the penmanship was not that of
Washington. Rupert Hughes (Washington, vol. 1, p. 658) gives facsimile
specimens of the handwriting in the prayer book side by side with
known specimens of Washington's penmanship at the time the prayer book
was supposed to have been written. A glance proves that they are not
by the same hand.

***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote

"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.

It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.

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

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

PseuDoeCyAnts

unread,

Jul 6, 2008, 1:00:04 PM7/6/08

on Fri 04 Jul 2008 10:49:44a
buckeye <bucke...@nospam.net> posted
in news:4los64dt21sc5pgu7...@4ax.com:

> A LESSON IN HISTORY
>

Here's one I found recently browsing Google Books.

The following citation has often
been misattributed to John Quincy Adams:

"It is no slight testimonial, both to the merit and worth
of Christianity, that in all ages since its promulgation
the great mass of those who have risen to eminence by their
profound wisdom and integrity have recognized and reverenced
Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of the living God."

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

A Google Books search for this quote returned:

"The intrinsic value of these letters, their familiar and
lucid style, their profound and comprehensive views,
thieir candid and reverent spirit, must win for them a
large measure of the public attention and esteem. But,
apart from even this, the testimony so unconsciously borne
by their pure-minded and profoundly learned author to the
truth and excellence of the Christian faith and records,
will not be lightly regarded. It is no slight testimonial
to the verity and worth of Christianity, that in all ages
since its promulgation, the great mass of those who have
risen to eminence by their profound wisdom, integrity, and
philanthropy, have recognised and reverenced in Jesus of
Nazareth, the Son of the living God. To the names of
Augustine, Xavier, Fenelon, Milton, Newton, Locke,
Lavater, Howard, Chateaubriand, and their thousands of
compeers in Christian faith, among the world's wisest and
noblest, it is not without pride that the American may
add, from among his countrymen, those of such men as
WASHINGTON, JAY, PATRICK HENRY, and JOHN QUINCY ADAMS."

Adams, John Quincy. 1848.
"Letters of John Quincy Adams, to his son,
on the Bible and its teachings."
Auburn, N.Y.: Derby Miller.
Preface pages 7, 8

Google Books:
<http://books.google.com/books?id=NKQVAAAAYAAJ>
Original from Harvard University
Digitized Feb 19, 2008

This book was scanned from Harvard University.

There is a second source from a later printing also:

Adams, John Quincy. 1850.
"Letters of John Quincy Adams, to his son,
on the Bible and its teachings."
J.M. Alden, 1850.
Preface pages 7, 8
(looks like a 2nd printing authorized by Derby Miller)

Google Books:
<http://books.google.com/books?id=hYtIAAAAMAAJ>
Original from the University of Michigan
Digitized Sep 6, 2007

ZerkonX

unread,

Jul 7, 2008, 8:31:27 AM7/7/08

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:49:44 -0400, buckeye wrote:

>>:| 2) Paine was a first generation immigrant to the U.S. at
> the behest of
>>:|Benjamin Franklin, and although his book, COMMON SENSE, was a best
> seller as a
>>:|political tract, his views on religion led him to be labelled an
> infidel by
>>:|the majority of the key founders. As an immigrant it is not fair to
> say that
>>:|Paine's perspective was the product of six generations of life in
> the American
>>:|Colonies.
>
> This is irrelevant

In a way this is very relevant and strengthens your position.

First: the Constitution was and is based on principles (some call this
morality) that where held in Europe as well as in the colonies. So the
fact that Paine was first generation 'proves' that these principles are
universal and not the sole property of any one country or government.

Secondly: The fact that Paine was labeled an infidel, as was Jefferson,
yet his ideas still made 'common sense' to even religious dogmatics
supports the notion that Paine's reasoning holds true outside, inside and
in between religious belief.

All in all Paine declared that humans are best governed by their own
mutual common sense guided by each persons own private determinate,
religion or no.

0 new messages