Founding Father's view on Christian influence on secular politics

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

I think it's true that our fathers wanted Christianity to work side-by-
side with modern politics.

Consider George Washington's Farewell Address of 1796:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political
prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain
would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to
subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of
the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the
pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not
trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it
simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation,
for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which
are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us
with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained
without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined
education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both
forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of
religious principle."

[Tigerlilly66]

NVS is right on, but I'll go one step further...if it cannot be proven
beyond any peradventure of doubt that this country was clearly founded
upon not just "religious" principles, but CHRISTIAN ones, then any
reader may as well believe in little green men from Mars are taking
over our planet. The only thing that will keep anyone from
understanding our nation's true spiritual origin will be their pre-
disposition against belief, also called an "a priori". If objectivity
is in play, the evidence will be more than enough to convince even the
most skeptical. The problem I've run into repeatedly with skeptics is
that they usually have their minds made up before the first shot has
been fired!

TL66

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

Yeah, I'd agree with Tiger, that's why it's I mentioned what I said in
the Welcome Page of the site. But if there is truly any good arguments
against what we're talking about, then please post so we can talk
about it.

[Jon]

Now hold the phone one minute. When Washington said "religion" he
meant "religion," not necessarily "Christianity" and certainly not
"orthodox Trinitarian Christianity" exclusively. My meticulous
research has show when key Founders such as Washington said "religion"
they meant at the very least, Christianity, Deism, Unitarianism,
Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, pagan Greco-Romanism, and Native American
spirituality. The content of "sound religion" was the teaching of the
existence of an overriding Providence and the future state of rewards
and punishments, NOT necessarily such things as the inerrancy of the
Bible, the trinity, incarnation, atonement, and eternal damnation.

As we debate these issues, I'd like folks to keep this in mind. You
may believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, the trinity, incarnation,
atonement, and eternal damnation, but when our Founders mentioned
"religion" or even "Christianity" don't assume they necessarily
referred to these things.

Jon Rowe
http://americancreation.blogspot.com
http://positiveliberty.com
http://jonrowe.blogspot.com

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

Hey Jon. Thanks for taking your time to debate. (dang, there's no
formatting tools here)

Sorry, I made a hasty post and connected Christianity and religion
together hastily. However...

1) Washington did mention religion and politics as needing to be
connected (as opposed to today's view on politics).... that's the main
topic here.

2) What does Washington really mean by "religion"? (let's talk about
that)

You said:
* the existence of an overriding Providence
* the future state of rewards and punishments,
What else?

So, that is against atheism and agnosticism and other religions that
don't believe in a higher power, correct?

3) Why is it that the Bible (and no other religious book) was press
printed by the government?

Why is it that early school textbooks asking questions about Jesus
(and about no other religious figure)?
(http://youtube.com/watch?v=C5nBP5XCD_M timecode: 2:33)

Why is it that many State Constitutions mention "year of our
Lord" (and no other being)? (I know you talked about it in youtube
saying it's just a custom but I disagree)

In other words, it seemed that religion was only limited to
Christianity by the context of the time. Please prove me wrong here.

"You may believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, the trinity,
incarnation, atonement, and eternal damnation, but when our Founders
mentioned "religion" or even "Christianity" don't assume they
necessarily referred to these things."

<<< That's a whole other topic. I'll start a topic on that one.

On Jul 18, 7:50 pm, Jon <rowjonat...@aol.com> wrote:
> Now hold the phone one minute.  When Washington said "religion" he
> meant "religion," not necessarily "Christianity" and certainly not
> "orthodox Trinitarian Christianity" exclusively.  My meticulous
> research has show when key Founders such as Washington said "religion"
> they meant at the very least, Christianity, Deism, Unitarianism,
> Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, pagan Greco-Romanism, and Native American
> spirituality.  The content of "sound religion" was the teaching of the
> existence of an overriding Providence and the future state of rewards
> and punishments, NOT necessarily such things as the inerrancy of the
> Bible, the trinity, incarnation, atonement, and eternal damnation.
>
> As we debate these issues, I'd like folks to keep this in mind.  You
> may believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, the trinity, incarnation,
> atonement, and eternal damnation, but when our Founders mentioned
> "religion" or even "Christianity" don't assume they necessarily
> referred to these things.
>

> Jon Rowehttp://americancreation.blogspot.comhttp://positiveliberty.comhttp://jonrowe.blogspot.com

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

I do want to emphasize the fact that even if Washington meant purely
"religion", this would still include Christianity.... as well as
Islam, Judaism, etc.

Saying "religion and morality are indispensable" to politics is mind-
blowing, because we have been SECULARIZING everything about politics,
public education, healthcare, etc, and we've been told that it's
separation of Church and State.

Is there anything you have to say towards this side of the topic?

On Jul 18, 7:50 pm, Jon <rowjonat...@aol.com> wrote:

> Now hold the phone one minute.  When Washington said "religion" he
> meant "religion," not necessarily "Christianity" and certainly not
> "orthodox Trinitarian Christianity" exclusively.  My meticulous
> research has show when key Founders such as Washington said "religion"
> they meant at the very least, Christianity, Deism, Unitarianism,
> Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, pagan Greco-Romanism, and Native American
> spirituality.  The content of "sound religion" was the teaching of the
> existence of an overriding Providence and the future state of rewards
> and punishments, NOT necessarily such things as the inerrancy of the
> Bible, the trinity, incarnation, atonement, and eternal damnation.
>
> As we debate these issues, I'd like folks to keep this in mind.  You
> may believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, the trinity, incarnation,
> atonement, and eternal damnation, but when our Founders mentioned
> "religion" or even "Christianity" don't assume they necessarily
> referred to these things.
>

> Jon Rowehttp://americancreation.blogspot.comhttp://positiveliberty.comhttp://jonrowe.blogspot.com

[mydh12]

nvsvic, you make a good point. The Founding Fathers' (FF) speak very
loudly through their actions. We should also remember that at the time
of the Revolution, the colonies were approximately 98% Protestant, 1.5
% Catholic, and .5% Jewish. I highly doubt that the FF were trying to
introduce something entirely foreign to the people who they were
trying to represent. Also, we need to remember that a few of the
states still had state-supported religions (Protestant denominations)
and the FF did not try to overturn any of them. To argue, that the FF
were some sort of amorphous theists like what we have in the US today
seems to be pretty shaky to me.

You could also add that several of the FF were members of Bible
societies, and even Thomas Jefferson had the Bible taught in the DC
schools while he was the superintendent of the school district. This
of course was in addition to Jefferson having Christian missionaries
sent to the Indians, at the government's expense. Yes, you are right.
The actions of the FF speak loudly and clearly about the meaning of
their words.

> > Jon Rowehttp://americancreation.blogspot.comhttp://positiveliberty.comhttp://...

[Jon]

A lot of this information is not true. Thomas Jefferson did NOT have
the Bible taught in the DC public schools. AND also did NOT have
Christian missionaries sent to the Indians. There is a kernel of truth
in the Christian missionaries things, but ultimately it's been
distorted by the likes of David Barton. I'm going to give you a
weblink full of information that rebuts everything that Barton says.
Her rhetoric is a bit shrill [I know I can be shrill when speaking of
Barton too; and I'm trying to tone it down and be civil]. But her
information is accurate and useful.

http://www.liarsforjesus.com/pages/3page1.htm
http://www.liarsforjesus.com/pages/5page1.htm

Jon Rowe
http://americancreation.blogspot.com

[Jon]

"We should also remember that at the time of the Revolution, the
colonies were approximately 98% Protestant, 1.5 % Catholic, and .5%
Jewish."

I've also seen studies that show that "Protestant" Americans were a
distinctly unchurched people. That perhaps only 17% were members of
Churches. But it's true that 98% were "Protestant" in a formal or
nominal sense, not necessarily orthodox Trinitarian regenerate
Christians. Thomas Jefferson would qualify as one of these nominal
Protestants and he rejected every single tenet of Christian
orthodoxy.

"I highly doubt that the FF were trying to introduce something
entirely foreign to the people who they were
trying to represent."

Well, the fact is the FFs were from the "elite"and their ideas came
from intellectual or philosophical sources that weren't popular among
the common man [pretty much the way it is today, and the way it's
always been]. And the "elite" view on religion was indeed this
"amorphous theism" about which you are skeptical.

Hopefully, as this debate progresses, you will understand this. John
Adams will play a key role in this debate. Most "Christian America"
advocates accept that Jefferson & Franklin were "lost causes," but
Adams...he was a fairly conservative fellow for his time with
mainstream views. Yet, on personal religious belief, his views were
nearly identical to Jefferson's & Franklin's. Adams well illustrates
just how "mainstream" Jefferson's & Franklin's religious views were
among the Founders: They weren't outliers. The following is one of
many quotations we'll see from Adams that illustrate his religious
heterodoxy:

“It has pleased the Providence of the first Cause, the Universal
Cause, that Abraham should give religion not only to Hebrews but to
Christians and Mahomitans, the greatest part of the modern civilized
world.”

-- John Adams to M.M. Noah, July 31, 1818

On Jul 18, 7:45 pm, mydh12 <HansonDu...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Jon]

"Why is it that the Bible (and no other religious book) was press
printed by the government?"

I would check with Chris Rodda for this for the context. But I'd note
that I could see it feasible for government to print the Bible in the
Founding era if the people so needed their Bibles and the market (for
instance because of a trade embargo or the like] prevented shipments
of the good book. But do NOT assume this was because the Founders
thought Christianity true, other religious false or that Christianity
only should have rights.

Rather, assume a "democratic" posture towards religion: Whatever "the
people's" religious needs we will accommodate, be it Christianity,
Islam or whatever. For instance, Ben Franklin was involved in the
building of Churches and built one for his friend the evangelical
Christian George Whitefield to preach. But notice Franklin's
explanation: The Church was for whatever the religion of "the people"
be it evangelical Christianity or Islam:

"Both house and ground were vested in trustees, expressly for the use
of any preacher of any religious persuasion who might desire to say
something to the people at Philadelphia; the design in building not
being to accommodate any particular sect, but the inhabitants in
general; so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a
missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at
his service."

http://www.positiveliberty.com/2006/11/ben-franklin-v-dennis-prager.html

Likewise here is Washington noting contra Jefferson & Madison, he
didn't have a problem with a VA state bill that funded teachers of the
Christian religion only. But note how he also asserts non-Christians
have equal religious rights and are therefore entitled to an
accomodation or exemption. We'll see these themes coming up again --
religious liberty and equality among all religions, not just the
Christian sects -- this was the ideal of the Founding and their
benevolent approach to "religion." It was a softer form of
secularism.

"I am not amongst the number of those who are so much alarmed at the
thoughts of making people pay towards the support of that which they
profess, if of the denomination of Christians; or declare themselves
Jews, Mahomitans or otherwise, and thereby obtain proper relief. As
the matter now stands, I wish an assessment had never been agitated,
and as it has gone so far, that the Bill could die an easy death;…"

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=848&chapter=101926&layout=html&Itemid=27

On Jul 18, 5:52 pm, NVSvic...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Jon Rowehttp://americancreation.blogspot.comhttp://positiveliberty.comhttp://...

[mydh12]

Whether John Adams was an orthodox Christian or not is really not a
concern to me. What matters to me is that he definitely saw that
religion and morality were necessary for democracy. A few years ago, I
accidentally ran across an article by Bill Kristol, in which he argued
for the need for religion in American life even though he, himself, is
not an orthodox believer. I'm not sure even if he is a nominal
Christian. He may be only a nominal Jew. That's fine with me because
he can choose to be whatever religion he wishes. What is important is
that we would be allies in seeing that the morality of the Judeo-
Christian religion makes for a stronger America. Again, what is
important is what kind of America the FF believed was right and
necessary for the American democracy to thrive. They saw the need for
morality and religion. Since they had been involved in ugly skirmishes
with the Islamic Barbery pirates, I doubt seriously that they were
thinking that Islam was part of the recipe for democratic success in
America.

Were some of the FF influenced by deism? Of course, just as anyone in
any location is influenced by various voices within their culture. I
am influenced by non-Christian influences in our culture. And non-
Christian people in America have been hugely influenced by
Christianity, whether they choose to recognize it of not. If you want
me to believe that the FF had a multi-cultural view of religion like
many in the US have today, then you will have to do more than simply
stating your opinion. I also think that some of the FF who were strong
orthodox Christians would have strongly objected to proposals for non-
Christian religions to be held in equal esteem as Christianity. Can
you provide evidence of these disputes occurring, and of the multi-
culti approach winning the argument?

More to say, but that will come later.

> > > (http://youtube.com/watch?v=C5nBP5XCD_Mtimecode: 2:33)

[Jon]

"Since they had been involved in ugly skirmishes
with the Islamic Barbery pirates, I doubt seriously that they were
thinking that Islam was part of the recipe for democratic success in
America."

This is a non-sequitur. Yes, they did have ugly skirmishes with the
Islamic Barbery pirates, but no, they did not conclude that Islam was
a false religion and/or not entitled to the rights under the rubric of
"religion." Rather we have Adams saying:

"It has pleased the Providence of the first Cause, the Universal
Cause, that Abraham should give religion not only to Hebrews but to
Christians and Mahomitans, the greatest part of the modern civilized
world."

-- John Adams to M.M. Noah, July 31, 1818

Here is Adams, in his letter to Jefferson dated Oct. 4, 1813, finding
"Christianity" in Pagan Greek philosophy [I did the best I could with
the Greek letters]:

"θέμίς was the Goddess of honesty, Justice, Decency, and right; the
Wife of Jove, another name for Juno. She presided over all oracles,
deliberations and Counsells. She commanded all Mortals to pray to
Jupiter, for all lawful Benefits and Blessings.

"Now, is not this, (so far forth) the Essence of Christian devotion?
Is not this Christian Piety? Is it not an Acknonowledgement [sic] of
the existence of a Supream Being? of his universal Providence? of a
righteous Administration of the Government of the Universe? And what
can Jews, Christians, or Mahometans do more?"

Notice how again, Adams conflates Judaism, Christianity and Islam
together. Religion = religion, not "Christianity" only.

[Jon]

"If you want me to believe that the FF had a multi-cultural view of
religion like

many in the US have today...."

No, this is not what I want you to believe. Rather, I want you to
appreciate what the key Founders really thought about religion and it
is as follows: Most if not all world religions (including the ones I
above mentioned) were valid ways to God with Christianity being the
quickest way up the mountain NOT because of His exclusive claim to God
as the second person in the Trinity, but rather because, as a man only
Jesus of Nazareth was the world's greatest moral teacher.

And yes, I have lots of footnotes to prove this. Note, it is my
contention that the key Founders were not Trinitarians, but
unitarians. As such they may have believed Jesus to be just a man.
OR they may have believed him to believe divine in some sense, but
created by and subordinate to the Father. But they did not believe
him to be God Incarnate, part of a Triune Godhead. As John Adams put
it:

“An incarnate God!!! An eternal, self-existent, omnipresent omniscient
Author of this stupendous Universe, suffering on a Cross!!! My Soul
starts with horror, at the Idea, and it has stupified the Christian
World. It has been the Source of almost all of the Corruptions of
Christianity.”

– John Adams to John Quincy Adams, March 28, 1816.

On Jul 20, 5:02 pm, mydh12 <HansonDu...@gmail.com> wrote:

[mydh12]

Once again, I don't care if John Adams was a Christian or a Unitarian.
You can give any quotes that you want in that regard. What I was
talking about and am concerned about is the FF's attitude toward the
role of religion in public life and government. The overwhelming
religion of their day in the US was Protestant Christianity and the FF
wanted it to play a prominent role in informing the values and
attitudes of both the governed and those doing the governing. Do you
dispute? That is the only matter which concerns me.

> ...
>
> read more »

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

I can see how there's so many sub-topics that have branched off.

I'm sad to see that Google doesn't offer good indention tools (to show
hierarchy) in the Pages section, so it's hard to show the branching of
the topics.... but there's hope since it's in html format.

Anyhow, let's keep the discussion focused at one topic at at time...
you know to make it more pleasant to debate.

So, I have a clarifying question for Jon.

In all your research, do you agree or disagree with this statement
that speaks for most of the founding fathers and their view on
politics?

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political
prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports."

This is assuming religion means religion, including Islam, Judaism,
and Christianity.

> > Jon Rowehttp://americancreation.blogspot.comhttp://positiveliberty.comhttp://...

[Jon]

I agree that a consensus America's Founding fathers believed this.
Though I would issue one caveat: "Religion" meant "religion" not
necessarily "Christianity." The Founders preferred a "religious"
citizenry to an irreligious citizenry. But, they thought most or any
religion could suffice including Islam, Judaism, pagan Greco-Romanism,
and all sorts of exotic world religions.

[Jon]

Yes the Founders wanted "religion" to inform public life. But they
had to balance this with the idea that men of all religions (not just
Christian) or no religion at all had the same unalienable rights of
conscience that orthodox Christians did.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Jon]

The Founding Fathers also didn't mind if non-Christian religions
played a role in public life as well. America may have been 98%
Protestant but now it's 80% Christian, again in demongraphic sense
(not necessarily all orthodox Trinitarian regenerate Christians). As
such those 20% and the liberal Christians among the 80% have a right
to have their religion play a role in public life as well. America
became a haven for non-Christian religions precisely because of their
approach on equal religious rights for all, not necessarily
Christians.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[mydh12]

So who said that other religions shouldn't have a right to participate
in influencing our society? Not Christians. We are not the ones who
institute "politically correct" speech codes, or try to legislate
"hate speech" laws. That is done by the liberals in the US who
constantly complain that Christians are trying to "impose" or
"legislate" their morality on others.

Well, that is exactly what the liberals are doing. They are imposing
their beliefs on everyone, but by using the canard that only
Christians are trying to do this, they often successfully intimidate
non-thinking Christians into not being involved in the political
process. Liberals often say that Christians shouldn't be involved.
Does that mean that we shouldn't have the right to vote or to express
our opinions? The latter is the case on many college campuses where
instructors are afraid to voice their opinions, either inside or
outside the classroom, lest they be denied tenure. That is also the
case where Democrats want to censor their opposition by bringing back
the "Fairness Doctrine" to radio stations. It seems that Liberals try
to "impose" censorship on others much more often than Christians
today.

I find that Liberals who constantly talk about "tolerance" are
frequently the most intolerant people. This is exactly why the FF
wrote the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion clauses into the
first amendment. They had seen what happened when intolerant people
gained too much power in England. That also happened with some of the
state-churches here in early America (that's why Rhode Island was
formed by Roger Williams). FF, like John Jay, who was the first
Supreme Court Chief Justice, signer of the Treaty of Paris, and the
head of a Bible Society, argued for the Constitution in the Federalist
Papers. He was NOT in favor of excluding people, especially
Christians, from the political process. In fact, he argued that people
should elect Christians to political office. Many of the states had
the REQUIREMENT that a person had to be a Christian in order to hold
public office. Jay and the writers of those state constitutions
certainly wanted Christianity, not some other religions, to be the
dominant influence on public officials.

BTW, Jon, I appreciate your statements. It helps to sharpen my
thinking. But why are you so interested in trying to prove that the FF
didn't believe that Christianity was supposed to be the dominant
influence in political life? Could it be that you don't want present-
day Christians to be influential in political life? Should Christians
be allowed to have the right to speak and vote and to be politically
involved only so long as they are unsuccessful or unimportant? If
people with a Judeo-Christian viewpoint are influential, should they
then be censored and shut down, like the Democrats want to do with the
Fairness Doctrine? Would that be in line with the FF's thinking? Just
curious.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Jon]

I'm not "liberals." I am a libertarian and don't support speech codes
or the fairness doctrines.

To tell you the truth, whatever my original motives for studying this
history, I became fascinated by it and my research grew into a
creature of its own. About 5 years or so, I encountered folks who
would -- as a debating technique -- quote the research of David
Barton or D. James Kennedy that argued "America was founded to be a
'Christian Nation'" in order to score points or even settle an
argument. We should or shouldn't have X because America was founded
to be a Christian Nation. I watched some of D. James Kennedy TV shows
where he argued this and when perusing the TV and shows like the 700
Club came on; I heard these claims repeated there as well. My liberal
law school profs tended to teach the very opposite and said the
Founders were all Deists. And I agree about the liberal bias in
academia and found it very irritating as a student who held some
politically incorrect opinions.

So I set out to find the truth. And I found out that both sides
distorted history and the truth was a nuanced in between version. I
don't think any of the major Founders were "Deists" (Thomas Paine and
Ethan Allen were; I wouldn't call them major Founders). But they
weren't Christians either. And orthodox Christianity was not the
animating theology behind the Declaration, Constitution or Federalist
Papers. This hybrid theology of theistic rationalism was.

Some of those states did indeed have Christian religious tests. But
the US Constitution did not. And America's key Founders tended to
hate those religious tests and believed they violated the natural
rights ideals of the Declaration of Independence (just as slavery
did). In other words America's Founders tended to think the same
thing of those "Christian only" religious tests as they thought of
chattel slavery (both violated the Declaration of Independence but
were nonetheless ingrained as "institutions" that would take time to
uproot).

John Jay was saying something else -- something I don't agree with --
but something else, nonetheless. He was still against religious tests
but argued Christians have a right to vote for Christians only for
public office.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Jon]

And let me clarify: I agree with John Jay that Christians have a
right to vote for only Christian leaders. What I don't agree with is
his intimation -- "yeah and that's a good thing so lets do it."
Whites have a "right" only to vote for white candidates only. But
someone who purposefully voted with that attitude we'd term a bigot.

> ...
>
> read more »

[mydh12]

I'm happy to hear that you think that we have a "right" to voe for
Christians. I likewise grant to you the right to vote for whomever you
wish. (A little sarcasm there) John Jay said much more than that we
have a right to vote for Christians. He said that we OUGHT to vote for
them. The FF put a premium on character. They realized that the
constitution needed to be undergirded with morality and religion. It
is thus not surprising that they expected and wanted Christianity to
have a big influence on politicians' decisions.

As I have said earlier, all of us, including you and me and the FF,
are influenced by multiple sources within our culture. Today, although
I wish to be a strong Christian, I know that I am influenced by the
materialism of my culture. All of us have "hybrid theologies." We are
in agreement that the FF were influenced by different sources in their
culture, including deism and Christianity. But as I look at what the
FF did, it seems that they clearly expected and desired Christianity
to have a huge influence on politics.

BTW, I have not researched this, perhaps you can help me with this.
Amongst the 250 or so FF, how many of them also had helped to draw up
the state constitutions that, in some cases, required a person to
profess Christianity in order to hold public office? I honestly don't
know and I would be interested to know. I wouldn't be surprised if a
fairly large number of the people who drew up the federal constitution
were also on the committees that drew up those state constitutions.
The FF did not want a national Church, but they did not outlaw state
churches. It's also probably true that many or most of the FF did not
want to have religious test, but they still expected and desired for
Christianity to have a big influence.

The FF did not want a theocracy and neither do I. But what I oppose is
the current desire by many Liberals to illegitimately silence
Christians and drive them out of the public square by using specious
arguments concerning the FF. I also dislike it when some Christians
overstate their side of the case. I think that the Truth will stand
well for the Christian case without resorting to exaggeration or
selectively using various quotes.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Jon]

On the FFs and involvement in writing state constitutions that imposed
religious tests, I'm not sure. What I do know is the key Founders
tended to hate those religious tests. And even when Founders like
Franklin were involved in writing state constitutions that included
those religious tests, they tried to fight against them but sometimes
lost.

I don't know of the "lesser" Framers of Constitution or signers of the
Declaration who were all for "Christian only" religious tests. There
may have been a number of them; I don't know. Perhaps you can do the
research on that.

I don't have a problem with Christians bringing their faith into the
public square. However, as a political libertarian, I believe people
have an unalienable right to live their lives in a way that
traditional Christians would regard as utterly sinful and that this is
fundamental to American Founding thought. For instance, if you don't
keep the sabbath or if you do worship false gods; you sin gravely.
Yet, free exercise of religion holds you have the absolute right to
NOT keep the sabbath or to worship false gods.

Yes, the Founders did want America to be a "religious people." But
that was NOT because they wanted the Christian religion to be written
into the civil laws; to the contrary the Founders, as classical
liberals, were anti-statists. They DIDN'T want a comprehensive moral
code written into the civil laws. Rather they wanted the civil laws
to be kept to a minimum. RELIGION (and not just Christianity, but
most or all world "religions") was valuable because it kept men MORAL
and hence self-governable, so we wouldn't need a government to
comprehensively regulate man's conduct.

That's what they believed. This isn't quite what I believe.
Personally, I think the verdict is still out on whether religion does
indeed make men more moral. But the Founders did want America to be
"religious" (though not necessarily "Christian").

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

Ok. good. I've updated the Summary's page to reflect your agreement.

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

I have an additional question for Jon on this...

do you agree with Mydh and I that:

1) it's true that modern media and environment is discouraging
Christians (and other religions) from being involved in politics

2) it's true that it's wrong based on FFs view for the modern
environment to be hostile like this.


BTW, I haven't agreed that GW's "religion" meant "plain religion", I'm
just double checking that you (Jon) would agree to certain things if
religion meant religion.
It's important that we agree on common grounds first.

On Jul 21, 11:47 pm, Jon <rowjonat...@aol.com> wrote:

[Jon]

Not "environment." Religious conservatives have plenty of support
from talk radio, Fox News and other circles. Yes, the mainstream
media and academia are hostile to religious conservatism and their
involvement in politics. However, I don't see them as having at all
stopped religious conservatives' attempt to mobilize politically. To
the contrary, I see such hostility as invigorating religious
conservative political involvement. That hostility -- yes very real
-- is often use as a propagandistic tool by the religious right for
action.

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

Now, let me ask: is the term "propaganda" a negative term or not? I
hear it so often in a bad light.

Anyhow, from my experience, I'm glad this "propaganda" was created.

If you're a true supporter of truth, I think you should at least
appreciate Barton's "propaganda" efforts because he did bring out a
lot of stuff I was NEVER taught about due to the corrupted academic
system. I hope you do understand how pissed off I am with this
rewriting of history. It is true that NOT all of what Barton said is a
lie, but actually contains some truth. I hope you agree with that.

[Jon]

Sure I can agree with that. You have to pick your battles. I
understand one wanting to take on the strict secularism that is taught
in various institutions. I tend to take on the "Christian America"
reading of history. But ultimately I think the truth is found
somewhere in between in works like Steven Waldman's "Founding Faith,"
Jon Meacham's "American Gospel" and Noll, Hatch, and Marsden's "The
Search For Christian America."

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

Ok. I'll keep them in mind in my tasks list. Thanks.

[mydh12]

Jon, you say that the FF wanted the American people to be "a religious
people." That is absolutely true, as anyone who reads Washington's
Farewell Address can see. And it is true that the FF didn't want to
have a National Church therefore we can infer that they didn't want to
incorporate specific sectarian practices into civil law. But then you
say that they were not necessarily wanting the Christian faith to have
a predominate influence over other religions. What other religions are
you referring to?

Again, we know that back in the colonial times, 98% of people were of
Protestant background, 1.8% were from a Catholic background, and 0.2%
were from a Jewish background. You can try to say that a few of the
elites were heavily influenced by deism, but even Jefferson and
Franklin were heavily influenced by Christianity and its morals. You
can allude to deism and the Enlightenment, but the religion of western
Europe was still Christianity.

Morals are not formed in a vacuum. The FF knew that morality came from
religion, even if you personally are uncomfortable with that. The
religion that they were referring to was Christianity. To think that
they were referring to Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, or some
other religion is really a stretch. Several of the signers of the
Declaration of Independence were Protestant theologians. The
Constitutional Convention went to hear sermons by Protestant pastors
when they were deadlocked in arguments, and had extended times of
prayer. These were done with Christian pastors. We can't re-write
history, even if it makes us feel uncomfortable.

People and groups, like the ACLU, who are trying to rid our public
square of Christianity, are causing great harm to the USA. The multi-
cultural approach that says that all cultures and traditions are of
equal value have been promoted in order to take away the prominence of
Christianity. It is not surprising to see our culture decline rapidly
as a result.

Jon, please think about this. Were the FF promoting religions, other
than Christianity, or is this argument perhaps more a reflection of
your own personal desire to not be accountable to the Christian God?
Just a thought to consider. Sorry it took so long for me to get back
to this thread. I've been busy.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Jon]

First lets clear up some factual assertions:

"Several of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were
Protestant theologians."

Only one was a minister: John Witherspoon. I'm sure many of them
were armchair theologians. Indeed, Jefferson, J. Adams and Franklin
certainly were. It's just that their theology was heterodox.

"The Constitutional Convention went to hear sermons by Protestant
pastors when they were deadlocked in arguments, and had extended times
of prayer. These were done with Christian pastors."

Can we draw out the primary sources for this. I think I recall
reading something on Barton's site along these lines. It sounds like
an attempt to save the Ben Franklin's call for prayer myth. The facts
are Franklin did call for prayer and the motion wasn't even voted on.
They did not pray at the constitutional convention (at least not
officially).

The myth, now thoroughly debunked, was they took a 3-day recess after
Franklin's call for prayer, then instituted prayer at the CC and that
got them over the deadlock. There may be a kernel of truth to your
assertion; but I'm pretty certain it was not "the Constitutional
Convention" who went to hear sermons by Protestant pastors. Perhaps a
*some* members of the Convention.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Jon]

"The FF knew that morality came from religion, even if you personally
are uncomfortable with that. The
religion that they were referring to was Christianity. To think that
they were referring to Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, or some
other religion is really a stretch."

I would reply even if you are uncomfortable with this fact, I have
discovered thru meticulously examining the primary sources that when
they said "religion" they meant "religion" and their understanding of
such included lots of non-Christian religions including ones you just
mentioned.

For instance, most of you are probably familiar with John Adams'
quotation:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It
is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

-- John Adams, October 11, 1798.

But you'd err if you thought Adams referred ONLY to Christianity. In
a publicly published book during that era Adams wrote:

This preamble [to the laws of ZALEUCUS] instead of addressing itself
to the ignorance, prejudices, and superstitious fears of savages, for
the purpose of binding them to an absurd system of hunger and glory
for a family purpose, like the laws of Lycurgus, places religion,
morals, and government, upon a basis of philosophy, which is rational,
intelligible, and eternal, for the real happiness of man in society,
and throughout his duration.

-- John Adams, DEFENCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES,
1787-88.

Here you see Adams equating "religion and morality" with a pagan Greco-
Roman system. I blogged about it more detail here:

http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2008/07/talking-past-one-another.html

Here Adams equates states that Hinduism teaches "Christian
principles."

"Where is to be found Theology more orthodox or Phylosophy more
profound than in the Introduction to the Shast[r]a [a Hindu Treatise]?
'God is one, creator of all, Universal Sphere, without beginning,
without End. God Governs all the Creation by a General Providence,
resulting from his eternal designs. — Search not the Essence and the
nature of the Eternal, who is one; Your research will be vain and
presumptuous. It is enough that, day by day, and night by night, You
adore his Power, his Wisdom and his Goodness, in his Works.'"

– John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, December 25, 1813.

I blogged about that here:

http://www.positiveliberty.com/2007/07/john-adams-vindicated.html

The reason why I keep coming back to John Adams is that your
perspective tends to agree that Jefferson and Franklin were not real
orthodox Trinitarian Christians, but cast them off as outliers. Most
of us understand that John Adams possessed mainstream views for
America's Founders. And the fact that Adams was virtually agreed with
Jefferson and Franklin shows show how mainstream their views were.
Indeed Jefferson wrote the Declaration and Jefferson, Adams and
Franklin were a majority of the drafting bd. of the Declaration.

On Jul 29, 3:36 pm, mydh12 <HansonDu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ...
>
> read more »

[Jon]

Let me make one last quick point.

Personally Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Madison, Washington were all
formally associated with Christian Churches and I think they had a
"Christian" identity and desired America retain hers. HOWEVER, their
system which Dr. Frazer has termed "theistic rationalism" denied Jesus
full Godhood (or second place in the Trinity) and was quite
rationalistic.

They wanted the Protestant Christian religion to further REFORM away
from Christianity to this unitarian system. As Jefferson wrote in
1822 "there is not a young man now living in the US who will not die
an Unitarian."

Finally, I'll reiterate they granted "rights" to "religion" not
"Christianity." Liberty and Equality rights belong to all men of all
(or even no religions). So when we have a battle re Christianity &
the public square and along comes another religion saying "treat me as
equals," this is well within the spirit of the US Founding.

On Jul 29, 3:36 pm, mydh12 <HansonDu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ...
>
> read more »

[mydh12]

"Personally Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Madison, Washington were all
formally associated with Christian Churches and I think they had a
"Christian" identity and desired America retain hers."

Thank you for agreeing with my contention that they desired that
America retain its Christian identity. I could not care less if the FF
were orthodox Christians. They were greatly influenced by Christianity
and they wanted the nation to be continue to be greatly influenced by
it, They would NOT approve of how people have tried, often
successfully, to remove its influence.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Jon]

Check out American Creation for Obama's speech on the matter.

I note -- as a Libertarian, I'm going to vote for Bob Barr (Obama is
too statist for me) -- however, his arguments on the Christian Nation
seem pretty spot on. Specifically on the question of "whose
Christianity" (it sorta parallels stuff I've been blogging about the
last few days). That WAS a big issue during America's Founding. They
may have all agreed that they and the country were "Christian" broadly
defined. (In the same way they agreed we have unalienable rights to
"life, liberty, & pursuit of happiness," broadly defined). But when
it came time to the specifics, they disagreed. They couldn't even
agree on the proper definition of "Christianity." As I've alluded, to
the orthodox, "unitarianism" is not "Christianity." But the
Unitarians insisted they were "Christians." This had big
implications. Mass. was the last state to abolish its established
Church. And they did so because the Trinitarians were ticked off that
the imposter Christians "Unitarians" were getting state establishment
aid. When govt can't take sides in these theological disputes, it has
to remain neutral. That's basically where secularism comes from.

> ...
>
> read more »

[mydh12]

Earlier you said that the FF were perhaps just as much more for the
influence of Islam as they were for Christianity. However, how does
that agree with this quote by Joseph Story? Afain, when the FF were
talking about religion, they were talking about the various sects of
Christianity.

In his "Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States"
Justice Story noted,

"The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance,
much less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by
prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian
sects."

> ...
>
> read more »

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

Wow, that's some killer quote!

> ...
>
> read more »

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

"Were the FF promoting religions, other
than Christianity,"

< That's another good way of asking teh question.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Jon]

I've dealt with this quotation extensively on my blogs. Check out the
following:

http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2008/07/impossibility-of-christian-nation.html

[Jon]

Well if Christianity = orthodox Trinitarian, the Bible is infallible,
then yes. They promoted their "unitarian" or "theistic rationalist"
creed which is a form of theologically liberal, heretical form of
"Christianity" which arguably (like Mormonism, or Jehovah's
Witnessism) doesn't even merit the label "Christian."

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

I saw a similar quote, but not exactly this quote on the URL you
provided.

On Aug 2, 9:57 pm, Jon <rowjonat...@aol.com> wrote:
> I've dealt with this quotation extensively on my blogs.  Check out the
> following:
>

> http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2008/07/impossibility-of-christi...

> ...
>
> read more »

[Jon]

Check out this one:

http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2008/07/michael-mcconnells-latest-opinion.html