What are the biggest problems in America right now
- Thread starter Dr. Dilznick
- Start date
madame_zora
Sexy Member
You may want to take your own advice then, BnD. I remember not too long ago that you launched a very pointed personal attack on me the last time you couldn't answer my point adequately. You think that if you don't use the "f" word that you can lob insults that are somehow more acceptable? I was saying that an insult is an insult regardless of how it's phrased.
Yes, I see you as a sanctimonious ass. I'm sure it colours my perception of your posts, but read without preconceived notions, they are still inflamitory. "Anti Christian League of Unbelievers"? Are you serious?
The country is getting sick to death of evangelicals trying to shove their personal beliefs down the throats of every citizen of this nation whether we like it or not. Eventually, the pendulum will swing. I can actually forsee the possibility that Christians may IN FACT come under some degree of persecuation as a result of so many lobbying for forcing their religion on unwilling citizens. Where will you be then? Let me tell you- at the door of the ACLU begging for support. Christianity in government was NEVER intended to be, NEVER! John Adams went to extra mile to ensure freedom of religion and FROM religion so that each citizen could make this determination for themselves. If you honestly DON'T understand why non-evangelicals could possibly be upset by having OUR freedoms revoked (not on this forum, stupid, in real life!
, then you have more serious issues that I can address.
I have no problem calling bullshit when I see bullshit. I think all this "making nice" has been an abhorent detriment to stopping this evangelical machine that has been gaining in power and force. You think it's okay to rewrite the Constitution to cater to ONE lobbying group? I think you're full of shit.
Yes, I have voted both parties depending on who supported the most sensible positions, as well as I could determine at the time. You see me as "anti-republican" now because it makes it easier for you to attack ME instead of my words. Fine. I know how weak minds operate. It changes nothing, please show me a few instances where this administrations is :A-fiscally conservative or B- reducing the size of government. This administration is Republican in name ONLY, and yes, I do hate vehemently almost everything about it. It is a theocratic machine aimed at nothing more than securing and keeping itself in position so it can gain control of our resources and bilk us dry.
The evangelicals of course will never accept responsibility for their share in this. Once bush falls from grace, they'll drop him like a dead rat. When the depth of corruption is finally revealed, if it ever is, They will feel "justified indignation" even though it was apparent to anyone with a fourth grade education what was going on.
You show me a fiscally conservative, small government republican in this administration, and I'll show you the tooth fairy, they'll be twins.
Yes, I see you as a sanctimonious ass. I'm sure it colours my perception of your posts, but read without preconceived notions, they are still inflamitory. "Anti Christian League of Unbelievers"? Are you serious?
The country is getting sick to death of evangelicals trying to shove their personal beliefs down the throats of every citizen of this nation whether we like it or not. Eventually, the pendulum will swing. I can actually forsee the possibility that Christians may IN FACT come under some degree of persecuation as a result of so many lobbying for forcing their religion on unwilling citizens. Where will you be then? Let me tell you- at the door of the ACLU begging for support. Christianity in government was NEVER intended to be, NEVER! John Adams went to extra mile to ensure freedom of religion and FROM religion so that each citizen could make this determination for themselves. If you honestly DON'T understand why non-evangelicals could possibly be upset by having OUR freedoms revoked (not on this forum, stupid, in real life!
, then you have more serious issues that I can address.I have no problem calling bullshit when I see bullshit. I think all this "making nice" has been an abhorent detriment to stopping this evangelical machine that has been gaining in power and force. You think it's okay to rewrite the Constitution to cater to ONE lobbying group? I think you're full of shit.
Yes, I have voted both parties depending on who supported the most sensible positions, as well as I could determine at the time. You see me as "anti-republican" now because it makes it easier for you to attack ME instead of my words. Fine. I know how weak minds operate. It changes nothing, please show me a few instances where this administrations is :A-fiscally conservative or B- reducing the size of government. This administration is Republican in name ONLY, and yes, I do hate vehemently almost everything about it. It is a theocratic machine aimed at nothing more than securing and keeping itself in position so it can gain control of our resources and bilk us dry.
The evangelicals of course will never accept responsibility for their share in this. Once bush falls from grace, they'll drop him like a dead rat. When the depth of corruption is finally revealed, if it ever is, They will feel "justified indignation" even though it was apparent to anyone with a fourth grade education what was going on.
You show me a fiscally conservative, small government republican in this administration, and I'll show you the tooth fairy, they'll be twins.
Well, it's so easy to discredit you, seeing as I've read YOUR talking points in Newsmax, the Washington Times, Freerepublic, and any other site for those of much faith and little IQ.
[post=350942]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]I don't care one iota for your opinions on much, but at least you've added some quality reading to your daily/weekly listing I feel I must compliment you on.
In the past, the melting pot worked because immigrants were allowed to melt in to some degree. Now they are ghettoized by people like you. It has nothing to do with them wanting to fit in. I love living in a city with immigrants from all over the world who work hard to make our economy run, who spend money and pay taxes, and enrich our culture. I don't give an f-bomb (?!
what their legal status is. Question: If it is so bad in your eyes to send money back to your family in another country, is it wrong for corporations to close shop in the US and move to wherever they can make the cheapest buck?
- jonb,
I don't care one iota for your opinions on much, but at least you've added some quality reading to your daily/weekly listing I feel I must compliment you on.
[post=350949]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]They're good for laughs. The guy behind Newsmax, Richard Scaife, once argued that Clinton killed two Arkansas teens. His weapon? A train.
Man, I hate those! They are especially the worst after sex in a hot tub when the bubbles were on.
Zora,
The day that happens is the day you and I have a full wedding at a Southern Baptist church.
You continue to spew all the bile and venom you want. It's obvious you have plenty to spare. And yes, I was serious when I said what I did about the ACLU. If you spit Dr. Pepper all over your screen when you read it, I'm truly, truly sorry that happened.
The day that happens is the day you and I have a full wedding at a Southern Baptist church.
You continue to spew all the bile and venom you want. It's obvious you have plenty to spare. And yes, I was serious when I said what I did about the ACLU. If you spit Dr. Pepper all over your screen when you read it, I'm truly, truly sorry that happened.
Yeah, he's a horrible person. Few Democrats have anything to do with him or his family...except that it's been said that Mrs. Teresa Heinz "ketchup" Kerry is a close friend of Scaife's wife and that a cousin of his is chairman of one of Mrs. Kerry's foundations.
madame_zora
Sexy Member
Yeah, I'm just spouting bile and venom. Meanwhile, back at the "ranch", the American people are finally starting to see through the charade of lies they've been fed. You may still be supporting what is going on around here, but many are getting wise.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/06/...ain924485.shtml
The easiset accusation to cast is "Anti-American" or "Anti-Christian" as if your saying so makes it true-*passes cluephone* it doesn't.
I LIKE Southern Baptists by and large. I went to a Southern Baptist college on a full tuition scholarship, what's not to like? They took me into their homes and treated me like family. You have not understood me well at all if you think I'm against religious people. I'm against USING the faith of the faithful for political gain. I wouldn't expect a moron like you to be able to pick up on that less than subtle differentiation even though I've explained it over and over. Easier just to slap a label on me so you can disregard what I'm saying. Fortunately, there are enough Americans who think for themselves that you nutjobs who still support this administration despite overwhelming evidence of corruption are quickly losing ground.
Sure I'm angry. I can read and I know a bit about history. Anyone supporting theocrasy and making excuses for blatant political corruption is robbing every other citizen of our birthrights. Frankly, I'd like to see bush ass-raped Abu Gharib-style.
<!--QuoteBegin-Thomas Jefferson@"Notes on Virginia"
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.[/quote]
<!--QuoteBegin-John Quincy Adams
An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against... Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance... religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government."[/quote]
plenty more where those came from, if any other SHITEATING IMBECILE STILL HASN'T GOTTEN THE MOTHERFUCKING POINT YET
madame_zora
Sexy Member
Little-Known U.S. Document Signed by President Adams Proclaims America's Government Is Secular
by Jim Walker
Some people today assert that the United States government came from Christian foundations. They argue that our political system represents a Christian ideal form of government and that Jefferson, Madison, et al, had simply expressed Christian values while framing the Constitution. If this proved true, then we should have a wealth of evidence to support it, yet just the opposite proves the case.
Although, indeed, many of America's colonial statesmen practiced Christianity, our most influential Founding Fathers broke away from traditional religious thinking. The ideas of the Great Enlightenment that began in Europe had begun to sever the chains of monarchical theocracy. These heretical European ideas spread throughout early America. Instead of relying on faith, people began to use reason and science as their guide. The humanistic philosophical writers of the Enlightenment, such as Locke, Rousseau, and Voltaire, had greatly influenced our Founding Fathers and Isaac Newton's mechanical and mathematical foundations served as a grounding post for their scientific reasoning.
Altace
A few Christian fundamentalists attempt to convince us to return to the Christianity of early America, yet according to the historian, Robert T. Handy, "No more than 10 percent-- probably less-- of Americans in 1800 were members of congregations."
The Founding Fathers, also, rarely practiced Christian orthodoxy. Although they supported the free exercise of any religion, they understood the dangers of religion. Most of them believed in deism and attended Freemasonry lodges. According to John J. Robinson, "Freemasonry had been a powerful force for religious freedom." Freemasons took seriously the principle that men should worship according to their own conscious. Masonry welcomed anyone from any religion or non-religion, as long as they believed in a Supreme Being. Washington, Franklin, Hancock, Hamilton, Lafayette, and many others accepted Freemasonry.
The Constitution reflects our founders views of a secular government, protecting the freedom of any belief or unbelief. The historian, Robert Middlekauff, observed, "the idea that the Constitution expressed a moral view seems absurd. There were no genuine evangelicals in the Convention, and there were no heated declarations of Christian piety."
George Washington
Much of the myth of Washington's alleged Christianity came from Mason Weems influential book, "Life of Washington." The story of the cherry tree comes from this book and it has no historical basis. Weems, a Christian minister portrayed Washington as a devout Christian, yet Washington's own diaries show that he rarely attended Church.
Washington revealed almost nothing to indicate his spiritual frame of mind, hardly a mark of a devout Christian. In his thousands of letters, the name of Jesus Christ never appears. He rarely spoke about his religion, but his Freemasonry experience points to a belief in deism. Washington's initiation occurred at the Fredericksburg Lodge on 4 November 1752, later becoming a Master mason in 1799, and remained a freemason until he died.
To the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789, Washington said that every man "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience."
After Washington's death, Dr. Abercrombie, a friend of his, replied to a Dr. Wilson, who had interrogated him about Washington's religion replied, "Sir, Washington was a Deist."
Thomas Jefferson
Even most Christians do not consider Jefferson a Christian. In many of his letters, he denounced the superstitions of Christianity. He did not believe in spiritual souls, angels or godly miracles. Although Jefferson did admire the morality of Jesus, Jefferson did not think him divine, nor did he believe in the Trinity or the miracles of Jesus. In a letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787, he wrote, "Question with boldness even the existence of a god."
Jefferson believed in materialism, reason, and science. He never admitted to any religion but his own. In a letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, 25 June 1819, he wrote, "You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."
John Adams
Adams, a Unitarian, flatly denied the doctrine of eternal damnation. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, he wrote:
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
In his letter to Samuel Miller, 8 July 1820, Adams admitted his unbelief of Protestant Calvinism: "I must acknowledge that I cannot class myself under that denomination."
JOHN ADAMS
In his, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788], John Adams wrote:
"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."
James Madison
Called the father of the Constitution, Madison had no conventional sense of Christianity. In 1785, Madison wrote in his Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments:
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
Benjamin Franklin
Although Franklin received religious training, his nature forced him to rebel against the irrational tenets of his parents Christianity. His Autobiography revels his skepticism, "My parents had given me betimes religions impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself.
". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a through Deist."
In an essay on "Toleration," Franklin wrote:
"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England] and in New England."
Dr. Priestley, an intimate friend of Franklin, wrote of him:
"It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin's general good character and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers" (Priestley's Autobiography)
Thomas Paine
This freethinker and author of several books, influenced more early Americans than any other writer. Although he held Deist beliefs, he wrote in his famous The Age of Reason:
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church. "
"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. "
The U.S. Constitution
The most convincing evidence that our government did not ground itself upon Christianity comes from the very document that defines it-- the United States Constitution.
If indeed our Framers had aimed to found a Christian republic, it would seem highly unlikely that they would have forgotten to leave out their Christian intentions in the
Loading AdDynamix ...
Supreme law of the land. In fact, nowhere in the Constitution do we have a single mention of Christianity, God, Jesus, or any Supreme Being. There occurs only two references to religion and they both use exclusionary wording. The 1st Amendment's says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." and in Article VI, Section 3, ". . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Thomas Jefferson interpreted the 1st Amendment in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in January 1, 1802:
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
Some Religious activists try to extricate the concept of separation between church and State by claiming that those words do not occur in the Constitution. Indeed they do not, but neither does it exactly say "freedom of religion," yet the First Amendment implies both.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom:
"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."
James Madison, perhaps the greatest supporter for separation of church and State, and whom many refer to as the father of the Constitution, also held similar views which he expressed in his letter to Edward Livingston, 10 July 1822:
"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
Today, if ever our government needed proof that the separation of church and State works to ensure the freedom of religion, one only need to look at the plethora of Churches, temples, and shrines that exist in the cities and towns throughout the United States. Only a secular government, divorced from religion could possibly allow such tolerant diversity.
The Declaration of Independence
Many Christians who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration as "proof." The reason appears obvious: the document mentions God. However, the God in the Declaration does not describe Christianity's God. It describes "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." This nature's view of God agrees with deist philosophy but any attempt to use the Declaration as a support for Christianity will fail for this reason alone.
ARTICLE XI FROM THE TREATY OF TRIPOLI
More significantly, the Declaration does not represent the law of the land as it came before the Constitution. The Declaration aimed at announcing their separation from Great Britain and listed the various grievances with the "thirteen united States of America." The grievances against Great Britain no longer hold, and we have more than thirteen states. Today, the Declaration represents an important historical document about rebellious intentions against Great Britain at a time before the formation of our independent government. Although the Declaration may have influential power, it may inspire the lofty thoughts of poets, and judges may mention it in their summations, it holds no legal power today. Our presidents, judges and policemen must take an oath to uphold the Constitution, but never to the Declaration of Independence.
Of course the Declaration depicts a great political document, as it aimed at a future government upheld by citizens instead of a religious monarchy. It observed that all men "are created equal" meaning that we all come inborn with the abilities of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." The Declaration says nothing about our rights secured by Christianity, nor does it imply anything about a Christian foundation.
Treaty of Tripoli
Unlike governments of the past, the American Fathers set up a government divorced from religion. The establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves about its origin; they knew this as an unspoken given. However, as the U.S. delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of America. For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the United States to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:
Joel Barlow
U.S. Consul General of Algiers
Copyright National Portait Gallery Smithsonian Institution/Art Resource NY
"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Barlow, along with his associate, Captain Richard O'Brien, et al, translated and modified the Arabic version of the treaty into English. From this came the added Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.
So here we have a clear admission by the United States that our government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all treaties do according to the Constitution (see Article VI, Sect. 2).
Although the Christian exclusionary wording in the Treaty of Tripoli only lasted for eight years and no longer has legal status, it clearly represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of the U.S. government.
Common Law
SIGNERS OF THE TREATY OF TRIPOLI
According to the Constitution's 7th Amendment: "In suits at common law. . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact, tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law."
Here, many Christians believe that common law came from Christian foundations and therefore the Constitution derives from it. They use various quotes from Supreme Court Justices proclaiming that Christianity came as part of the laws of England, and therefore from its common law heritage.
But one of our principle Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, elaborated about the history of common law in his letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814:
"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.
". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
In the same letter, Jefferson examined how the error spread about Christianity and common law. Jefferson realized that a misinterpretation had occurred with a Latin term by Prisot, "*ancien scripture*," in reference to common law history. The term meant "ancient scripture" but people had incorrectly interpreted it to mean "Holy Scripture," thus spreading the myth that common law came from the Bible. Jefferson writes:
"And Blackstone repeats, in the words of Sir Matthew Hale, that 'Christianity is part of the laws of England,' citing Ventris and Strange ubi surpa. 4. Blackst. 59. Lord Mansfield qualifies it a little by saying that 'The essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law." In the case of the Chamberlain of London v. Evans, 1767. But he cites no authority, and leaves us at our peril to find out what, in the opinion of the judge, and according to the measure of his foot or his faith, are those essential principles of revealed religion obligatory on us as a part of the common law."
Thus we find this string of authorities, when examined to the beginning, all hanging on the same hook, a perverted expression of Priscot's, or on one another, or nobody."
The Encyclopedia Britannica, also describes the Saxon origin and adds: "The nature of the new common law was at first much influenced by the principles of Roman law, but later it developed more and more along independent lines." Also prominent among the characteristics that derived out of common law include the institution of the jury, and the right to speedy trial.
Christian Sources
Virtually all the evidence that attempts to connect a foundation of Christianity upon the government rests mainly on quotes and opinions from a few of the colonial statesmen who had professed a belief in Christianity. Sometimes the quotes come from their youth before their introduction to Enlightenment ideas or simply from personal beliefs. But statements of beliefs, by themselves, say nothing about Christianity as the source of the U.S. government.
There did occur, however, some who wished a connection between church and State. Patrick Henry, for example, proposed a tax to help sustain "some form of Christian worship" for the state of Virginia. But Jefferson and other statesmen did not agree. In 1779, Jefferson introduced a bill for the Statute for Religious Freedom which became Virginia law. Jefferson designed this law to completely separate religion from government. None of Henry's Christian views ever got introduced into Virginia's or U.S. Government law.
Unfortunately, later developments in our government have clouded early history. The original Pledge of Allegiance, authored by Francis Bellamy in 1892 did not contain the words "under God." Not until June 1954 did those words appear in the Allegiance. The United States currency never had "In God We Trust" printed on money until after the Civil War. Many Christians who visit historical monuments and see the word "God" inscribed in stone, automatically impart their own personal God of Christianity, without understanding the Framers Deist context.
In the Supreme Court's 1892 Holy Trinity Church vs. United States, Justice David Brewer wrote that "this is a Christian nation." Many Christians use this as evidence. However, Brewer wrote this in dicta, as a personal opinion only and does not serve as a legal pronouncement. Later Brewer felt obliged to explain himself: "But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all."
Conclusion
The Framers derived an independent government out of Enlightenment thinking against the grievances caused by Great Britain. Our Founders paid little heed to political beliefs about Christianity. The 1st Amendment stands as the bulkhead against an establishment of religion and at the same time insures the free expression of any belief. The Treaty of Tripoli, an instrument of the Constitution, clearly stated our non-Christian foundation. We inherited common law from Great Britain which derived from pre-Christian Saxons rather than from Biblical scripture.
Today we have powerful Christian organizations who work to spread historical myths about early America and attempt to bring a Christian theocracy to the government. If this ever happens, then indeed, we will have ignored the lessons from history. Fortunately, most liberal Christians today agree with the principles of separation of church and State, just as they did in early America.
"They all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point"
-Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835
Bibliography
Borden, Morton, "Jews, Turks, and Infidels," The University of North Carolina Press, 1984
Boston, Robert, "Why the Religious Right is Wrong About Separation of Church & State, "Prometheus Books, 1993
Boston, F. Andrews, et al, "The Writings of George Washington," (12 Vols.), Charleston, S.C., 1833-37
Fitzpatrick, John C., ed., "The Diaries of George Washington, 1748-1799," Houghton Mifflin Company: Published for the Mount Vernon Ladies Association of the Union, 1925
Gay, Kathlyn, "Church and State,"The Millbrook Press," 1992
Handy, Robert, T., "A History of the Churches in U.S. and Canada," New York: Oxford University Press, 1977
Hayes, Judith, "All those Christian Presidents," [The American Rationalist, March/April 1997]
Kock, Adrienne, ed., "The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society," New York: George Braziller, 1965
Mapp, Jr, Alf J., "Thomas Jefferson," Madison Books, 1987
Middlekauff, Robert, "The Glorious Cause," Oxford University Press, 1982
Miller, Hunter, ed., "Treaties and other International Acts of the United States of America," Vol. 2, Documents 1-40: 1776-1818, United States Government Printing Office, Washington: 1931
Peterson, Merrill D., "Thomas Jefferson Writings," The Library of America, 1984
Remsburg, John E., "Six Historic Americans," The Truth Seeker Company, New York
Robinson, John J., "Born in Blood," M. Evans & Company, New York, 1989
Roche, O.I.A., ed, "The Jefferson Bible: with the Annotated Commentaries on Religion of Thomas Jefferson," Clarkson N. Potter, Inc., 1964
Seldes, George, ed., "The Great Quotations," Pocket Books, New York, 1967
Sweet, William W., "Revivalism in America, its origin, growth and decline," C. Scribner's Sons, New York, 1944
Woodress, James, "A Yankee's Odyssey, the Life of Joel Barlow," J. P. Lippincott Co., 1958
Encyclopedia sources:
Common law: Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 6, "William Benton, Publisher, 1969
Declaration of Independence: MicroSoft Encarta 1996 Encyclopedia, MicroSoft Corp., Funk & Wagnalls Corporation.
In God We Trust: MicroSoft Encarta 1996 Encyclopedia, MicroSoft Corp., Funk & Wagnalls Corporation.
Pledge of Allegiance: Academic American Encyclopedia, Vol. 15, Grolier Incorporated, Danbury, Conn., 1988
Special thanks to Ed Buckner, Robert Boston, Selena Brewington and Lion G. Miles, for help in providing me with source materials.
by Jim Walker
Some people today assert that the United States government came from Christian foundations. They argue that our political system represents a Christian ideal form of government and that Jefferson, Madison, et al, had simply expressed Christian values while framing the Constitution. If this proved true, then we should have a wealth of evidence to support it, yet just the opposite proves the case.
Although, indeed, many of America's colonial statesmen practiced Christianity, our most influential Founding Fathers broke away from traditional religious thinking. The ideas of the Great Enlightenment that began in Europe had begun to sever the chains of monarchical theocracy. These heretical European ideas spread throughout early America. Instead of relying on faith, people began to use reason and science as their guide. The humanistic philosophical writers of the Enlightenment, such as Locke, Rousseau, and Voltaire, had greatly influenced our Founding Fathers and Isaac Newton's mechanical and mathematical foundations served as a grounding post for their scientific reasoning.
Altace
A few Christian fundamentalists attempt to convince us to return to the Christianity of early America, yet according to the historian, Robert T. Handy, "No more than 10 percent-- probably less-- of Americans in 1800 were members of congregations."
The Founding Fathers, also, rarely practiced Christian orthodoxy. Although they supported the free exercise of any religion, they understood the dangers of religion. Most of them believed in deism and attended Freemasonry lodges. According to John J. Robinson, "Freemasonry had been a powerful force for religious freedom." Freemasons took seriously the principle that men should worship according to their own conscious. Masonry welcomed anyone from any religion or non-religion, as long as they believed in a Supreme Being. Washington, Franklin, Hancock, Hamilton, Lafayette, and many others accepted Freemasonry.
The Constitution reflects our founders views of a secular government, protecting the freedom of any belief or unbelief. The historian, Robert Middlekauff, observed, "the idea that the Constitution expressed a moral view seems absurd. There were no genuine evangelicals in the Convention, and there were no heated declarations of Christian piety."
George Washington
Much of the myth of Washington's alleged Christianity came from Mason Weems influential book, "Life of Washington." The story of the cherry tree comes from this book and it has no historical basis. Weems, a Christian minister portrayed Washington as a devout Christian, yet Washington's own diaries show that he rarely attended Church.
Washington revealed almost nothing to indicate his spiritual frame of mind, hardly a mark of a devout Christian. In his thousands of letters, the name of Jesus Christ never appears. He rarely spoke about his religion, but his Freemasonry experience points to a belief in deism. Washington's initiation occurred at the Fredericksburg Lodge on 4 November 1752, later becoming a Master mason in 1799, and remained a freemason until he died.
To the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789, Washington said that every man "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience."
After Washington's death, Dr. Abercrombie, a friend of his, replied to a Dr. Wilson, who had interrogated him about Washington's religion replied, "Sir, Washington was a Deist."
Thomas Jefferson
Even most Christians do not consider Jefferson a Christian. In many of his letters, he denounced the superstitions of Christianity. He did not believe in spiritual souls, angels or godly miracles. Although Jefferson did admire the morality of Jesus, Jefferson did not think him divine, nor did he believe in the Trinity or the miracles of Jesus. In a letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787, he wrote, "Question with boldness even the existence of a god."
Jefferson believed in materialism, reason, and science. He never admitted to any religion but his own. In a letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, 25 June 1819, he wrote, "You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."
John Adams
Adams, a Unitarian, flatly denied the doctrine of eternal damnation. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, he wrote:
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
In his letter to Samuel Miller, 8 July 1820, Adams admitted his unbelief of Protestant Calvinism: "I must acknowledge that I cannot class myself under that denomination."
JOHN ADAMS
In his, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788], John Adams wrote:
"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."
James Madison
Called the father of the Constitution, Madison had no conventional sense of Christianity. In 1785, Madison wrote in his Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments:
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
Benjamin Franklin
Although Franklin received religious training, his nature forced him to rebel against the irrational tenets of his parents Christianity. His Autobiography revels his skepticism, "My parents had given me betimes religions impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself.
". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a through Deist."
In an essay on "Toleration," Franklin wrote:
"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England] and in New England."
Dr. Priestley, an intimate friend of Franklin, wrote of him:
"It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin's general good character and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers" (Priestley's Autobiography)
Thomas Paine
This freethinker and author of several books, influenced more early Americans than any other writer. Although he held Deist beliefs, he wrote in his famous The Age of Reason:
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church. "
"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. "
The U.S. Constitution
The most convincing evidence that our government did not ground itself upon Christianity comes from the very document that defines it-- the United States Constitution.
If indeed our Framers had aimed to found a Christian republic, it would seem highly unlikely that they would have forgotten to leave out their Christian intentions in the
Loading AdDynamix ...
Supreme law of the land. In fact, nowhere in the Constitution do we have a single mention of Christianity, God, Jesus, or any Supreme Being. There occurs only two references to religion and they both use exclusionary wording. The 1st Amendment's says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." and in Article VI, Section 3, ". . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Thomas Jefferson interpreted the 1st Amendment in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in January 1, 1802:
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
Some Religious activists try to extricate the concept of separation between church and State by claiming that those words do not occur in the Constitution. Indeed they do not, but neither does it exactly say "freedom of religion," yet the First Amendment implies both.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom:
"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."
James Madison, perhaps the greatest supporter for separation of church and State, and whom many refer to as the father of the Constitution, also held similar views which he expressed in his letter to Edward Livingston, 10 July 1822:
"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
Today, if ever our government needed proof that the separation of church and State works to ensure the freedom of religion, one only need to look at the plethora of Churches, temples, and shrines that exist in the cities and towns throughout the United States. Only a secular government, divorced from religion could possibly allow such tolerant diversity.
The Declaration of Independence
Many Christians who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration as "proof." The reason appears obvious: the document mentions God. However, the God in the Declaration does not describe Christianity's God. It describes "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." This nature's view of God agrees with deist philosophy but any attempt to use the Declaration as a support for Christianity will fail for this reason alone.
ARTICLE XI FROM THE TREATY OF TRIPOLI
More significantly, the Declaration does not represent the law of the land as it came before the Constitution. The Declaration aimed at announcing their separation from Great Britain and listed the various grievances with the "thirteen united States of America." The grievances against Great Britain no longer hold, and we have more than thirteen states. Today, the Declaration represents an important historical document about rebellious intentions against Great Britain at a time before the formation of our independent government. Although the Declaration may have influential power, it may inspire the lofty thoughts of poets, and judges may mention it in their summations, it holds no legal power today. Our presidents, judges and policemen must take an oath to uphold the Constitution, but never to the Declaration of Independence.
Of course the Declaration depicts a great political document, as it aimed at a future government upheld by citizens instead of a religious monarchy. It observed that all men "are created equal" meaning that we all come inborn with the abilities of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." The Declaration says nothing about our rights secured by Christianity, nor does it imply anything about a Christian foundation.
Treaty of Tripoli
Unlike governments of the past, the American Fathers set up a government divorced from religion. The establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves about its origin; they knew this as an unspoken given. However, as the U.S. delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of America. For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the United States to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:
Joel Barlow
U.S. Consul General of Algiers
Copyright National Portait Gallery Smithsonian Institution/Art Resource NY
"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Barlow, along with his associate, Captain Richard O'Brien, et al, translated and modified the Arabic version of the treaty into English. From this came the added Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.
So here we have a clear admission by the United States that our government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all treaties do according to the Constitution (see Article VI, Sect. 2).
Although the Christian exclusionary wording in the Treaty of Tripoli only lasted for eight years and no longer has legal status, it clearly represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of the U.S. government.
Common Law
SIGNERS OF THE TREATY OF TRIPOLI
According to the Constitution's 7th Amendment: "In suits at common law. . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact, tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law."
Here, many Christians believe that common law came from Christian foundations and therefore the Constitution derives from it. They use various quotes from Supreme Court Justices proclaiming that Christianity came as part of the laws of England, and therefore from its common law heritage.
But one of our principle Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, elaborated about the history of common law in his letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814:
"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.
". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
In the same letter, Jefferson examined how the error spread about Christianity and common law. Jefferson realized that a misinterpretation had occurred with a Latin term by Prisot, "*ancien scripture*," in reference to common law history. The term meant "ancient scripture" but people had incorrectly interpreted it to mean "Holy Scripture," thus spreading the myth that common law came from the Bible. Jefferson writes:
"And Blackstone repeats, in the words of Sir Matthew Hale, that 'Christianity is part of the laws of England,' citing Ventris and Strange ubi surpa. 4. Blackst. 59. Lord Mansfield qualifies it a little by saying that 'The essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law." In the case of the Chamberlain of London v. Evans, 1767. But he cites no authority, and leaves us at our peril to find out what, in the opinion of the judge, and according to the measure of his foot or his faith, are those essential principles of revealed religion obligatory on us as a part of the common law."
Thus we find this string of authorities, when examined to the beginning, all hanging on the same hook, a perverted expression of Priscot's, or on one another, or nobody."
The Encyclopedia Britannica, also describes the Saxon origin and adds: "The nature of the new common law was at first much influenced by the principles of Roman law, but later it developed more and more along independent lines." Also prominent among the characteristics that derived out of common law include the institution of the jury, and the right to speedy trial.
Christian Sources
Virtually all the evidence that attempts to connect a foundation of Christianity upon the government rests mainly on quotes and opinions from a few of the colonial statesmen who had professed a belief in Christianity. Sometimes the quotes come from their youth before their introduction to Enlightenment ideas or simply from personal beliefs. But statements of beliefs, by themselves, say nothing about Christianity as the source of the U.S. government.
There did occur, however, some who wished a connection between church and State. Patrick Henry, for example, proposed a tax to help sustain "some form of Christian worship" for the state of Virginia. But Jefferson and other statesmen did not agree. In 1779, Jefferson introduced a bill for the Statute for Religious Freedom which became Virginia law. Jefferson designed this law to completely separate religion from government. None of Henry's Christian views ever got introduced into Virginia's or U.S. Government law.
Unfortunately, later developments in our government have clouded early history. The original Pledge of Allegiance, authored by Francis Bellamy in 1892 did not contain the words "under God." Not until June 1954 did those words appear in the Allegiance. The United States currency never had "In God We Trust" printed on money until after the Civil War. Many Christians who visit historical monuments and see the word "God" inscribed in stone, automatically impart their own personal God of Christianity, without understanding the Framers Deist context.
In the Supreme Court's 1892 Holy Trinity Church vs. United States, Justice David Brewer wrote that "this is a Christian nation." Many Christians use this as evidence. However, Brewer wrote this in dicta, as a personal opinion only and does not serve as a legal pronouncement. Later Brewer felt obliged to explain himself: "But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all."
Conclusion
The Framers derived an independent government out of Enlightenment thinking against the grievances caused by Great Britain. Our Founders paid little heed to political beliefs about Christianity. The 1st Amendment stands as the bulkhead against an establishment of religion and at the same time insures the free expression of any belief. The Treaty of Tripoli, an instrument of the Constitution, clearly stated our non-Christian foundation. We inherited common law from Great Britain which derived from pre-Christian Saxons rather than from Biblical scripture.
Today we have powerful Christian organizations who work to spread historical myths about early America and attempt to bring a Christian theocracy to the government. If this ever happens, then indeed, we will have ignored the lessons from history. Fortunately, most liberal Christians today agree with the principles of separation of church and State, just as they did in early America.
"They all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point"
-Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835
Bibliography
Borden, Morton, "Jews, Turks, and Infidels," The University of North Carolina Press, 1984
Boston, Robert, "Why the Religious Right is Wrong About Separation of Church & State, "Prometheus Books, 1993
Boston, F. Andrews, et al, "The Writings of George Washington," (12 Vols.), Charleston, S.C., 1833-37
Fitzpatrick, John C., ed., "The Diaries of George Washington, 1748-1799," Houghton Mifflin Company: Published for the Mount Vernon Ladies Association of the Union, 1925
Gay, Kathlyn, "Church and State,"The Millbrook Press," 1992
Handy, Robert, T., "A History of the Churches in U.S. and Canada," New York: Oxford University Press, 1977
Hayes, Judith, "All those Christian Presidents," [The American Rationalist, March/April 1997]
Kock, Adrienne, ed., "The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society," New York: George Braziller, 1965
Mapp, Jr, Alf J., "Thomas Jefferson," Madison Books, 1987
Middlekauff, Robert, "The Glorious Cause," Oxford University Press, 1982
Miller, Hunter, ed., "Treaties and other International Acts of the United States of America," Vol. 2, Documents 1-40: 1776-1818, United States Government Printing Office, Washington: 1931
Peterson, Merrill D., "Thomas Jefferson Writings," The Library of America, 1984
Remsburg, John E., "Six Historic Americans," The Truth Seeker Company, New York
Robinson, John J., "Born in Blood," M. Evans & Company, New York, 1989
Roche, O.I.A., ed, "The Jefferson Bible: with the Annotated Commentaries on Religion of Thomas Jefferson," Clarkson N. Potter, Inc., 1964
Seldes, George, ed., "The Great Quotations," Pocket Books, New York, 1967
Sweet, William W., "Revivalism in America, its origin, growth and decline," C. Scribner's Sons, New York, 1944
Woodress, James, "A Yankee's Odyssey, the Life of Joel Barlow," J. P. Lippincott Co., 1958
Encyclopedia sources:
Common law: Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 6, "William Benton, Publisher, 1969
Declaration of Independence: MicroSoft Encarta 1996 Encyclopedia, MicroSoft Corp., Funk & Wagnalls Corporation.
In God We Trust: MicroSoft Encarta 1996 Encyclopedia, MicroSoft Corp., Funk & Wagnalls Corporation.
Pledge of Allegiance: Academic American Encyclopedia, Vol. 15, Grolier Incorporated, Danbury, Conn., 1988
Special thanks to Ed Buckner, Robert Boston, Selena Brewington and Lion G. Miles, for help in providing me with source materials.
madame_zora
Sexy Member
I just figured everyone was sick of hearing my "unfounded opinions", so I posted something that summed it up very well, complete with sources.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Posts
- 5,842
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 2,611
- Points
- 333
- Location
- Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
- Gender
- Male
Jana,
A job well done! For those who don't know, copy and paste works well with LPSG. I will cut and paste and send to my e-mail address and also to Word Perfect for a more permanent file.
I knew all of this. Studied it in college. But I didn't have my hands on a single source that so beautifully outlines this.
One can argue against this all they want. But the truth is theocratic Christians can't use the leading Founders and their documents as sources for their belief.
As for common law, any reputable attorney will tell you that common law is based on the Anglo-Saxxon's pre-Christian era laws.
One piece of information left out: In that day, the Baptists were the leading Christian group in favor of separation of church and state. I was taught that the Baptists had a very influential effect on Thomas Jefferson and lobbied him to introduce the bill in the Virginia legislature as mentioned by Jana. The Baptists did not want to pay a tax to support a state church and then also financially support their own church. Sad to see the Southern Baptists depart from their historical postion on separation of church and state.
Again thanks Jana. You played an ace card today on this subject.
Edit: Postscript:
I just finished pasting on Word Perfect. Nine page document!
Well, it's so easy to discredit you, seeing as I've read YOUR talking points in Newsmax, the Washington Times, Freerepublic, and any other site for those of much faith and little IQ.
[/b][/quote]
What media outlet doesn't have biased coverage, though. As if the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post and other various news publications and media don't chronically mislead and distort as well.
absinthium
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2005
- Posts
- 425
- Media
- 6
- Likes
- 7
- Points
- 163
- Location
- Dickcuntsburg, USAtown
- Sexuality
- 50% Straight, 50% Gay
- Gender
- Female
Man, I hate those! They are especially the worst after sex in a hot tub when the bubbles were on.
[post=350981]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]Yeesh... Sounds terrible, alright.
In the words of Jerri Blank: "Don't you hate it when air gets trapped in this region?" *Gestures to crotch*
madame_zora
Sexy Member
Yeesh... Sounds terrible, alright.
In the words of Jerri Blank: "Don't you hate it when air gets trapped in this region?" *Gestures to crotch*
[post=351418]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]They're not so bad as long as there's a good reason for them!
Sigh,
I'm so happy to see that you went to so much effort to defeat something that I've never personally advocated to you or anyone else, which is basically implementing policies, laws, and ways of treating people that effectively change out country's name to the United Christian States of America. People are free to practice any religion, or none at all, that they choose. Yes, the founders and other notable men of early America made it clear that church and state had separate and important roles to play in daily life, but rightfully emphasized "separate". Turning the government over to the Catholic Church, The Southern Baptist Convention, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, or anyone else you can think of has never arisen in my mind as a goal worthy of striving for. In the interest of spelling things out, I'll lay out what my precise griefs are and you can go from there.
I don't pretend to speak for all Christians, only for myself. What I find detestable is the politically correct notion that has taken root in this country that ANYTHING to do with a Christian symbol, be it an historical religious symbol that has been on a city's seal for decades, a nativity or manger scene in a Christmas display during the holiday season, or a high school football coach that has been told it's now all of the sudden wrong for him to even be in the room listening while his players freely engage in a team prayer prior to their meal and game, this after being a part of the tradition for nearly a quarter of a century. These are just three examples, but they cover the spectrum fairly well.
Can we not have separation of church and state yet still respect the fact that the overwhelming majority of the people that live in this country are indeed Christian? If there is but one speck of Christian symbolism out in the open somewhere is THAT such a crime that it has to be adjudicated because one individual finds it offensive? There is nothing wrong with investigating and celebrating the positive diversity that Muslims, Hindus, or anyone else brings to our shores. The non-religious among us should be able to contribute something to the life of everyone in this country without feeling that you have to impose your belief set upon others or vice versa. That has been a hallmark of our strength versus the rest of the world over the passage of time. But does that also mean our own uniqueness, that has been built upon and expanded over the decades and two plus centuries since our inception as an independent nation, has to be extinguished bit by bit, piece by piece, in order to accomplish that? To some it would seem so. And, since the ACLU is the poster child for cases like these, hence my dislike of the organization. I have no doubt they do undertake some positive initiatives, but they're best known for what we're talking about here.
This seeming continual erosion of what Christians hold dear is behind what you perceive to be an attempt to upend the Constitution and rewrite it from a church's pulpit. Zora, it's just like conspiracy theory in many ways. Sometimes a coincidence is just a coincidence. Sometimes a religious display on a courthouse square is just one person trying to outdo their friend down the road at the hardware store. Yes, they're using examples of their faith to do it with and you can decide if that is wrong or worth pursuing, but you'd seriously be pressed to find out, I'd wager, that these scenes were ever set up with the intent that "hey, it's time to convert as many non-believers as possible, so make it bigger-n-better than last year's." Would not a better answer be to include displays that pay homage to many different views, where possible? I have no problem with other religions wanting public space to celebrate the views of their culture. Since so many in everyday life tune out traditional ways of learning things, that could conceivably open a few eyes and help promote diversity....besides each side meeting up and arguing in court rooms, that is.
If you boil things down to the principle that if one person objects to something then you have to do away with it, then we'd have little in this country to agree upon. Now, if all I've written still sounds like I'm advocating Mr. Falwell or Mr. Robertson be installed as our 44th President, then I guess you're set on missing the point of where I come from on the whole subject. As I've said in this posting, church and state should be separate. I suppose you can always argue on the full meaning of the word "separate", if you're dedicated to arguing. I can no more easily leave behind the fact I'm a Christian in the everyday world than someone who weighs 400 lbs can the fact they're obese, for example. While I don't speak for any Christians besides myself, I would say that if things changed from what is perceived as continual secular attacks on the traditional and/or ceremonial role of God in our daily lives, and instead focused on how to integrate as many viewpoints as possible and respect ALL of them while doing so, accomodations might have to be made but us bothersome Christians might crawl back in our caves and go back to our daily lives and leave you alone. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's just one wing nut's opinion.
I'm so happy to see that you went to so much effort to defeat something that I've never personally advocated to you or anyone else, which is basically implementing policies, laws, and ways of treating people that effectively change out country's name to the United Christian States of America. People are free to practice any religion, or none at all, that they choose. Yes, the founders and other notable men of early America made it clear that church and state had separate and important roles to play in daily life, but rightfully emphasized "separate". Turning the government over to the Catholic Church, The Southern Baptist Convention, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, or anyone else you can think of has never arisen in my mind as a goal worthy of striving for. In the interest of spelling things out, I'll lay out what my precise griefs are and you can go from there.
I don't pretend to speak for all Christians, only for myself. What I find detestable is the politically correct notion that has taken root in this country that ANYTHING to do with a Christian symbol, be it an historical religious symbol that has been on a city's seal for decades, a nativity or manger scene in a Christmas display during the holiday season, or a high school football coach that has been told it's now all of the sudden wrong for him to even be in the room listening while his players freely engage in a team prayer prior to their meal and game, this after being a part of the tradition for nearly a quarter of a century. These are just three examples, but they cover the spectrum fairly well.
Can we not have separation of church and state yet still respect the fact that the overwhelming majority of the people that live in this country are indeed Christian? If there is but one speck of Christian symbolism out in the open somewhere is THAT such a crime that it has to be adjudicated because one individual finds it offensive? There is nothing wrong with investigating and celebrating the positive diversity that Muslims, Hindus, or anyone else brings to our shores. The non-religious among us should be able to contribute something to the life of everyone in this country without feeling that you have to impose your belief set upon others or vice versa. That has been a hallmark of our strength versus the rest of the world over the passage of time. But does that also mean our own uniqueness, that has been built upon and expanded over the decades and two plus centuries since our inception as an independent nation, has to be extinguished bit by bit, piece by piece, in order to accomplish that? To some it would seem so. And, since the ACLU is the poster child for cases like these, hence my dislike of the organization. I have no doubt they do undertake some positive initiatives, but they're best known for what we're talking about here.
This seeming continual erosion of what Christians hold dear is behind what you perceive to be an attempt to upend the Constitution and rewrite it from a church's pulpit. Zora, it's just like conspiracy theory in many ways. Sometimes a coincidence is just a coincidence. Sometimes a religious display on a courthouse square is just one person trying to outdo their friend down the road at the hardware store. Yes, they're using examples of their faith to do it with and you can decide if that is wrong or worth pursuing, but you'd seriously be pressed to find out, I'd wager, that these scenes were ever set up with the intent that "hey, it's time to convert as many non-believers as possible, so make it bigger-n-better than last year's." Would not a better answer be to include displays that pay homage to many different views, where possible? I have no problem with other religions wanting public space to celebrate the views of their culture. Since so many in everyday life tune out traditional ways of learning things, that could conceivably open a few eyes and help promote diversity....besides each side meeting up and arguing in court rooms, that is.
If you boil things down to the principle that if one person objects to something then you have to do away with it, then we'd have little in this country to agree upon. Now, if all I've written still sounds like I'm advocating Mr. Falwell or Mr. Robertson be installed as our 44th President, then I guess you're set on missing the point of where I come from on the whole subject. As I've said in this posting, church and state should be separate. I suppose you can always argue on the full meaning of the word "separate", if you're dedicated to arguing. I can no more easily leave behind the fact I'm a Christian in the everyday world than someone who weighs 400 lbs can the fact they're obese, for example. While I don't speak for any Christians besides myself, I would say that if things changed from what is perceived as continual secular attacks on the traditional and/or ceremonial role of God in our daily lives, and instead focused on how to integrate as many viewpoints as possible and respect ALL of them while doing so, accomodations might have to be made but us bothersome Christians might crawl back in our caves and go back to our daily lives and leave you alone. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's just one wing nut's opinion.