0
   

The United States was not founded as a Christian nation

 
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Oct, 2006 01:48 pm
hephzibah wrote:
Yeah I think we do because they didn't stop with that statement rosborne. They said a whole lot more and I think the other things they said are just as important as the initial statement.


Ok. But I don't see much else in the treaty which would imply that the US was a christian nation.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Oct, 2006 01:51 pm
Setanta wrote:
I cannot find a source to support the claim, but i believe the language used in the treaty was intended to prevent the Muslims of the north African coast from characterizing the Barbary Wars (the United States fought two Barbary wars) as holy wars, which authorized selling prisoners into slavery, and all manner of murder and cruelty. The point of such a passage would be to underline the intent of the United States to end the piracy, and not to conquer or convert the Berbers of northern Africa.


Thanks Set. Good stuff.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Oct, 2006 02:06 pm
RL, Steve's link provided many quotes from the major founders. For a starter, here are a couple from Franklin.

Benjamin Franklin
". . . 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 thorough Deist."

"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it."
- "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion", 1728
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Oct, 2006 02:14 pm
I'm not going through this again--i have lost count of the number of times i've written huge posts with quotes of founders and Presidents on the subject of the separation of church and state. Whether or not anyone can assert that the founders were themselves christians is absolutely meaningless with regard to the question of whether or not they thought themselves to be founding a christian nation. Their remarks about religion and religious establishment ought to be sufficient to anyone reading them who is not previously prejudiced by a religious agenda to understand that they wanted religion to have no part in government, and for government to have no part in religion.

As for the question of who took biblical texts for literal truth, i would point out that Jefferson wrote his own versions of the gospels, because he considered the received version to be larded with absurdities and obfuscations.

One thing the religious rightwingnuts never want to discuss, though, is the number of the founders who were Masons. George Washington, a vestryman in the Truro parish of the Episcopal Church in Virginia, was also a Mason, and wore Masonic regalia to lay the cornerstone of the Capitol.

Once again, whether or not any of the founders were christian has absolutely no bearing on whether or not they intended to found a christian nation.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Oct, 2006 04:07 pm
Thus spake the seraph, and forthwith
Appeared a shining throng
Of angels praising Set, and thus
Addressed their joyful song:

Let's hear it for Set, he's the man.
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Oct, 2006 04:17 pm
and Jefferson did, Setanta. Just found this out today:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/161/story_16121_1.html

That was quite a surprise to me.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Oct, 2006 08:26 pm
mesquite wrote:
RL, Steve's link provided many quotes from the major founders. For a starter, here are a couple from Franklin.

Benjamin Franklin
". . . 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 thorough Deist."

"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it."
- "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion", 1728


hi mesquite,

Good to hear from you.

If you'll study Franklin throughout his life, you may find that this statement early in his life (when he was 22, over four decades prior to the time he played a role in the founding of the nation ), and statements later in his life reflect profound differences.

This is also the case with other Founding fathers as well.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Oct, 2006 11:28 pm
real life wrote:
If you'll study Franklin throughout his life, you may find that this statement early in his life (when he was 22, over four decades prior to the time he played a role in the founding of the nation ), and statements later in his life reflect profound differences.

This is also the case with other Founding fathers as well.


Well let's see here. First you issue a challenge.

real life wrote:
Let THEM say that THEY hold to Deistic beliefs.

Ready. Go.


Then when it is met you say that he was too young at the time. OK How about age 84? From Steve's link above.

Quote:
At the age of eighty-four, just previous to his death, in reply to inquiries concerning his religious belief from Ezra Stiles, the President of Yale College, he wrote as follows:

"Here is my creed: I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe. That he governs it by his providence. That he ought to be worshiped. That the most acceptable service we render him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this."

This is pure Deism. Paine[/u] and Voltaire[/u] would have readily subscribed to every one of the above six articles of faith. Compare the creed of Franklin with the creed of Paine.


How about taking your own challenge. Let THEM say that THEY hold to Christian beliefs.

Ready. Go.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Oct, 2006 08:49 am
real life wrote:

How 'bout documenting your assertion with something other than more assertions ?

Helpful Hint A: Useful quotations would be those by Founding Fathers that deny their belief in prayer, for instance, since that would be God intervening in the affairs of men. A Deist would probably NOT believe in a God who answers prayer.

Helpful Hint B: Also helpful would be quotations by Founding Fathers that deny their belief in the Bible since that would be God intervening to reveal Himself to man and show to man His character, teach His ways, etc. A strict Deist would probably NOT believe in God intervening in this fashion, either.

Helpful Hint C: Very helpful would be quotations by Founding Fathers that deny that Jesus Christ was in ANY fashion a message, a messenger , an example or representative of God in ANY way. Good Deists would NOT be very consistent if they believed in God intervening in human history in this fashion (think: Star Trek and violating the Prime Directive)

Since Jesus Christ's life has arguably substantially altered human history (some believe for the good, others not) then if God intervened to "send" Jesus in any way, this would really put His credentials as the "hands off watchmaker" at risk.

Well, how 'bout it? Please quote in the words of the Founding Fathers only, not in the interpretive biographical sketches that others have written to redefine them.

Let THEM say that THEY hold to Deistic beliefs.

Ready. Go.


I[/b] made no assertion RL, you did

I quoted from http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html

It falls to them, not me to back up their[/b] assertion

which, as mesquite has demonstrated, they have done.

thanks mesquite.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Oct, 2006 09:01 am
Quote:
George Washington, a vestryman in the Truro parish of the Episcopal Church in Virginia, was also a Mason, and wore Masonic regalia to lay the cornerstone of the Capitol.


And at the headquarters of English Freemasonry...

http://www.grandlodge-england.org/

is a magnificent portrait of George Washington.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Oct, 2006 09:06 am
real life wrote:
This is also the case with other Founding fathers as well.


I've read Franklin's autobiography, and don't recall any particular piety on his part; and if you think you can substantiate your silly assertion about any profound change in Franklin's "spirituality," it should be a simple matter to cite the autobiography.

You've sneered at Steve for making assertions, but that is precisely what you do with the statement above. Jefferson, Mason and Adams all condemn the excesses of organized religion and assert the importance of the separation of church and state late in their lives, after the foundation of the nation.

If you want to sneer at Steve for what you describe as his assertions, you leave yourself open to the same ridicule for horseshit such as is quoted here.

Put up or shut up, Bubba.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Oct, 2006 09:44 am
Setanta wrote:
If you want to sneer at Steve for what you describe as his assertions, you leave yourself open to the same ridicule for horseshit such as is quoted here.


I agree with them RL. You're the one making assertions, taking things out of context, and distorting meanings. Do you believe your own BS, or do you just like to fling it?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Oct, 2006 09:48 am
I'm of the opinion that he's not even flinging his own bullshit--but rather, that he runs off to find it at some bible-thumper site online which provides the fundamentalist playground bullies the material they use.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Oct, 2006 10:24 am
Setanta wrote:
I'm of the opinion that he's not even flinging his own bullshit--but rather, that he runs off to find it at some bible-thumper site online which provides the fundamentalist playground bullies the material they use.


His arguments are targetted well, even though his rhetoric is recycled trash. He't putting thought into the selection, which means he's either enjoying our replies, or he's a true believer.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Oct, 2006 10:24 am
Blessed are the meek, for they shall be called the children of God.

Or maybe inherit the earth or something.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Oct, 2006 03:53 pm
mesquite wrote:
real life wrote:
If you'll study Franklin throughout his life, you may find that this statement early in his life (when he was 22, over four decades prior to the time he played a role in the founding of the nation ), and statements later in his life reflect profound differences.

This is also the case with other Founding fathers as well.


Well let's see here. First you issue a challenge.

real life wrote:
Let THEM say that THEY hold to Deistic beliefs.

Ready. Go.


Then when it is met you say that he was too young at the time. OK How about age 84? From Steve's link above.

Quote:
At the age of eighty-four, just previous to his death, in reply to inquiries concerning his religious belief from Ezra Stiles, the President of Yale College, he wrote as follows:

"Here is my creed: I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe. That he governs it by his providence. That he ought to be worshiped. That the most acceptable service we render him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this."

This is pure Deism. Paine[/u] and Voltaire[/u] would have readily subscribed to every one of the above six articles of faith. Compare the creed of Franklin with the creed of Paine.


How about taking your own challenge. Let THEM say that THEY hold to Christian beliefs.

Ready. Go.


Doesnt sound much like a Deist to me.

Quote:
Benjamin Franklin: Constitutional Convention Address on Prayer[/b]

Mr. President:

The small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks close attendance & continual reasonings with each other -- our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes as ays, is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own wont of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of government, and examined the different forms of those Republics which having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution now no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern States all round Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances.

In this situation of this Assembly groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine Protection. -- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance.

I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that "except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall be become a reproach and a bye word down to future age. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human Wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move -- that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Oct, 2006 05:56 pm
real life wrote:
Doesnt sound much like a Deist to me.

Quote:
Benjamin Franklin: Constitutional Convention Address on Prayer[/b]


Me either.

I do know that Franklin's proposal for prayer was not well received. His own notes say that only 3 or 4 at the convention seemed amenable. And the proposal was never approved.

What his motivations were for proposing it, I don't know. But you're right, it doesn't sound much like a deist.
0 Replies
 
Pauligirl
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 07:09 pm
From: R.P. Nettelhorst, "Notes on the Founding Fathers and the Separation of Church and State", posted on Quartz Hill School of Theology website (http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm; viewed 30 November 2005):
Benjamin Franklin, the delegate to the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention. He has frequently been used as a source for positive "God" talk. It is often noted that Franklin made a motion at the Constitutional convention that they should bring in a clergyman to pray for their deliberations:
In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when present to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings?... I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth - that God governs in the affairs of men.



(Catherine Drinker Bowen. Miracle at Philadelphia
: The Story of the Constitutional Convention, May to September 1787. New York: Book-of-the-Month Club, 1966, pp. 125-126)
...Franklin presented his motion after "four or five weeks" of deliberation, during which they had never once opened in prayer... Franklin's motion was voted down... [Franklin] made the motion during an especially trying week of serious disagreement, when the convention was in danger of breaking up. Cathrine Drinker Bowen comments:
Yet whether the Doctor had spoken from policy or from faith, his suggestion had been salutary, calling an assembly of doubting minds to a realization that destiny herself sat as guest and witness in this room. Franklin had made solemn reminder that a republic of thirteen united states - venture novel and daring - could not be achieved without mutual sacrifice and a summoning up of men's best, most difficult and most creative efforts. (Bowen, p. 127)
About March 1, 1790, [Franklin] wrote the following in a letter to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale, who had asked him his views on religion...:
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble...." (Carl Van Doren. Benjamin Franklin. New York: The Viking Press, 1938, p. 777.)
He died just over a month later on April 17.
http://www.adherents.com/people/pf/Benjamin_Franklin.html

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

Maybe he was just trying to keep the convention together.
P
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 11:23 pm
hephzibah wrote:
Alright rosborne. The treaty signed specifically says:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

The government OF the nation, not the nation itself. So then please explain to me why it is they even mentioned any of the following if it was not of any importance to anyone:

"...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rightssecure these rights, Governments are instituted among Menbecomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."


Of course it was important, because of the widespread belief in the Divine Right of Kings:
Quote:
Romans 13:1
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

1 Peter 2:13-14
Submission to Rulers and Masters
Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.

The Founding Fathers had to justify rebelling against a King whose authority, according to the Bible, had been established by God himself. They countered that belief by declaring that all men are equal in the sight of God and that men do not have to submit to a King who denies them their unalienable rights. Implicit was that God would approve of and duly establish their new government.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 01:17 pm
Terry wrote:
The Founding Fathers had to justify rebelling against a King whose authority, according to the Bible, had been established by God himself.
Balls. Find out about the English civil war and the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 04/29/2024 at 01:21:43