neologist wrote:Must we continue to whip this dead Darwin?
The hypothesis of evolution should be judged according to its current exposition.
It is also, of course, off topic.
What i find most amusing is that, in threads in which other people have alleged that this or that man among the "founders" was a deist, and not a Christian, i have actually pointed out cases in which this is false. For example, there is a single quote of one Anglican bishop to the effect that Washington did not take communion. We don't know if Washington refused communion because he was only going through the motions of the church service, and actually did not believe in it (which would have been completely out of character for the man), or simply because he didn't like the bishop, but was not going to make a public scene (which would be completely
in character). If Washington were truly estranged from the Anglican church, given his character, it is unlikely that he would have been at a church service at which anyone could observe whether or not he took communion.
However, Washington was a member of the Truro parish of the Anglican church, and was an active member. He contributed to parish funds, and helped to underwrite and subscribe repair and building projects, and acted for many years as a vestryman. It is completely understandable why, when he went away to war, and then to the constitutional convention, and finally to serve two terms as President, he would have ceased to stand for and act as a vestryman. On the whole, the evidence is very good that Washington was a practicing Christian. I have always maintained that point.
In respect of this particular thread, i pointed out, as i have on more than one occasion, that the language of the treaty concluded with the Bey of Algiers was a specific political expedient to obviate the excuse that the Muslims had for enslaving or murdering American seamen out of hand, by denying them the allegation of Holy War. If the United States claimed not to be a Christian nation, then in international law, they had the right to seek redress, by military means if necessary, for violations of the customs of war as they were understood in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, when Muslims practiced their depredations on the basis of a claim of Holy War.
So, whether or not the members of the Congress (Fifth Congress, i believe, but don't quote me) considered the United States to be a Christian nation is not something we can necessarily say with certainty. That they publicly stated that the United States were not, is, however, an obvious appeal to diplomatic expedience, for whatever the individual members may have believed in their hearts.
So it is rather ironic to have this feeble and dull-witted attack levied on me by the inept member "real life," when in fact, my contribution to this topic has rather supported his point of view, rather than attacked it.