"myth: the US was founded on Christian principles."

I just found this. I can't verify any of it, but it sounds good to me, and I thought I'd share it.
(btw, is it illegal or immoral or anything like that to quote someone from another blog without asking permission?)


MYTH 1: The US was founded on Christian principles.

TRUTH:

This is incorrect.
The Constitution never once mentions a deity, because the Founding Fathers wanted to keep their new country "religion-neutral." Our Founding Fathers were an eclectic collection of Atheists, Deists, Christians, Freemasons and Agnostics.

George Washington, the Father of our country, and John Adams (Second President of the USA) CLEARLY stated in the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli: "The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion.”

G.W. rarely attended church and instead followed a popular 18th century philosophy called Deism—a Star Wars-esque philosophy that believed in a cosmic energy or big-ass universal "Force." The dictionary says that Deism is "a system of thought advocating natural religion based on human reason rather than revelation," that had nothing to do with Christian principles.

James Madison, original mastermind of our Constitution, was an Atheist to the core who loved skewering Christianity. In 1785 he wrote, "What have been 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.”

Thomas Jefferson, who sat down and authored The Declaration of Independence, rarely missed an opportunity to laugh at Christianity. In a letter to John Adams in 1823, he wrote: "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus…will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

More ammo: In 1814, Tommy J. wrote about the Bible's Old and New Testaments, "The whole history of these books is so defective and doubtful -- evidence that parts have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds.”

In fact, it was President Jefferson himself who first wrote (to a Baptist church group in 1802), "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between Church and State." Therefore, when Jefferson talked about “Nature’s God,” the “Creator” and “divine Providence ” in the Declaration that he wrote, he was being a hippie and referring to a general cosmic energy-- not the Christian God.

America is not a Christian nation. Period. Our Constitution derived from the post-Christian Enlightenment values of reason and truth...never from the paranoid yammerings of that otherwise compassionate cult leader who fucking died in the Middle Eastern desert 3000 years ago.

Or...we all knew it was a myth...thanks for giving me some ammo to use against conservatives who think otherwise.

Tyler

America could stand a return to the Enlightenment period. As it stands our current situation and philosophical underpinnings are closer to the late Roman/early Xtian Empire.

Great post, Robin!

J

10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights, 10 Minutes for boiling -- or until Al Dente.

(R)amen.

When I die I'm going to a place that has beer volcanoes and stripper factories. ;) Where will YOU spend eternity?

Ramen right back 'atcha! All hail the FSM!

Considering that the Pledge of Allegiance didn't have the phrase, "under God" until 1951 and Congress passed a bill in 1955 to print paper money with "In God We Trust", a term which was established as our official motto in 1956.

Those godless communists were shaking in their boots after that insertion. Few people know that it was the addition of "god" into the Pledge of Allegiance that won the cold war, NOT Ronnie Raygun's spending spree on armaments. It's true, look it up! ;)

And Christianity found it OK. The modern day GOP practices of refusing to raise the minimum wage or provide health care equates those slave owners. That is your GOP party.

Unfortunately, the complete phrase used is "Judeo-Christian". Which means the garbage from the Old Testament is brought in. Gems like Deuteronomy and Leviticus, amongst others, that all condone slavery, murder, and other things that Jesus certainly would not -- and, indeed, Jesus died for it. (And possibly the writers of the earlier chapters in the New Testament too, damn liberal scum. :sarcasm: )

So we have some two-faced sycophants on one end...

And a public that's happy with one-sentence catchphrases at the other.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Get it? To Jefferson, The Church, or at least the Clergy, represented "tyranny over the mind of man".

More Jefferson Quotes:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

when the beginning of the first of the emperors and the end of the roman
republic of olde. Now the nation is founded by the emperor for the emperor
as he sees it, molded by his divine fingers out of etherial clay with every
word, redefined and redesigned.

The framers didn't use the world unitary either, but that doesn't matter,
as we can harken back to the cartoon characters who created a country that
no longer exists for comfort. The men are all dead, their world of slaves,
of low population, of a british colony taking the opportunity afforded by
the french imperialists, to break away.

Now, today, cheney is the framer, and the rest of us eat the king's shit.

I make sure to email the original author and ask permission to cite the quote. Also, it always serves to provide a link to the quoted source. I have never been turned down on such requests and the original poster is usually pleased to be so attended to. The answer has, almost universally, been "please do and feel free to paste it anywhere on the internet you wish." Sometimes, in the interest of timeliness, I have posted the quote and then notified the originator with an apology if it is inappropriate and an offer to take it down and put up an explanation, if necessary. It's never been a problem but good manners are always welcome.

The United States of America WAS founded on christian principles, but not on the Christian religion. There is a huge difference!

I'm not as courteous as you in this regard. I usually just stick with the DU rule regarding copyrights, which states, "Do not copy-and-paste entire articles onto this discussion forum. When referencing copyrighted work, post a short excerpt (not exceeding 4 paragraphs) with a link back to the original."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

I Googled The Constitution never once mentions a deity and found this as the most likely original source of the OP:

http://newyork.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/163437715.html

I perform this same kind of search before I post information here that I have received via email.

If you scroll to the bottom of the website page I furnished, you will see that the information is copyrighted. Therefore, it appears the OP should have followed the DU copyright rule but did not.

I'm not a DU moderator, I'm just a guest here. I just wanted to share my 2 cents worth on the point you correctly raised.

And like I said, I'm just a guest here. Looks like the DU moderators didn't have a problem with the way you offered your contribution, and that's what counts. FYI, if you post something in LBN you'd better have all your ducks in a row because they can be quite strict when enforcing the rules there.

I appreciated your OP. It inpired some interesting discussion.

It was founded on the rational, secular, scientific principles of the Enlightenment.

he would had used the bible.

Instead, he research different forms of governments.

Link
There are bookworms and then there are bookworms, and it isn't every student who can plow through the strengths and weaknesses of the Amphyctionic Confederacy of early 16th century Greece, the Helvitic Confederacy of 14th century Switzerland or the Belgic and Germanic confederacies of the mid-1600s. Madison did, and in his "Notes..." he made lists of all the features of those governments, good and bad, but in particular the bad, such as "disparity of size in Cantons," "intolerance of religion" and "weakness of the Union," to name a few.

Link
James Madison was among the first to recognize that a stronger central government was critical to the new nation's survival. Always the scholar, Madison undertook an exhaustive study of government structures in the world's history. Madison researched and compiled a study of ancient and modern confederacies, outlining reasons why earlier attempts at democracy and representative government had failed. Madison's research convinced him that the Articles would not withstand the onslaughts of petty state interests. Madison's ideas eventually crystallized into "the Virginia Plan," where the interests of individuals, states and the national authority were balanced and mixed into "an extended republic." He also sought the counsel of influential Americans whose support was vital if any changes in the government were to take place. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and Edmund Randolph were among the prominent politicians Madison convinced.

what the personal religious beliefs of any of the founders of the United States were.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident etc...." (Declaration of Independence)

Notice that the truths that the declaration enunciates (the equality and inalienable rights of all men, the duty of government to promote and protect those rights, etc) and on which the Constitution rests, are "self evident". No religious validation is required.

Moreover, in saying that governments "derive their just powers from the consent of the governed", the declaration rejects the claim made by every other nation at the time that its government held authority by the grace of God. (Even the non-Christian Emperor of China claimed to exercise the Mandate of Heaven.)

Now, it is arguable that these principles enunciated in the Declaration and elaborated in the Constitution are not incompatible with the tenets of Christianity -- but that doesn't mean that they are "Christian principles", still less that they are to be interpreted in accordance with Bible teachings. Or those of any other religion for that matter.

Which makes irrelevant the personal beliefs of President Washington, President Jefferson or by any other founding father you care to invoke. By bringing them into the debate, you risk conceding the Christian apologist's essential claim, that the documents on which the legitimacy of the USA rests and by which it is governed are the expression of religious belief.

Im going to weigh in here and kind of go against the grain. While there is not claim that the power of the Government is derived from G-d but the framers make is VERY clear where the rights of the people come from: "...and are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unailienable rights. Among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

"our Creator." It leaves it open to whatever religion one may believe. Most religions in the world, I would assume, have a belief in a Creator, even if it is simply 'Mother Nature.'

None of them were rabid atheists who wanted the Govt to be hostile to religion and belief either. All of them (EVEN JEFFERSON) did lip service to religion and belief in their public life, recognizing the value of it. And plenty of the Founding Fathers were indeed faithful Christians (Including many of the Freemasons, I dont know who had the bright idea to express some sort of implicit seperation there) but yes the big ones were definately as described.

How is letting whoever worship whoever they want being "hostile to religious belief?" How is keeping the government free from one religion monopolizing it "hostile to religious belief?"

They fled religious persecution. They didn't want to set up a one-religion government that persecuted those that did not belief what they believed. The founding fathers would shit themselves if they saw the effect Christianity has on our system of government today. We're becoming today what the people who fought for our Independence wanted to be free from.

If they wanted us to be a Christian nation, they could have easily said so in the Constitution.

But they didn't.

But since I became a Democrat in the Late 90's I have noticed that there are many people in this party and on the left ARE quite openly hostile to religion. My point is that the founding fathers were not hostile to belief, they began their meetings with prayers, they swore their oaths on Bibles and they allowed religion to "intrude" into the public forum on a fairly regular basis. I am not an advocate of praying to Jesus in public schools (Im Jewish myself) or anything like that, but when something innocuous happens like a prayer before a Govt meeting, or Miltary chaplains doing what they do in accordance with their ministry (talking about Jesus if they are a minster) everyone on our side of the aisle goes positively apeshit, and I think that thats pretty damn wrong as well. You made the point that most of the early colonists came here fleeing religious presecution and that is true, but they sure didnt want an Athiest society (not that there is anything wrong with Athiests).

As you have pointed out, they were not religion-hostile.

Here is a resource that supports this truth:



And here is something I have repeatedly used to refute a recurring string of email lies on the general subject at hand:



I found this overall message string quite interesting. Thanks for having the courage to offer some balance, which made it even better.

Welcome, as a DU contributor! I hope you stick around. :hi:

Article II Section I

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: — "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."


This what the oath is suppose to be.

there's quite a few people who feel that religious neutrality IS being hostile to their religion, since it means they can't force everyone else to pray to their god.

That means ANYTHING. Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic -- whatever. They didn't want people persecuted for their beliefs (or lack thereof).

As for people being "openly hostile" to religion, that comes with the territory. If religious people kept their religious beliefs out of the government, people wouldn't be so "openly hostile" to them. I couldn't care less what religion anyone is. However, when they start using their religious beliefs as a reason to make laws that restrict my rights, then you're damn right I'm gonna be angry. Don't enforce your religion on me, and we'll be fine. When you start forcing your religion on me (or others that don't believe like you), then you should expect people to be "openly hostile."

It's also OK for people to endorse religious beliefs. It's not OK for our government to express this sentiment, or to endorse any particular religion. We apprear to be in total agreement.

is a rightwing strawman. I don't know of any Democrat who opposes the right of individuals to freely practice their religions--in fact Dems tend to be far more tolerant of minority faiths than those on the right. What Democrats oppose is the establishment of a state religion--as did the authors of our constitution. The framers were nearly unamimous in this regard, of course--they knew all about the kinds of abuses that are the inevitable result of the melding of church and state. Do "some on the left" go too far in their opposition to Christian prayers at public school graduations, and so on? Well, maybe--but it's my belief that it's best to err on the side of vigilance. The recent wingnut declaration that America is a Christian nation is clearly an attempt to shift the accepted narrative to the right, with the ultimate aim of establishing Christianity as a quasi-official state religion. Their intentions are clear, and clearly un-American in the most fundamental sense. The question is, who has the courage to oppose what clearly flies in the face of the wise intent of our founders?

Who are hostile to religion does not make it a right wing strawman, Unless you happen to know every Democrat in the country, which I am sure you do not.

You made the "some Dems" accusation, so it's up to you to name a few prominent Dems who are openly hostile to religion. For the life of me, I can't think of any.

On edit: I should add that I can name at least one Republican who was openly hostile to religion--my grandfather. He was a died in the wool, old-fashioned country club Republican who detested FDR and everything he stood for. He was also a fan of H.L. Mencken, and believed that religion was a sop to idiots and rubes.

ever said that, It would be much apreciated. You sound like Rove or Tony Snow putting words into my mouth. I know there are many Atheist and others who are hostile on both sides, I am saying I have know a much larger number on the left side of the aisle than the right.

Does that mean they think it's superstitiouis claptrap, or that they think no one should be allowed to practice it?

I should add that my grandfather wasn't an atheist, exactly--he was a member in good standing of the Congregationalist church. He just thought the supernatural stuff was ridiculous. He was a Jeffersonian in that regard.

from the public square.

Is the public square the perfume counter at Macy's, or a tax-funded public school?

A school board meeting, a session of congress, Christmas being a national holiday, etc.

to actively promote a specific religion?

:crickets:

I am currently at work and certain emergent situations required my attention. No I do not think that any specific religion should be promoted, but I refer you to the introduction of a World Religions course to my high school curriculum when 2 athiest parents went absoloutely nuts at the idea that such a course would even be offered. Or the fact that a young girl, my senior class's valedictorian was told that she could not say the following statement at her graduation "...I think the one thing I will always remember most was meeting Melissa from the FCA and how she showed me the saving power of the blood of Jesus and gave me the courage to stand up for him in my daily life."

Or even in college at a public university, the horrible things I heard said to preachers on the Turlington Plaza, how students would tell them that they had no right to be there and lie about a preacher spitting on them so that the University Police would be forced to kick them off campus (BTW this person that lied about being spit on was the Vice President of the College Democrats)

That is what I mean by hostile to religion.

I don't know the details of the World Religions course you mention, obviously, but assuming it was an elective and presented the major world religions in an evenhanded, values-neutral way, I wouldn't personally object to it. If it was a transparent attempt to teach the superiority of evangelical Christianity over other religions, then I would object, of course. As for the valedictorian statement, if I was a school administrator and that was the only part of her message that was an attempt to evangelize I'd probably let it go (I like the part about "standing up for Jesus"--'cause he's so, you know, unpopular), but school administrators these days are often caught in a "damned if you do" and "sued if you don't" double bind, for which there's no perfect solution. As for the preacher situation at the U of F (I taught there for a couple of semesters, and still have friends in English/Creative Writing), my experience with these campus preacher types is that they tend to incite hostility intentionally, by hollering insults ("whore," "slut," and "whoremonger" the perennial favorites) at passersby. Then, when someone reacts, the preacher-types go ballistic and claim they're being persecuted. There was a guy who did the midwest campuses for years name of Jed Smock--he preached two or three times a year at my alma mater in Ohio in the 70's-80's. Some frat boys hosed him down with a fire extinguisher one time and he ran around with this ecstatic gleam in his eye yelling about how they were crucifying him. He LOVED it. It was a strange and revealing thing to witness.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

religion impacts on a region or country's culture. And Christianity has no more right to be studied than Islam, Buddism, Hinduism, Wiccan, Rastifarian, etc.

For even if we allowed Christianity to be taught in the public schools, just which version of Christianity would be allowed? There are probably hundreds of different sects within what we know as Christianity. And all, probably no doubt, consider that they and they alone have the only righteous path to God.

Religious and spiritual beliefs and teachings are not a function of government and should not be funded by taxpayer dollars or forced upon the constituents of this country through laws enacted to follow any one or more religions' belief systems.

in public schools like "Comparative Religious Studies" or "Major Religious Philosophies" or "Survey in World Religions." But they ought to be even-handed, values-neutral explorations of the world's major belief systems, including those that are currently "controversial" in some quarters.

It is simply NOT ok to shove one's religious views down the throats of others against their wishes. And it's not ok to favor any religion over any others. So in fairness to all, they all need to STAY OUT OF GOVERNMENT and governmental issues.

If I want to know about your religion I'll visit your church.

I am not saying that religion should be "shoved down your throat" I am saying that ignoring religion in public life and expecting it to be ignored and didained by government is not the answer. BTW I dont go to church, Im Jewish :evilgrin:

n/t

the Christian version of God. God and Jesus Christ are not mentioned in the Constitution.

http://www.fa-ir.org/ai/happiness.htm

This needs to be hashed out a bit....

NOT the Constitution

is the act by which the United States was founded as a new nation, and any claim to legitimate existence as a nation entitled to draw up its own constitution by which to govern itself that it (the US) has rests on the "self evident" principles enunciated therein. The US Constitution rests on the Declaration of Independence and draws its own legitimacy from it.

So when we speak of the "principles on which the United States was founded", the D of I is the key document.

in the governance of the United States.

The word "God" does not appear ONCE in the Constitution. If "they" had wanted so badly for it to be there, don't you think they would have thrown it in?

Lastly, "Endowed By Their Creator". "Creator" could mean a lot of different things. Seems to me, it's intentionally ambiguous. It would have been very little skin off the quill pen to write, "endowed by their savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, and his father, the All-Powerful Male God Known as Jehovah" or some such thing. They didn't. "Creator" could mean nature. Could mean Satan. Could mean the flying spagetti monster, or the great female Tao. Maybe the creator is US- it could mean that we're all, as Bill Hicks put it, "the imagination of ourselves", the self-begotten one.

The long and short of it is, those few sparse words are a pretty flimsy fucking reed with which to try to shove the boot of Christian Theocracy up the Constitutional Ass of the United States of America, friend.

But the argument that is being put forward by a lot of people in the US (and which is being copied here in Australia) is that "our country was founded on Christian principles".

And to examine this assertion, the Declaration of Independence is the key document. It was its proclamation on July 4 1776 that brought the USA into being as a sovereign nation -- "Fourscore and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are equal...."

There are in fact four references to God in it -- " the laws of Nature and Nature's God' in the first sentence, the reference to the Creator in the second paragraph, and in the very last "...appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions..." and " with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence..."

You are right in saying that these references are carefully ambiguous, but if the intention had been to assert Christianity as the governing principle, there would have been no need to invoke Christ specifically. "Almighty God", the phrase used in British law, would have been sufficient. As it is, the terms actually used were inherited from the Romans, by whom they would have been taken as referring to Jupiter. But I've never heard it claimed that the United States was founded on the principles of the ancient Roman religion ...

You are correct in pointing out that the Constitution is the legally binding rule book which the government must adhere to -- "the supreme law of the land', which, not so incidentally, is a rejection of any scriptures as having higher authority -- and in noting that any references to God, ambiguous or otherwise, are carefully excluded from it: but the D o I is still the statement of principle on which the US was founded.

That the constitition is carefully areligious only confirms that the founding fathers (to use another American phrase that is being imported here) did not intend to give Christianity or its adherents any privilege in the new country. And the assertion that the US was "founded on Christian principles" is a direct claim for that privilege, which is why it is being made.

Still, from a legal standpoint, the D of I holds no sway.

I'm sure the folks clamoring for prayer in schools wouldn't much appreciate it if those prayers were offered to Pan, or Jupiter, or Venus. But there you go.

And not in the context of a British Duke, Earle or Baron.

Here's a cut from Article VII. - Ratification http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article7

"Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names."

So the Constitution may not recognize God, but you can compare by math, the year of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution Convention to the commonly held birth year of Christ. Since earlier parts of the constitution stated "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States." (Article I, Section 9, ), the only reasonable conclusion is that THEY recognized Jesus Christ as the Lord.

translated from Latin Anno Domini; nowadays many people would say CE, the Common Era, but the dates are still taken as beginning with the supposed year of the birth of Christ.

It is stretching things way beyond the breaking point to say that using it indicates acceptance of J.C. as Lord and supreme ruler of the United States. What dating system should they have used? AH? AUC?

Guess you're right- the United States should be a theocracy. :eyes:

I'll wait.

the church has used it for centuries to control their "flock" and politicians use it to control the brain dead electorate. And hey, IT WORKS! Look at the way the GOP leads the "values voters" around by the rings in their noses. Just pull out the "god" card and you've got instant support. How many politicians really believe that god stuff? My guess is, not many. It's a tool for them to control the electorate and just like the church, it works.

We have a winner.

all the european nations that the settlers fled were christian nations. and they had the by then well-known problems that arise from mixing church and state.

they came here not to establish yet another christian nation, but to establish a place where they could practice their religion free from government entanglements.

Of whether the 1st amendement is to protect religion from the government or the government from religion.

For many good reasons, some of which have been delineated in this very thread! :-)

But why did you call me ",sir" that generally signifies a sanctimonious attitude being taken. I just didnt want to get the wrong idea.

a term of respect. In my 64 years, I never once heard anyone question the propriety of referring to a gentleman as "sir." Perhaps you come from a culture that disagrees. ??

Ive been in the military for quite a while and as an officer Ive heard it used many different ways both with respect, with offense and with disdain. I just wanted to be sure, there is no need to be offended.

When I want to be sanctimonious, I generally just call someone an asshole.
:D

calls everybody "sir" or "ma'am." He doesn't always get it right either, since many of our user names are gender-neutral. It's kind of a "signature" of his writing style and a way that we can instantly recognize his posts. It looks like this quirk has been picked up by other posters as well.

assumptions die hard, all I can picture is Seaman Smuckatelli rolling his eyes and saying: "Your missing the point, SIR":hangover:

It is to protect the people from the abuses that inevitably arise from the establishment of a state religion.

Read "Free Thinkers" By Susan Jacoby. It is all about how our founders like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were believed to be secularists and fought hard to make sure this country wasn't founded on christian principles.

I am a history and religions major and my Master's Thesis was about revolutionary-era faith and public policy. I was just bouncing some of my conclusions around because this thread caught my eye. I am having a bad day of people talking down to me on topics within my field :) (NOT YOU bluem don't take it the wrong way)

Your chosen major is very respectable. I too am currently a college student, majoring in government and world affairs with a minor in history. And I completely understand how something of that nature can turn a day bad...

I know more people that swear the US was founded on Christianity and God and they actually believe it should be the national relgion! It is quite scary. :scared:

Heck, in the 1980s, a group of college kids took the declaration of independence through a medium sized town in Iowa. They could not get one signature from a local. One threatened to call the police on "them commies".

It is part of a redefinition of history, the first intellectual fruits of totalitarian dictatorship, to baptize atheists and deists and warp their words and thoughts into their fashion. If you can warp the Bible, after all, you can dare anything, even by claiming your polar opposite is your antecedent and supporter.

A fact based world means nothing if the words about the facts are simply changed by triumph of the will.
Then facts become chaotic and incoherent and the issue must be solved by brute violence and the triumph of the majority and reason. Or the fog descends and it is renamed Light.

While the founding fathers attempted to insulate us from all religion. Denying any influence of Christianity on the founding of this nation is denying history. The very reasons for the first ammendment are founded in the history of Christianity.

Denying the influence of our ancestors on our lives today. And the influence that religion has played in the development of those ideas that have been passed to us over thousands of years is not rational. We stand exactly where we do today because of the efforts and beleifs of all of those who came before us.

The founding fathers did not seek to "insulate us from all religion." They sought to forbid the establishment of a state religion. Not at all the same thing. And I'd like to hear how it is that the "very reasons for the first amendment are founded in the history of Christianity." That may be the goofiest thing I've read on DU so far today.

I believe they were well aware of all the strife which ensueed the Christian Reformation. Particularly as had happened in England with the frequent changing of state religion. So with the Northern Colonies dominated by the Church of New England (Puritans). To get all the colonies to ratify the constitution this was necessary.

I didn't say the idea came from christianity. But that the history of the religions was the impetus for the ammendment. Had there been no history of any conflict arising around the reformation or had the reformetion never taken place. We would not be looking at the same Bill of Rights today.

To the extent that Henry VIII's break with the Catholic church and formation of the Church of England was connected to the Reformation of Luther and Calvin, I suppose you're right. But I think if the upheaval across Europe following the Reformation had really been driving the Framers' thinking more than a desire to protect individual liberties against the power of the state, they'd have made protestantism the state religion and had done with it. No?

Maryland would never have gone along with Protestantism being the state religion. Numerous other colonies would probably have viewed any such statement as an endorsement of the Church of New England.

Your right in that the motivating factor was to protect the individual rights of the states, who were free to have a state religion. But they would also have been thinking about what happened if they had a Quaker President, then one from New England then one from Maryland. Was the state religion to change with the head of state as was done in England? I think the founders had a multitude of reasons.

and state:

http://www.ffrf.org/quiz/ffrfquiz.php

n/t

Pleasantly surprised. ;-)

Still pretty well informed. :thumbsup:

I missed on the prayers before football games being challenged by Catholics & Mormons, as well as the Wisconsin ban of Bible reading in school in 1890.

They are selling Jesus.

That there are Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, Agnostic and Zoroastrian Republicans. I swear, just as there are a huge butt-ton of Christians in the Democratic party. Ive been seeing alot of generalizations today, I hate that.

Thanks for helping us out with that.

of unfounded generalizations. Just trying to ground the conversation.

All of the founding fathers were Freemasons. And in actuality, their principles appear to be as very similar in content and moral regard to Christian ones. The main difference being is that Freemasonry is based on ancient Eastern rites and secrets. Secrets of science and nature. Jesus Christ is not considered to be Lord and Saviour. Masons must achieve their salvation thru degrees or rites of passage to the knowledge that will eventually set them free. Then, they will receive spiritual immortality when this is achieved.
"Into Freemasonry have been poured the irradiations of the mystical schools of antiquity. Particularly is this so in the higher degrees of the Order, such as the Scottish Rite, where undeniable traces of Cabalism, neo-Platonism, Rosicrucianism, and other mystical cults are plainly discernible. I do personally contend that Freemasonry is the direct descendent of the Mysteries, but that our ritual makers of the higher degrees have copied the ancient ceremonies of initiation so far as the knowledge of those ceremonies exists" (Henry R. Evans, A History of the York and Scottish Rites of Freemasonry, p. 8).
To be a Freemason, one must believe in a supreme being, but he need not be a Christian
In this respect, the Constitution and declaration of Independence had definite pagan undertones to it. (Take a good look at your dollar bills as well) Symbolism everywhere.

I wouldn't post it anywhere as fact, unless I wanted to be torn to shreds.


" James Madison, original mastermind of our Constitution, was an Atheist to the core who loved skewering Christianity. "

While Madison certainly skewered elements of Christianity, (namely the clergy and those who would use religion as a political tool), to extropolate that into him being an Atheist is ridiculous, as well as demonstrably false.

As far as Washington, I've seen a lot of claims, but scant evidence that he was a Deist.


====


"America is not a Christian nation. Period. Our Constitution derived from the post-Christian Enlightenment values of reason and truth...never from the paranoid yammerings of that otherwise compassionate cult leader who fucking died in the Middle Eastern desert 3000 years ago."
-

:eyes:

Yeah, I'd drop that one too.

do you?

A lot of the founding fathers were devout christians, and many were not. They found common cause, and established the Constitution together. Knowing that despite their differences in religious opinions, they established the first amendment and prohibited the government from establishing a religion of its own or forcing one upon the populace.

To all of those who believe that our founding fathers founded this country on religion, most notably Christianity... please re-think your position. These are the same founding fathers who are viewed as great men, who are quoted unequivocally and whose ideas and laws are considered the best-laid of any in history. You could not be MORE wrong about this country being founded on judeo-christian ideals.

The Constitution of the United States:
* Article VI, Section 3: "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
* First Amendment: "“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

James Madison:
- "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
- "What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."
- "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

John Adams:
- "Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, ‘this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.’" (From a letter to Charles Cushing (October 19, 1756))
- "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
- "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. … 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 thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery… are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind" (A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787–88)

Thomas Paine
- "Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind."
- "I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)."

Thomas Jefferson:
- "The Christian god can be easily pictured as virtually the same as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of the people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites."
- "The authors of the gospels were unlettered and ignorant men and the teachings of Jesus have come to us mutilated, misstated and unintelligible"
- "The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ."
- "It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it (the Apocalypse), and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825)
- "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814)
- "The truth is, that the greatest enemies of the doctrine of Jesus are those, calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them to the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter... But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors." (Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823)
- "I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789)
- "They believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion." (Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800)
- "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." (Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813)
- "I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
- "Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."
- "...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, ‘Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,’ which was rejected ‘By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.’" (From Jefferson’s biography)
- "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814)

George Washington:
- "The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy."

Abraham Lincoln:
- "The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."


Lastly, Article 11 of The Treaty of Tripoli, ratified and unanimously approved by the Senate in 1797, and signed by John Adams:

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

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm

These men founded our country and these are their opinions... stop throwing that "America was founded on Christian beliefs" crap at us... it's just NOT TRUE.

Great links:

http://www.deism.org/foundingfathers.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html
http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm
http://www.postfun.com/pfp/worbois.html
http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/dispatch/fathers_quote2.htm

religion. How it motivate the out group to overturn the in group, since they have no other way to survive, how the in group persecutes the out group. Early colonies had established religions, and persecuted people for not following them. The Founding Fathers took the opportunity they had in making a new country to get rid of this particular brand of oppression.

Doesn't mean they were hostile to religion. Maybe they never imagined it would include non-Christian religions. But if asked, they might have considered it to be fine. They were trying to separate religion out to be due to individual conscience, so they only thought of the down side of the government forcing it.

they would have stated it emphatically in the Constitution. They did NOT.

Yet the fundies gotta twist everything around to their way of thinking. As usual. :eyes:

Why don't they have any common sense?! :banghead: