Debunk the myth that the United States was founded on Christian ideology.

[Kazak]

You start.

[DrWeird]

1. The first amendment directly contradicts the first commandment.

next.

[TlalocW]

4. First Amend directl contradicts 6 of the 10 Commandments

No God before me.
No graven images.
Rest on the Sabbath.
Honor mother and father.
No taking name in vein.
Coveting.

And there's nothing that really says adultery is a crime other than its grounds for divorce I guess.

TlalocW

[patcox2]

20. Actually, adultery was a crime and still is in some states.

And there were better laws than that. Its still illegal for bars to open on sundays in many places, and in my lifetime "blue" laws that made it illegal for any business to open on sunday were common.

[TlalocW]

23. And those are probably unconstitutional

Especially if they have a religious reason for the laws' establishment, however, those aren't considered the big cases so no one brings it up in a court of law.

It's against the law to eat snake on Sundays in Kansas.

TlalocW

[patcox2]

29. But we are not talking about now, are we? We are talking founders.

So what is relevant is what the laws said then. The legal fictions for supporting such laws sprang up much later, they went unquestioned for a hundred years, precisely because the whole society was so pervasively "christian" noone challanged them. I have been a lawyer for 17 years, so you don't need to teach me about separation of church and state. The issue is whether christian "ideology" (a meaningless term I assume to mean ethics and other general social attributes because clearly the constitution prohibits christian theology from being part of government)influenced the founding of this country. It did, it could not do otherwise, just as it influences you and me and everyone else in this society. Its just there, surrounding you like air. Read my post below if you want to debate.

[saltpoint]

34. Jefferson was no slouch at the same skills you have.

His sentence in the Treaty --

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

-- is clear enough.

"...is NOT, in ANY sense, founded on the Christian religion... ."

Nobody's putting words into the man's mouth. And he surely has to count as a Founder.

[patcox2]

54. Meaning the US is not a theocracy.

You know, there is absolutely nothing to argue about here.

The intent of the founders could not be more clear, the intent of the first amendment could not be more clear. They rejected the idea of a theocracy and they also rejected the idea of an established religion. They guaranteed religious freedom, as well as the freedom not to be religious at all. Maybe mmost amazing of all, they established that government legitimacy and authority devolves from and is dependant on the people, not god. And they did all this despite the fact that several of the colonies were actually founded by religious sects, they did this despite the fact that many of the colonies did in fact have laws establishing official religions and prohbiting others, and they did all this despite the fact that most of them were christians and were all in varying degrees influenced by the predominiant, christian culture in which they lived.

Of course, as members of a predominantly christian culture, the work of the founders, the constitution and the governmental system we have, is pervasively influenced by christian ethics and some aspects of christian morality. But the founders deliberately rejected putting any christian theology into it.

So really, whats the argument? This all started with liberals trying to take back the founders from the conservatives who had claimed them. Thats fine. But why are we arguing here over this dead issue?

[saltpoint]

58. Friends of mine consider Jefferson a nerd.

Or worse, a "science nerd." I sort of like science nerds and so I rise to his defense.

What kills me about him is the renaissance expanse of his mind. I would absolutely KILL if our current president had even a hundredth of Jefferson's range, his curiosity, his command of language, his sweep of history, and so forth.

I feel the country is dishonoring Jefferson (for example) when it votes for and condones the mediocrity of George W. Bush. Jefferson is not my number one favorite American, but by damn he sure looks good next to Dubya.

I acknowledge that it's not a fair fight to blame Dubya for not being Lincoln or Jefferson or Teddy Roosevelt. But there are times when that construct makes me hate Dubya even more.

[patcox2]

27. No it doesn't.

Contradiction would be "thou shalt not worship god." The first amendment says the government shall not establish a religion, nor interfere with people's practice of their religion. You call that a contradiction? Thats like saying a 40 mph speed limit directly contradicts the Einsteins theory of relativity. The first amendment simply has nothing to do with the subject matter of the first comandment (whom you should worship) and makes sure that the government never shall weigh in on that topic.

[DrWeird]

31. Sure it's a contradiction.

First Commandment: "Only worship me- God."

First Amendment: "Worship whatever God(s) you want to."

[saltpoint]

36. Agreed. n/t

[patcox2]

38. First amendment commands nothing, thats why its not contradictory.

Have you ever had a logic class? The first amendment says "the government shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion, nor interfere in the free exercise thereof." It does not tell anyone to worship at all.

[DrWeird]

42. Of course it commands.

It says "Congress, you're not going to make any laws that tell what God, Gods, or lack thereof people are going to worship, because they can worship whoever or whatever they want to."

[saltpoint]

46. Just a word here about logic classes...

I've found Dr. Weird's posts pretty clear-headed and right on.

Logic classes?

Jesus.

[patcox2]

57. He doesn't know the meaning of the word "contradict."

To contradict is to assert the contrary, to be inconsistent. The first amendment establishes government nuetrality with regard to religion. Nuetrality is not contradictory. One can believe in the first amendment and the first comandment. Nothing in the first amendment requires anyone to do anything contrary to the first comandment, and nothing in the first comandment requires anyone to do anything which violates the first amendment. What the hell is so difficult about this?

I know we live in the culture of hyperbole where everything has to be not only black or white, but so black and so very very amazingly unbeleivably white, but this is taking it too far. There is no opposition, no conflict, between the first amendment and the first comandment. There is no "contradiction."

[trotsky]

2. Treaty of Tripoli, 1797

Article 11:

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 Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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.

QED

[arcane1]

5. amen, trotsky

:thumbsup:

[saltpoint]

10. Bartender! A cold beer for trotsky -- and make it fast.

[trotsky]

11. Woohoo!

Join me, won't you Old Crusoe?
:toast:

[saltpoint]

14. Sure! I'll even bring the pretzels.

And we'll save some of those pretzels to send to a certain incumbent president.

Wow, have we come a long way from Jefferson!

[greendog]

51. And it should be noted...

...that the treaty of tripoli passed without a single dissenting vote.

[saltpoint]

62. I didn't know that. It's better that I do, and I have you to --

-- thank.

Also, your name and logo absolutely kick ass.

[greendog]

70. More about the treaty...

Written during the Washington administration.

Sent to the Senate during the Adams administration.

Read aloud to the Senate.

Each Senator received a printed copy.

This was the 339th time a recorded vote was required by the Senate.

This was only the THIRD time a unanimous vote was recorded.

It was reprinted (in full) in three newspapers - 2 in Philly, 1 in NY
with no record of public outcry in subsequent editions.

[saltpoint]

72. Greendog, thank you for this information today.

It's a big help to me. You've added a great deal to how I think of the Treaty itself.

[Burma Jones]

3. Which Christian Ideology?

[Samoflange]

6. Our system of common law

In his writings, Thomas Jefferson pointed out the the American (English) system of common law had been practiced and instituted in England 200 years before Christianity arrived there.

[SHRED]

7. If it was...

then what an "ideology"!

Let's see...from enslaving the Africans and attempting genocide against the Native Americans to massive environmental destruction.

Wow...some 'foundation'. Praise the Lord!

Idiots who spout this, 'founded on christian values', dribble conveniently forget the history of ACTUAL events. Reality escapes these simpletons with their head-up-the-butt way of viewing life.

[SemperEadem]

91. Those who espouse that this country was founded on

xtian values belong to a cult. It's the brainwashing they're receiving from extreme rw fundies who want to rewrite history and then tell everyone else that they're the ones who are wrong about this country's history.

It's spelled out in black and white.

[Maat]

8. To me, it matters not whether or not the founders were ..

Christians or not. Some were. The point is that they were terrified about the idea of a national church, because of: (1) their experience with the Church of England, and (2) their experiences with colonies' having their own official churches. In both instances, each resident was required to tithe to the church, even if they did not agree with the tenets, or attend or participate in the church in question. In those days, the church in question was virtually an arm of control for the government. To prevent a reenactment of this, they sought to have a wall of separation between church and state, as discussed by Jefferson in the letter to the Danbury Baptists.

The fact is that not only can we not have a national church, we can not favor Christianity over the Muslim religion, for example, because that is favoring one 'church' over another, so-to-speak, in a broader sense, because it is favoring one faith over another.

[pacifictiger]

30. It was not just the

Church of England they were disgusted with - it was the political manipulations, fighting and persecutions over who was the "right" voice of "God" to be making the rules and calling the shots - Catholic or Church of England. Bloody Mary, Elizabeth I, Mary Queen of Scots, etal.
Each faction (monarch and courtier supporters) that got into power persecuted the other terribly while those in the reformation movement, quakers etc, not being aligned with either side, suffered the worst with property confiscature and worse.

[saltpoint]

53. Very true. This was not just a 13-colonies spat.

It was centuries old and it was as you say it was in England.

Our Founders knew this history very well and it informed their reflexive distrust of theocratic systems.

[sandnsea]

9. The government isn't

Others have made that clear. The Christian tradition is here though. Because of the First Amendment. It's what has allowed religion to flourish, which WAS the intention of the founders. Government assisting in establishing a particular religion will limit worship, not enhance it. That might be a better argument in getting these CINO's out of government.

[Dr.Phool]

15. Part of a speech on history

I gave to Americans United for Separation of Church and state last year when I was running for Congress.
Most Political stuff is deleted.


One thing you constantly hear is “America was founded as a Christian nation”. I’m sorry, but to quote Franklin Delano Roosevelt, “Repetition does not transform a lie into truth”.

The first permanent, English -speaking settlement in North america was in Jamestown in 1609. It’s purpose was trade, not religious freedom. Many Americans believe that American History started with the Mayflower at Plymouth Rock in 1620. Fewer than half the passengers on that ship were pilgrims seeking religious freedom. But anyway, a secular United States of America wasn’t founded for another 150 years. During that 150 years, the colonies were formed, and most had an official state religion.

In those colonies, the citizens were taxed to support the church and it’s ministers. Those who were not members of the “chosen” religion were subject to higher taxation, discrimination, harrassment- in Massachusets, you could have a hole bored through your tongue, with a hot poker for blasphemy. Or even death. Who can forget the Salem witch trials?

In Virginia, blasphemy was punishable by death, and you could be flogged for disrespecting a minister.

In 1777 James Madison introduced a bill written by Thomas Jefferson to the Virginia Legislature. The bill was the Religious Freedom Bill and it declared “No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or minister whatsoever. Nor shall be enforced, restrained molested or burdened in his body or his goods. Nor shall suffer on account of his religious opinions, or beliefs, and all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

It was Jeffersons proudest moment. And it became the basis for our first amendment.

When they wrote the Constitution, they purposely left out God and Christianity. The only references to religion are exclusionary.

But people say that the creator is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, but any references to a deity are clearly Deist in context, such as the god of nature. And besides. The Declaration is a divorce decree with England. The Constitution is the founding, governing legal document.

Another principle of separation is affirmed in the 1797 Treaty with Tripoli, written under George Washington, and approved under John Adams. It states that “The govt of the United States is not in any sense founded on the christian religion. This treaty has the force of law.

Now lets fast forward to the 20th century.

Back in the 1950’s, the extreme right-wing was considered the lunatic fringe. The John Birch Society and other conspiracy theorists, such as Phylis Schlafly
Come to mind. But this movement learned how to recruit average people, with reasonable sounding arguments, to help remedy some political, social, economic, or cultural problem.

They started to jell after the 1964 Goldwater campaign. Right wing televangelists, such as Jerry Falwell, started to network with conservative organizers such as Paul Weyrich, Howard Phillips, and Richard Viguerie. They found they could use the abortion issue as a wedge to social conservatives into an organization.

Also starting to emerge during this period was the Christian Reconstruction movement founded by R.J. Rushdooney. Their goal was and is to turn our govt. into one based on Old Testament Law.

In this vision of Eden, the only legitimate functions of Government would be law enforcement, building roads, and spreading the Gospel around the world. Gone would be all governmental regulation of commerce, environmental safeguards, public education, workers rights. Discrimination for any reason would be commonplace.

Criminal Justice would resemble the Taliban in Afghanistan. Picture the adulterer buried up to her neck being stoned to death. Women would be completely subservient. I’m not making this up. It’s in their literature.

This movement is extremely well funded, by right-wing millionaires and foundations such as Olin, Scaife, Claremont. The Hunts in Texas. The Kochs.
One of the top funders is Howard Ahmanson Jr.

They have their troops well entrenched throughout society. And they’re now setting their sights on mainstream religions. Howard Ahmanson spends a lot of money directly out of his pocket, to avoid irs reporting requirements. Right now he’s pumping money and advisors into the schism in the Anglican church.

His most recent semi-success was the California recall election. Darrell Issa got all of the publicity, but behind the scenes, Ahmanson was pumping in a lot more, and supporting right wing legislator Tom McClintock. He finished third. They also fund a lot of stealth campaigns locally to take over school boards and ban books. They’re funding anti-gay initiatives in several states right now.

Now for the Scary part.
They’ve almost got complete control of your government right now.

True believers Tom DeLay and Dennis Hastert control the House ofRepresentatives with an Iron fist.

Bill Frist is in control of the senate with fellow right wingers such as Don Nickles. And they’re running right wing candidates against moderate Republicans such as Arlen Specter.

You have a Supreme Court Justice who believes the president is chosen by God, and not the voters. I don’t have the exact quote, but Antonin Scalia said that in a recent speech. How can you sit on the Supreme Court, and not believe in the constitution?

A reporter allegedly overheard George W. Bush tell the Israeli Prime minister that God told him to invade Iraq. I didn’t know God looked like Donald Rumsfeld.

One oft he reasons I’m running for Congress is that these people scare me to death. I believe that this election is our last chance to save our country.

[saltpoint]

22. Agree with virtually every syllable EXCEPT the reference to Don Nickles.

He's been replaced by someone even worse -- Coburn.

And that proves your point. Things are bad out there.

[sandnsea]

40. Christian tradition

I guess you missed that part. I specifically said the government wasn't founded to create America as a Christian nation. I am a firm believer in the Bible or the Constitution, it can't be both. Despite all your quotes, which are accurate, there are plenty of others that point to the founders supporting the practice of religion as essential to a well-governed nation. That the morals one is supposed to learn from religion were necessary for freedom and sound law. Those morals were to be brought into government, NOT religious doctrine. They felt that the practice of religion would flourish best if it were completely separate from government. It is as much a part of their motive for keeping the two separate as to keep doctrine out of government. There are two sides to the necessity of separation of church and state. One is to keep government free from the influence of one particular religion. The other is to allow all religion to flourish. I am just saying that the second argument might make more sense to some of these religious nutsos and still have the desired end, separation of church and state.

[saltpoint]

48. Your claims seem possible when both Church and State --

-- are at their best.

When the Christians who opposed Jefferson so fiercely conducted themselves in such an un-Christian and undemocratic manner, the Founders' vision of separation is even more necessary and informed.

Out the window of the Enlightenment Founders' meeting for the writing of the Declaration and Constitution, "Christians" were burning witches.

I'm pretty sure the separation idea was a real good one.

[proud2BlibKansan]

92. Awesome

I wish you were my representative.

[saltpoint]

12. There were any number of Christian fundy hotheads --

-- clamoring for Jefferson's head on a platter.

They vigorously and insanely opposed his presidency. His range infuriated them and his presidency prompted their very nasty opposition.

Jefferson's correspondence with Madison is strong evidence that the authors of the Declaration and Constitution were Enlightenment thinkers and not Christians, and that their allegiances were not to doctrinal Christianity.

[pacifictiger]

90. Jefferson also compiled what is known as

"The Jefferson Bible." He was so uncomfortable with the "revalatory aspects" he compiled in chronological order the words and deeds of Jesus during his lifetime only, leaving out the latter part of the New Testament that dealt with the more supernatural writings.
I did read a quote that was attributed to Ben Franklin, saying "too much religion is worse than not enough." He thought that church gatherings were a good medium for fostering a community spirit and also served as a basis for promoting good moral and ethical standards.

[saltpoint]

93. Yes. I would like to applaud Jefferson's leaving out --

-- the supernatural stuff. I'm way late, I realize, but I think it is provocative and right-on.

Also I think you are exactly right on Franklin. He did want communities strengthened and saw some of these organizations as good means to that end.

And then he used his own free time to pretty much do what he wanted!

[GumboYaYa]

13. Don't you remember these parts of the Sermon on the Mount:

Blessed are those who slaughter indigenous peoples for they will inherit lots of land.

Blessed are those who enslave others to forced labor for they shall inherit big bales of cotton.

Geez, if there ever was a country founded on principles that defy the teachings of Jesus Christ it is America.

[saltpoint]

16. The Founders' non-Christianity is not the root of slavery or genocide.

Both existed long before Madison, Franklin, and Jefferson were born, and both exist now, long after they are gone, in places none of them ever set foot.

Christianity, even at its best, is not allopathic remedy for these transgressions.

There's a serious cause-and-effect problem with that connection.

And in any case, an overwhelming number of plantation slave owners were "devout Christians."

[GumboYaYa]

21. I'm not saying that Christianityis responsible for slavery or

the murder of indigenous people. I am saying that if by Christian you mean somoene who lives according to the teachings of Jesus Christ, there weren't many Christians running around America when it was formed. Calling oneself a Christian is not the same as living the life that Jesus Christ advocated.

So yes, any nation that can kill the natives of its land to take their lands for itself and then use the labor of African slaves to develop that land, is not a nation founded on the teachings of Jesus Christ.

[saltpoint]

26. I understand the distinction you are making but --

-- my point is that Christianity was in fact used to enslave human beings. The Bible you mention, including the New Testament you reference, was in fact the lock on the chains on many plantations.

You are arguing for a purer reading of those texts, but I'm positing that it WAS those texts that were used to enslave and oppress.

To be "Christian" in the early decades of this country was a very unpleasant thing to be. When "Christians" weren't horsewhipping human beings in South Carolina, they were burning witches in New England, all in the name of the Christ.

Yuck City.

[patcox2]

17. Thats an awfully vague premise, almost nonsense.

I don't think anyone beleives the US was "founded on christian ideology." I don't think any two people would have the same idea of the meaning of your term "christian ideology." So right off the bat, everyone responding would have to define their meaning of the term. The way you state the premise you are inviting others to debunk makes me think you are either thinking sloppily, you view things in broad colors and you have no grasp of the details, or, you are deliberately oversimplifying in order to set up a straw man.

Want to talk intelligently? Then say something reasonable, something objectively verifiable and thus meaningfully debateable, as opposed to something so vague and amorphous that discussion about it would itself be meaningless (at least to a logical positivist).

Here is what I mean. Look at this statement: The US was founded by christians. Is that true or not? Well, depends what you mean, the majority of those in the first congress were christians, so in that sense, if these people were "founders," then the answer is yes. There were also some very prominent "founders" who have histories as being, in varying degrees, either theist and agnostic. Does that therefore mean that the US was not founded by christians? I'd say no. But really, in the end, what does that matter? What the hell does it matter at all whether they were or were not christians? Because what is clear is what role they wanted religion to play in government, and that was no substantive role at all.

I actually think that its a powerful indication of the intent of the "founders," when it comes to religion, that they were mostly christians. Because despite the fact that the majority were christians, and they could have incorporated the christian religion into our government if they wanted to, they didn't. Its more powerful, don't you think, than a non-christian refusing to create a theocracy? OF course a non-christian would not want to create a theocracy. But you have to hand it to our founders, they were christians, yet they chose to adopt the doctrine of separation of church and state. How cool was that? I wish more modern christians would understand that and act like them.

Now, I will try to answer to your poorly conceived and worded invitation. There is no question that the society in which the founders lived was a christian society, and therefore it was infused with general ideas and themes infused with various elements of christian belief and christian morality. And the constitution reflects some of those things.

But, but, but, but, this is a huge but, a really big but, the founders clearly made a deliberate effort to keep christian theology out of our government, and were as succesful as it is possible for people in the circumstances to be. They say that the fish will be the last to discover water. When you are immersed in a culture you are unaware of the extent of its influence on you, of how it shapes so many of your thoughts and perceptions, and most people don't want to see that anyway because it interferes with their self image as independant free thinkers. So despite that, the founders did make a conscious effort to separate the government from religion.

Still, despite that, the constitution, our laws and institutions, were all definintely influenced by many aspects of christian ethics and morality. Marriage itself, for example, the idea of having laws regulating marriage and divorce, women's disenfranchisement, slavery, all of these things inherent in our law from the beginning, come from the influence of christianity. The judeo christian moral code (the majority of the ten commandmants, don't lie, cheat, steal, murder, thats all embodied in our laws. The idea that all are equal, beleive it or not, owes a lot to christian ethics, pre-christian pagan ethics generally beleived in the idea of the "great man," that some are great and some are small, though this was a variable concept in both christianity and paganism.

So, the short answer is there is no easy debunking, because the debate is meaningless because it oversimplifies and dichotomizes a complex and gray issue. Its not black and white, its not yes and no.

Except one thing, the founders did beleive that religion and government should be kept separate, that this is not a theocracy, that all religions should be free to practice, that the government should not interfere, nor should it prefer, one religion over another, and that there would be no state-sanctioned or "established" religion. Thats all completely beyond debate, what more could you want?

[Kazak]

68. My intent...

was to argue the point elsewhere using many of the points brought up by the DU "think tank", as it were. Thanks for adding so much, even if my premise was sloppy. :shrug:

[Poppyseedman]

18. The Puritans and Pilgrims come

here to set up a secular society? Their communities were the models for future settlements.

I have read probaly a hundred books from the time period of 1600 to 1800 in this country history. It's my hobby.

It's amazing that people who can read and think clearly believe that this country were not founded by people, who based their value systems from a christian faith perspective.

Even a basic reading of history will show that.

That doesn't mean that the founders believed that Biblical law supersedes that law of the land, it just means that the founding fathers were all taught and believed a value system based on the christian faith, which obviously was incorporated into their everyday thinking and writings.

State institutional religion is what the founders wanted to guarantee never to happen, not religious values to be outlawed in public discourse.


Flame away

[saltpoint]

28. Jefferson authored the Declaration.

He was not a Christian.

The folks who stepped off the boats from England were in large measure regarded as nutcases by the home country. That's the people you seem to be talking about.

They were superstitious, authoritarian, and freak-ass crazy.

Madison and Jefferson took a look out the window and decided there WOULD be separation of Church and State.

[sandnsea]

45. Values, not doctrine

Religious prayers, the Ten Commandments, faith-based programs; that's putting doctrine into government. There is nothing to indicate the founders wanted doctrine brought into public discourse. The founders absolutely wanted discourse on morals and values that might or might not be based on religious doctrine.

[saltpoint]

49. I think that's what I've been arguing.

I think Madison, Jefferson, and Franklin were quite content to leave the nutcase Christians out of the corridors of political power.

[sandnsea]

52. Certainly

But it doesn't mean they didn't think the nutcase Christians needed complete freedom to practice their religion. Or that some of the most courageous leaders throughout history found their strength and integrity in religion. It is MLK Day after all. I wouldn't have wanted his words stifled because he referred to God. And I wouldn't want a politician not to be able to repeat his words because they referred to God. But he didn't say he should be listened to because of a specific Bible verse; he based his words on the morals and values he got from his religion. That's the difference to me, if that makes sense.

[saltpoint]

55. Under our Constitution, largely Madison's work --

-- King could draw on any source he wished to inspire his followers, myself among them. He's our best orator, bar none, at least in my book.

But our Founders would not have wanted King or anyone else to establish a state religion, Christian or any other, nor use 'religion' to exclude any members of the citizenry. Jefferson is clear about this in his letters to Madison. The nation was founded on the RIGHT to practice faith as one wished, but not founded ON that faith.

[sandnsea]

73. Did I say that?

I'm not sure if you're arguing with me or what. I think we agree, so I'm a bit confused.

[saltpoint]

79. I think we agree & are on the same page, sandnsea.

Also: Your avatar makes me a bit sad, with the news of Rosa Parks' declining health.

She may not have had King's oratory skills, but she had the ferocity of heart and the dignity.

This is also her day, too.

[patcox2]

59. Thank you, thats it exactly, ethics, not theology, values, not doctrine.

Exactly the distinction I have tried to make but I couldn't quite nutshell it as well as you have.

[Dr.Phool]

67. Plumouth Rock and the Pilgrims

Arrived 160 years before the founding of our country. We went through a lot of religious intolerance and officially state sponsored religion before the constitution was written. That's why we founded a secular state.

[NAO]

19. The CONSTITUTION does not contain ONE TINY reference to "God"

And it was very much a part of conventional speech and formal writing to acknowledge "God" and "the Creator" at the time.

People writing would have had to make a CONSCIOUS, DELIBERATE EFFORT NOT to make mention of God in such a major, lengthy, important document. It was, after all, to be the foundation of the new nation.

This, IMHO, makes a VERY STRONG case that our Founding Fathers intended the United States to be a Secular Nation with a Secular Government and lots of citizens with religious beliefs of various types.

[Senator Lamb]

25. it was founded on christian ideology

we are all equal under god, we are all created equal. we were founded on justice, tolerance, and equality.

our founding fathers use their diverse interpretations of faith to come up with universal rights, unalienable rights. thats the anthisis of what the Christian Taliban wants.

[immoderate]

35. If America was founded on Christian ideology,

what were the countries that we broke away from founded on?

--IMM

[Malva Zebrina]

81. Except for the slaves and women nt

[NAO]

24. The Founding Fathers were Heirs of THE ENLIGHTENMENT

...something we appear to have lost lately. The Enlightenment - The Age of Reason - was characterized by the belief that reason, not the dogmas of faith should guide the affairs of men.

People kept belief in a Creator - sometimes out of true belief, or possibly in deference to convention, but their belief was in a Creator who did not take an active part in his creation. This type of belief was known as DEISM, and it was a very prevalent belief among the founding fathers.

[patcox2]

33. How prevalent? The enlightenment was itself a christian phenomenon.

Ironically, the enlightenment itself was a product of a christian society, as is science. Funny, ain't it? There was a moslem golden age, maybe similar to the enlightenment, the period when muslims were preeminent in science, when the Rubaiyat was written, but then that religion was overcome by fundamentalism and their society retreated. But the largely christian societies went on from the enlightnment, never looked back, and went on to invent science itself. The theory of evolution was first posited by a failed C of E curate, the ironies are delicious.

Anyway, I happen to beleive that this ability itself, the ability to separate one's spiritual beleifs from the "worldly," from government and science, is itself an attribute of christian society, I don't think any other religion has this, so ironically, the separation of church and state might be one of the most christian things about the constitution.

[saltpoint]

39. Nonsense, and lots of it.

The outcry from Christians over Enlightenment thought belies your discovered ironies.

They fuckin' hated the Enlightenment thinkers, and properly so.

Science was rising, and the intellectual man. The time of the obedient servant of the Galilean was passing.

[patcox2]

65. Synthesis results from thesis and antithesis

yes, religions had a backlash against the enlightenment, and secularists had a backlash against religion, right now the republicans are exploiting a backlash against Newdow to their benefit.

The big point is, where else did science originate? It seems that the history of christianity had something to do with the development of science. Where else in the world, what other culture and society, developed the notion of religious freedom, and of purely secular political power? I think it all springs from the idea of separating faith from secular affairs. Thats why a priest in the church of england could invent evolution, thats why the catholic church can endorse evolution as an accurate depiction of the means by which god brought the species into their current form, because some, not all, but some christian societies and groups developed the idea that you can divorce your religious beleifs from your political beliefs and your scientific experiments. And those are the cultures which developed science, and also developed secular government.

[saltpoint]

77. Galileo would take issue with you on that.

I don't think it was his experience that scientific exploration rises from Christian or religious constructs.

And how the Church treated him would appear to validate his concerns.

Our Founders were not interested in a government based in Christian doctrine. They gave us documents which permitted freedom of religious expression but one of their obvious and most forceful goals was to avoid a blurring of those two worlds.

Even so, it's all we can do from keeping people like Fred Phleps from clawing at the gates.

[Malva Zebrina]

83. I have only one comment

:eyes:

Are you familiar with Gallileo? Are you familiar with his treatment from the Christians, at that time, the Catholics or the holy see? Are you familiar with the treatment of American women when the suffragettes fought against the church and were villified and scorned by the church because they wanted the right to vote?

Some of these brave, outspoken women were NOT Christians. Some were atheists. And the church did everything it could to shut them up and to deny women the vote.

Because a majority that is of one religion, is involved with the scientific discoveries of the time, means nothing at all.

Everybody HAD to be a Christian in those times. No one DARED not to be. There was no CHOICE and those who were not, were to be attacked, killed, their lands were to be conquored.

[immoderate]

41. The Rennaissance was Christian? What were the Dark Ages?

What did the Christians do for 1500 years? Get ready for the Rennaissance by killing Jews?

--IMM

[DrWeird]

44. "that religion overcome by fundamentalism and their society retreated."

More like they were overcome by Mongols.

Unless you're talking about fundamentalist Christians.

[NAO]

60. The Enlightenment was a product of Hellenistic Civilization,

which was nearly snuffed out by Christianity.

Civilization was FLOURISHING in the centuries B.C. Culture and learning were very advanced. Then along comes this religion - Christianity - and WHAM - civilization is destroyed and humanity is plunged into THE DARK AGES. It took over 1000 years for the light of REASON, which had illuminated Athens, to emerge from the stifling darkness of Christianity, and when it finally did it resulted in the rebirth of culture and civilization and the birth of science in The Enlightenment.

But when REASON did dawn once again, the major effect was not to destroy religion, but to contain it to it's own domain, and to keep it out of other domains such as science and government.

The contamination of religion into government or of government into science or of government into religion - i.e, not keeping the domains separate - is the beginning of the destruction of a culture.

[saltpoint]

64. Now dammit, NAO, stop making me weep over here.

When you bring up my Athens of those years, you are slamming and pounding around on my heartstrings like they were a banjo.

And it makes me sad and homesick for my Pericles and my Greek pantheon and my pagan temples.

No, wait, that's not right. You are bringing them back to me with a post like this.

I'd say good things about your historical point and its relevance to this original post, but what I actually loved about it was how it made me FEEL.

Nice, nice post.

[NAO]

71. thanks (nm)

[patcox2]

69. Okay, see my post 65, we are sorta but not quite on the same page.

I could argue that the cult of hellenism of the 1700s and 1800s was different from the reality, but let that be (your adoring, worshipful descriptions mark you as a cultist). I don't like your claim to "reason" as the sole property of one side but not others in this debate; science is partially a rejection, after all, of sometimes misleading "logic" in favor of pure empiricism, which often produces illogical results, the world not having evolved for the sole purpose of making logical sense to our brains. However, I agree that the crucial thing is the ability, in our society, to separate matters of faith from politics and science. I happen to think that there is something about christianity itself (and perhaps the reformation and its transfer of emphasis away from dogma) that allowed the conditions for this cultural trait to evolve, and thats why christian europe developed science, and not the native cultures of the amazon or aztecs or the maya or the buddhists of china, who were civilized at the same time as your beloved greece and continued to the 20th century without advancing a bit.

[TWiley]

32. Only 30% of the 10 Commandments are

evident in our laws. These are: 1) Murder 2) Theft 3)False witness.
Furthermore, these "commandments" are evident in the laws of all civilized nations, regardless of religious affiliation.

The other 7 (thank gawd) are given no recognition.

Is it against the law to commit adultry?
Is it against the law to worship a gawd above the Jewish gawd?
Is it against the law to create a "Graven Image"
Is it against the law to not honor your father?
Is it against the law to take the lords name in vain?
Is it against the law to not keep the sabbath holy?
Is it against the law to covet your neighbors belongings?

Thank heavens it is not.

[saltpoint]

43. And in any event these are Old Testament constructions.

I personally wish the Judge Roy Moore Christians of our modern day would get their heads out of the Old Testament.

[TWiley]

94. Yes, but I it a justification used by the fundamentalists

who claim that our nations laws were built upon the 10 commandments.

The old testament is a very good place for a Christian to keep his head out of. I thought that was the basic message of Christ.

[saltpoint]

96. Hi, TWiley. I agree that Christ's message is a break from --

-- the Old Testament, and that is one of the huge strengths of his ministry, at least in my opinion.

I also like his inclination to by-pass the temples of the town and to head out into the desert to party with the Essenes.

I would like the New Testament quite a bit more if it were more of Jesus' teachings and less of Paul's crap.

[TWiley]

97. My feelings exactly.

I have been hearing the term "Paulists" lately.

It is possible that Paul simply insinuated himself into the early movement simply because he could write. It is odd that so little is heard from the Apostles, and so much is heard from a Republican (citizen of the Republic) who never saw Jesus.

[Al-CIAda]

37. The Founders Confront Judge Moore

The Founders Confront Judge Moore
Published on Thursday, November 20, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
by Thom Hartmann

http://carapace.weblogs.us/archives/023101.html

[theorist]

47. Whatever the founding ideology was...

it most certainly was not grounded in the current version of "Christian fundamentalism". I may be incorrect, but the establishment of a Christian theocracy is not even mentioned in the New Testament, and Christ would surely find such a thing repulsive, where faith and worship are meant to be a personal tools for salvation.

To think that the rules of the Old Testament could ever be packaged into a western version of shariah is ludicrous, and I would never lay down and let it consume my country.

[sandnsea]

50. "personal tools for salvation"

Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes!!!!!!! We need a whole big religious revival on PERSONAL salvation. That's what religion was always meant to be and is most certainly what Christ came for. His followers thought he was going to create a kingdom here on earth, but no. The kingdom is within. It's personal. Any time religion is attempted to be used as a governing tool, disaster results.

[EVDebs]

56. Founded by Freemasons on ideals of Knights Templar

According to the works of John J. Robinson, former marine and historian, whose books "Born In Blood" and "Dungeon, Fire and Sword" show that the Freemasons are descended from the Knights Templar and their history of betrayal by the Pope and King of France, which spurred them into a tolerant brotherhood geared to monotheistic religious members...

well, just read the books for yourself. The proof is in works like John Steinbeck's (hint, "Winter of Our Discontent" reveals his own Masonic/Knights Templar membership).

[saltpoint]

61. I want to jump in here, but can't. I have to recuse myself --

-- owing to my parents' divorce in part because they were unable to agree on the degree of transgression represented by another family member being a Free Mason.

Jefferson and Madison figured more prominently in their divorce than you could POSSIBLY BELIEVE.

And that's much to your credit, believe me.

: )

Anyway, I'm familiar -- sad to say -- with the historical thread you cite and kind of enjoy the mystery of it.

[EVDebs]

85. I take it she, mum, wasn't an Eastern Star !

BTW, the "DaVinci Code" and the stuff about the Holy Grail being steganographic code for Christ's holyblood offspring...rubbish. Check out Graham Hancock's book "The Sign and The Seal" for what it more likely is, Holy Grail myth is steganographic code for the Ark of the Covenant. This is important nowadays since, if there's to be a Third Temple as GWBush's dispensationalists demand...there has to be an Ark to go into said Third Temple else the deal is moot.

[saltpoint]

88. Your humor is great, EVDebs.

You're right -- she was NOT Eastern Star.

Anyway, I appreciate the book recommendation and may check it out -- I need a good read for February and may go looking.

[Deja Q]

63. They were Christian, but had enough sense to make barriers so that one

aspect of Christianity (Catholic, Episcapalian, Sardine, whatever) wouldn't be able to fetter the Law of the Land with their own style of 'thought'.

Our Founding Fathers, by and large, DID believe in God. But I for one do not believe they would want this country to become an arrogant and aggressive theology. The Constitution itself is living proof of that.

[saltpoint]

66. Yes and yes and --

-- yes again.

And I hope that fucker Jerry Falwell is listening to you, too.

------
edit: to complete

[Iris]

75. They were Deists.

While they did believe in a higher being, they felt he basically was a benevolent observer. I doubt they would believe he commanded Oral Roberts or George W. Bush or anyone else to perform certain acts.

[McCamy Taylor]

74. Thomas Jefferson Quote should make Christian Coalition Jaws Drop

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tirtured, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites."

Go to Table Talk at Salon. In the "Politics" attic there is an old thread from 2000 called "Help the Spirit of 1776 Haunt the Right Wing" in which we debated this among other issues. Lots of good quotes for anyone who is really interested in the topic.

Remember, George III's claim to power was based on divine mandate, and you must have a state religion to have a divine mandate. So anyone who rebeled against George III was pretty much going to be against a state religion for good reason---they knew the political risks of such a monster.

[McCamy Taylor]

76. Off topic but good Tom Paine quote to use about * and Hereditary Rule

From "Common Sense"

But it is not so much the absurdity as the evil of hereditary succession which concerns mankind. Did it ensure a race of good and wise men it would have the seal of divine authority, but as it opens a door to the foolish, the wicked; and the improper, it hath in it the nature of oppression. Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.


http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1776-1800/paine/CM/sense03.htm

[saltpoint]

78. You ain't a'kiddin' none about the Christian Coalition.

They wouldn't like this one iota.

The gnashing of teeth! The howling! The inhuman shrieks of anguish and betrayal!

It'd piss 'em off right proper.

[NAO]

87. Tom Paine to CC: Christianity copied from paganism, a myth and a fraud

Thomas Paine, from The Age of Reason:

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

EVERY national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet; as if the way to God was not open to every man alike.

Each of those churches shows certain books, which they call revelation, or the Word of God. The Jews say that their Word of God was given by God to Moses face to face; the Christians say, that their Word of God came by divine inspiration; and the Turks say, that their Word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from heaven. Each of those churches accuses the other of unbelief; and, for my own part, I disbelieve them all.

It is curious to observe how the theory of what is called the Christian Church, sprung out of the tail of the heathen mythology. A direct incorporation took place in the first instance, by making the reputed founder to be celestially begotten. The trinity of gods that then followed was no other than a reduction of the former plurality, which was about twenty or thirty thousand. The statue of Mary succeeded the statue of Diana of Ephesus. The deification of heroes changed into the canonization of saints. The Mythologists had gods for everything; the Christian Mythologists had saints for everything. The church became as crowded with the one, as the pantheon had been with the other; and Rome was the place of both.

The Christian theory is little else than the idolatry of the ancient mythologists, accommodated to the purposes of power and revenue; and it yet remains to reason and philosophy to abolish the amphibious fraud.

[johnaries]

80. In addition to the Treaty of Tripoli and Jefferson's writings,

here's what James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution" had to say:
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qmadison.htm

[saltpoint]

89. Thank you for this, johnaries.

Wow. You don't mess around when you collect supporting data.

Top-drawer stuff. Thank you.

[NAO]

82. OK, time for the Big Gun, Thomas Paine (quote)

Founding Father Thomas Paine was NOT a Christian. This is not a matter of speculation or open for debate. Paine spelled out his aggressive disbelief in Christianity in a published book, The Age of Reason. From Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason" (1795):


I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. I believe the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy. But, lest it should be supposed that I believe many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

...

EVERY national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet; as if the way to God was not open to every man alike.

Each of those churches shows certain books, which they call revelation, or the Word of God. The Jews say that their Word of God was given by God to Moses face to face; the Christians say, that their Word of God came by divine inspiration; and the Turks say, that their Word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from heaven. Each of those churches accuses the other of unbelief; and, for my own part, I disbelieve them all.

...

It is curious to observe how the theory of what is called the Christian Church, sprung out of the tail of the heathen mythology. A direct incorporation took place in the first instance, by making the reputed founder to be celestially begotten. The trinity of gods that then followed was no other than a reduction of the former plurality, which was about twenty or thirty thousand. The statue of Mary succeeded the statue of Diana of Ephesus. The deification of heroes changed into the canonization of saints. The Mythologists had gods for everything; the Christian Mythologists had saints for everything. The church became as crowded with the one, as the pantheon had been with the other; and Rome was the place of both. The Christian theory is little else than the idolatry of the ancient mythologists, accommodated to the purposes of power and revenue; and it yet remains to reason and philosophy to abolish the amphibious fraud.

THE ENTIRE TEXT OF "THE AGE OF REASON" IS AVAILABLE ONLINE AT:

THE AGE OF REASON
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/index.shtml

[McCamy Taylor]

84. Thomas Paine gives Right Wingers fits, usually they dissavow him

Even though he was a best selling author in his own time and highly respected by many of the Founders.

[NAO]

86. They smeared him into oblivion until Robert Ingersoll rescued his honor

The forces of organized religion (primarily evangelical Christianity) smeared and marginalized Paine and nearly managed to drive him into oblivion.

From the time of The Age of Reason (1795) until the Great Freethinker Robert Ingersoll rescued his reputation and honor and brought his book back to the forefront in the late 19th century, he was marginalized and unknown.

Now those same forces have had to concede that Paine existed, and that he was an important Founding Father, but they try to focus exclusively on his work "Common Sense" and ignore "The Age of Reason".

Robert Ingersoll
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/index.shtml

[saltpoint]

95. Well put and right on.

Very quotable, too. We owe Ingersoll a true debt.

[killbotfactory]

98. Well...

I don't remember anything in the bible about democracy and seperation of powers.

I do remember a lot of talk about kings, concubines, and killing those who don't worship god.

Maybe someone can point out some passages for me.