5 Founding Fathers' Skepticism About Christianity Would Make Them Unelectable Today

[NoNukes]

Shame the article contains alot of bullcrap. Such as the Washington was a Diest when the man was an active vestryman for the Anglican Church. People who don't believe generally don't volunteer their time to actively build the Church. Nor do they fund and encourage missionary trips. Nor do they widely quote scripture. Nor do they tutor their children in the faith.

Well, it IS AlternateReality.net.

Which means that it is probably true.

 

[NoNukes]

This is basically a political jab at the repubs, disguised as a topic of religion. Pretty lame one too.

It is a jab at the religious right, and it is not our fault that they vote Republican.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Shame the article contains alot of bullcrap. Such as the Washington was a Diest when the man was an active vestryman for the Anglican Church. People who don't believe generally don't volunteer their time to actively build the Church. Nor do they fund and encourage missionary trips. Nor do they widely quote scripture. Nor do they tutor their children in the faith.

You might be surprised. I've known several people who did all those things, yet held personal beliefs their church would have disavowed. People participate in religious community for a wide variety of reasons, and many of them have nothing to do with the literal, or even spiritual, "truth" of the religion.

One thing we know. Based upon the teachings in the new testament very few believe it. If they did more of them would be:

Turning the other cheek
Walking the extra mile
loving their neighbors
Doing unto others as they would like to be done unto
taking no thought for tomorrow(401K anyone)
When sued in court for coat voluntarily giving cloak
loving their enemies
praying for those who curse and despise them
selling what they have and giving it to the poor
etc.
etc.
etc.

 

[NoNukes]

if the 5 founding father's acted today in public, just as they acted back then in public....then they would be elected again....

Do you actually think they were shouting from the rooftops that they were Deists and did not believe that Christ was the son of god, or God manifested in the Son?

got news for ya....the people of the time would have never elected them if they wore that kind of stuff on their coat sleeve....they did what all politicians do....they held their true intentions and feelings on the topic, close to their heart, not for all constituents of the time, to see, they discussed those views in secret meetings....amongst the enlightened of the era.

Taking that into account, it not much of a stretch to think they would have wanted freedom FROM religion. Of course, they couldn't say that in the Constitution. That's why we have SC, to figure out the true "original intent" and not just take the word of the anal "literal interpretation" proponents.

Odd how the Founders' "original intent" was to be some leftist totalitarian Utopia, huh?

That would be great, but the right keeps getting in the way.

 

[NoNukes]

Shame the article contains alot of bullcrap. Such as the Washington was a Diest when the man was an active vestryman for the Anglican Church. People who don't believe generally don't volunteer their time to actively build the Church. Nor do they fund and encourage missionary trips. Nor do they widely quote scripture. Nor do they tutor their children in the faith.

You might be surprised. I've known several people who did all those things, yet held personal beliefs their church would have disavowed. People participate in religious community for a wide variety of reasons, and many of them have nothing to do with the literal, or even spiritual, "truth" of the religion.

One thing we know. Based upon the teachings in the new testament very few believe it. If they did more of them would be:

Turning the other cheek
Walking the extra mile
loving their neighbors
Doing unto others as they would like to be done unto
taking no thought for tomorrow(401K anyone)
When sued in court for coat voluntarily giving cloak
loving their enemies
praying for those who curse and despise them
selling what they have and giving it to the poor
etc.
etc.
etc.

I have met very few TRUE Christians in my life. My cousin is married to one, and she is lovely. Another woman I who is a friend of my wife's family is a true Christian, and you will not meet a nicer person. My question would be, why do being need religion to know how to act like decent human beings?

 

[Cammmpbell]

Taking that into account, it not much of a stretch to think they would have wanted freedom FROM religion. Of course, they couldn't say that in the Constitution. That's why we have SC, to figure out the true "original intent" and not just take the word of the anal "literal interpretation" proponents.

Odd how the Founders' "original intent" was to be some leftist totalitarian Utopia, huh?

That would be great, but the right keeps getting in the way.

You know why

The upper 1% has the middle 40% eating out of their hands over real important issues like where they're going after they die and meddling in some young woman's business about whether or not she's able to take on a 20 year financial reponsibility raising an unwanted child.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A deist would never say this;
At the ending of this document

Circular to State Governments
June 8, 1783

I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the Citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to Government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow Citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the Field, and finally, that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all, to do Justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation.


de·ism (dzm, d-)
n.
The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

He believed that God protects this Nation in Federal and State Government.
When he says the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, he is talking about Christianity (the Bible).

In Washington's case, yes, but not because of the language, which could be used easily by a deist. Witness Thomas Jefferson's use of language when describing God and His creation.

They all believed in God, and that it was God who helped them win the Revolutionary War.
Thomas Jefferson believed, he did not believe in the miracles that were written in the bible.
But they all believed and had dependence upon God.

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever." - Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 18, 1781 Thomas Jefferson.

No disagreement: either a Christian god, or a deistic god, or Franklin's ever-changing demi-urges. He was a strange one but seemingly very tolerant of different belief systems.

 

[daveman]

No... but the modern day right wing idiots like yourself are going to Limbaugh us all the way to one.

We won't get the chance, if you drooling leftist idiots crown Obama king.

Link?

I don't have room to link all the posts saying Obama can do whatever the hell he wants.

 

[daveman]

Shame the article contains alot of bullcrap. Such as the Washington was a Diest when the man was an active vestryman for the Anglican Church. People who don't believe generally don't volunteer their time to actively build the Church. Nor do they fund and encourage missionary trips. Nor do they widely quote scripture. Nor do they tutor their children in the faith.

Well, it IS AlternateReality.net.

Which means that it is probably true.

No, it just means you believe it without questioning it.

 

[NoNukes]

We won't get the chance, if you drooling leftist idiots crown Obama king.

Link?

I don't have room to link all the posts saying Obama can do whatever the hell he wants.

Try

 

[daveman]

Taking that into account, it not much of a stretch to think they would have wanted freedom FROM religion. Of course, they couldn't say that in the Constitution. That's why we have SC, to figure out the true "original intent" and not just take the word of the anal "literal interpretation" proponents.

Odd how the Founders' "original intent" was to be some leftist totalitarian Utopia, huh?

That would be great, but the right keeps getting in the way.

History says that whenever a leftist totalitarian Utopia has been tried, it winds up knee-deep in blood and the survivors are oppressed.

You think that would be great?

 

[NoNukes]

Well, it IS AlternateReality.net.

Which means that it is probably true.

No, it just means you believe it without questioning it.

I question everything in life, and I have always been known for this by people who know me.

 

[daveman]

Link?

I don't have room to link all the posts saying Obama can do whatever the hell he wants.

Try

Okay.

 

[NoNukes]

Odd how the Founders' "original intent" was to be some leftist totalitarian Utopia, huh?

That would be great, but the right keeps getting in the way.

History says that whenever a leftist totalitarian Utopia has been tried, it winds up knee-deep in blood and the survivors are oppressed.

You think that would be great?

Which History is this?

 

[daveman]

Which means that it is probably true.

No, it just means you believe it without questioning it.

I question everything in life, and I have always been known for this by people who know me.

Apparently, you question everything but AlternateReality.net.

 

[Katzndogz]

Over and over and over, the Founding Fathers of this nation could not have made their Christianity more clear. They may have had disputes over the methods of practice of Christianity, but the core Christian beliefs were abundantly presented.

What they did not want was a state religion in which the ruler was the embodiment of God on Earth which was what the King represented. Failure to believe in the state religion was not only non-belief but treason as well.

After all these two hundred and odd years, despite their best efforts to prevent it, we are approaching exactly what they feared the most. A state mandated religious belief that uses treason or the very least unpatriotism as a method of enforcement. After these hundreds of years, with a specific prohibition in place to prevent a religious test from being imposed on candidates for political office, we NOW, at the present time choose to use a religious test to keep Christians from office.

Liberals are stars in the theater of the absurd.

 

[daveman]

That would be great, but the right keeps getting in the way.

History says that whenever a leftist totalitarian Utopia has been tried, it winds up knee-deep in blood and the survivors are oppressed.

You think that would be great?

Which History is this?

The real kind, not the Howard Zinn/Noam Chomsky "everything bad is America's fault" kind popular among leftists.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Over and over and over, the Founding Fathers of this nation could not have made their Christianity more clear. They may have had disputes over the methods of practice of Christianity, but the core Christian beliefs were abundantly presented.

What they did not want was a state religion in which the ruler was the embodiment of God on Earth which was what the King represented. Failure to believe in the state religion was not only non-belief but treason as well.

After all these two hundred and odd years, despite their best efforts to prevent it, we are approaching exactly what they feared the most. A state mandated religious belief that uses treason or the very least unpatriotism as a method of enforcement. After these hundreds of years, with a specific prohibition in place to prevent a religious test from being imposed on candidates for political office, we NOW, at the present time choose to use a religious test to keep Christians from office.

Liberals are stars in the theater of the absurd.

A bit extreme still OK until the bolded above, where you entered "the theatre of the absurd" with your opponents. How about some valid sources both unbiased yet critical.

Not all Founders were active Christian or even Christian, but I do think evidence is clear that all Founders believed in spiritual and or ethical systems, which they used to inform their decision making. I firmly agree that they wanted no fusion of organized religion and national government. That is why their descendents ended all state-established religions. Very wise.

 

[peach174]

Over and over and over, the Founding Fathers of this nation could not have made their Christianity more clear. They may have had disputes over the methods of practice of Christianity, but the core Christian beliefs were abundantly presented.

What they did not want was a state religion in which the ruler was the embodiment of God on Earth which was what the King represented. Failure to believe in the state religion was not only non-belief but treason as well.

After all these two hundred and odd years, despite their best efforts to prevent it, we are approaching exactly what they feared the most. A state mandated religious belief that uses treason or the very least unpatriotism as a method of enforcement. After these hundreds of years, with a specific prohibition in place to prevent a religious test from being imposed on candidates for political office, we NOW, at the present time choose to use a religious test to keep Christians from office.

Liberals are stars in the theater of the absurd.

We have a bunch of Atheists and seculars, trying to get God out of our government.
Twisting the meaning of separation of church and state.
They did the same thing around 1857, trying to get the Chaplains out of the House and Senate, but it didn't work.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We must keep the atheists at bay as much as the far right religionists. The Founders would approve of neither wing, I think.