America was founded as an enlightened multicultural Nation

[whutTHEYsay]

#1. We will start with the Puritans

The first group of “Mayflower” Christians to set foot on what was to become Massachusetts’s soil were separatists meaning they left the Church of England behind. Those separatists were eventually absorbed into the following groups of non-separatist Puritans who under Congregationalist Churches maintained a loyal relationship with the Church of England until the revolt against King Charles in 1776 was declared.

In no way should the early separatist Puritans be confused with the Revolutionary War Separatists. Many of the 1776 separatists were not Christian in a Puritan/Calvinistic sense at all. They were more philosophically aligned with the modern liberal mindset of the times when the Declaration of Independence was signed.

“So who, then, were the Puritans? While the Separatists believed that the only way to live according to Biblical precepts was to leave the Church of England entirely, the Puritans thought they could reform the church from within. Sometimes called non-separating Puritans, this less radical group shared a lot in common with the Separatists, particularly a form of worship and self-organization called “the congregational way.” https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/news/pilgrims-puritans-differences​

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Anyone convinced or of the opinion that Protestant Christianity was ”tied” to the US Constitution when it was written are certainly welcome to bring history, facts, and the best knowledge about the hearts, minds and souls of our founding fathers and the religion, philosophy and science they absorbed during their lifetimes to make that case.

I will make the case for separate and “untied” because I am certain that all must agree that Protestant Christianity was deeply involved in just about every aspect of the British America’s colonial culture ever since the day a group of Protestant Christians, subjects of the King of England, came to the New World aboard the Arbella in 1630 hearing these words from Governor John Winthrop as they sailed across the Atlantic:

“Secondly for the work we have in hand. It is by a mutual consent, through a special overvaluing providence and a more than an ordinary approbation of the churches of Christ, to seek out a place of cohabitation and consortship under a due form of government both civil and ecclesiastical. In such cases as this, the care of the public must oversway all private respects, by which, not only conscience, but mere civil policy, doth bind us. For it is a true rule that particular estates cannot subsist in the ruin of the public.” https://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A Model of Christian Charity.pdf


Yes, Christian settlers came to the New World with leaders such as Governor Winthrop to set up a Christian government tied to the British Crown.

All true, but one century later - an European and very non-Christian influence engaged the minds of many of Colonial America’s leaders who led during the Revolution and the founding of the United Stars of America.


The new founding influence was Deism. Here are a few paragraphs about that:

The Founding Fathers, Deism, and Christianity. WRITTEN BY: David L. Holmes

The Founding Fathers, Deism, and Christianity

“The sweeping disagreement over the religious faiths of the Founders arises from a question of discrepancy. Did their private beliefs differ from the orthodox teachings of their churches? On the surface, most Founders appear to have been orthodox (or “right-believing”) Christians. Most were baptized, listed on church rolls, married to practicing Christians, and frequent or at least sporadic attenders of services of Christian worship. In public statements, most invoked divine assistance.”


“But the widespread existence in 18th-century America of a school of religious thought called Deism complicates the actual beliefs of the Founders. Drawing from the scientific and philosophical work of such figures as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Isaac Newton, and John Locke, Deists argued that human experience and rationality—rather than religious dogma and mystery—determine the validity of human beliefs.”


“Thus, Deism inevitably subverted orthodox Christianity. Persons influenced by the movement had little reason to read the Bible, to pray, to attend church, or to participate in such rites as baptism, Holy Communion, and the laying on of hands (confirmation) by bishops.”


“But Deistic thought was immensely popular in colleges from the middle of the 18th into the 19th century. Thus, it influenced many educated (as well as uneducated) males of the Revolutionary generation. Although such men would generally continue their public affiliation with Christianity after college, they might inwardly hold unorthodox religious views. Depending on the extent to which Americans of Christian background were influenced by Deism, their religious beliefs would fall into three categories: non-Christian Deism, Christian Deism, and orthodox Christianity.”


Moving forward I will show how Deusm, Theism and Unitarianism, in the enlightened minds of sufficient numbers of our founding fathers is what brought about the new concept of separation of church and state thus ‘untying’ the knot between the US Federal Government and the dominate Protestant Christian Church and religion that Governor Winthrop brought to New England.

 

[ding]

Dude, your understanding of separation of church and state is flawed.

The establishment clause was written expressly to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions of which half the state had at the time of ratification. All of which were based upon Christianity. The belief in multiculturalism at the time of founding is a pipe dream.

 

[BreezeWood]

Anyone convinced or of the opinion that Protestant Christianity was ”tied” to the US Constitution when it was written are certainly welcome to bring history, facts, and the best knowledge about the hearts, minds and souls of our founding fathers and the religion, philosophy and science they absorbed during their lifetimes to make that case.

I will make the case for separate and “untied” because I am certain that all must agree that Protestant Christianity was deeply involved in just about every aspect of the British America’s colonial culture ever since the day a group of Protestant Christians, subjects of the King of England, came to the New World aboard the Arbella in 1630 hearing these words from Governor John Winthrop as they sailed across the Atlantic:

“Secondly for the work we have in hand. It is by a mutual consent, through a special overvaluing providence and a more than an ordinary approbation of the churches of Christ, to seek out a place of cohabitation and consortship under a due form of government both civil and ecclesiastical. In such cases as this, the care of the public must oversway all private respects, by which, not only conscience, but mere civil policy, doth bind us. For it is a true rule that particular estates cannot subsist in the ruin of the public.” https://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A Model of Christian Charity.pdf


Yes, Christian settlers came to the New World with leaders such as Governor Winthrop to set up a Christian government tied to the British Crown.

All true, but one century later - an European and very non-Christian influence engaged the minds of many of Colonial America’s leaders who led during the Revolution and the founding of the United Stars of America.


The new founding influence was Deism. Here are a few paragraphs about that:

The Founding Fathers, Deism, and Christianity. WRITTEN BY: David L. Holmes

The Founding Fathers, Deism, and Christianity

“The sweeping disagreement over the religious faiths of the Founders arises from a question of discrepancy. Did their private beliefs differ from the orthodox teachings of their churches? On the surface, most Founders appear to have been orthodox (or “right-believing”) Christians. Most were baptized, listed on church rolls, married to practicing Christians, and frequent or at least sporadic attenders of services of Christian worship. In public statements, most invoked divine assistance.”


“But the widespread existence in 18th-century America of a school of religious thought called Deism complicates the actual beliefs of the Founders. Drawing from the scientific and philosophical work of such figures as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Isaac Newton, and John Locke, Deists argued that human experience and rationality—rather than religious dogma and mystery—determine the validity of human beliefs.”


“Thus, Deism inevitably subverted orthodox Christianity. Persons influenced by the movement had little reason to read the Bible, to pray, to attend church, or to participate in such rites as baptism, Holy Communion, and the laying on of hands (confirmation) by bishops.”


“But Deistic thought was immensely popular in colleges from the middle of the 18th into the 19th century. Thus, it influenced many educated (as well as uneducated) males of the Revolutionary generation. Although such men would generally continue their public affiliation with Christianity after college, they might inwardly hold unorthodox religious views. Depending on the extent to which Americans of Christian background were influenced by Deism, their religious beliefs would fall into three categories: non-Christian Deism, Christian Deism, and orthodox Christianity.”


Moving forward I will show how Deusm, Theism and Unitarianism, in the enlightened minds of sufficient numbers of our founding fathers is what brought about the new concept of separation of church and state thus ‘untying’ the knot between the US Federal Government and the dominate Protestant Christian Church and religion that Governor Winthrop brought to New England.

.

Moving forward I will show how Deusm, Theism and Unitarianism, in the enlightened minds of sufficient numbers of our founding fathers is what brought about the new concept of separation of church and state thus ‘untying’ the knot between the US Federal Government and the dominate Protestant Christian Church and religion that Governor Winthrop brought to New England.

thankfully, the bible belt's influence in the actual writing of the u s constitution was averted from establishing a religious, christian state and their limited influence remained to establish with the constitution's final enactment a primarily secular document.

 

[BreezeWood]

Dude, your understanding of separation of church and state is flawed.

The establishment clause was written expressly to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions of which half the state had at the time of ratification. All of which were based upon Christianity. The belief in multiculturalism at the time of founding is a pipe dream.

.

The belief in multiculturalism at the time of founding is a pipe dream.

no bing, you are wrong -

america was the place for multiculturalism's birth and has continued since that time to the present day ...

 

[ding]

Dude, your understanding of separation of church and state is flawed.

The establishment clause was written expressly to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions of which half the state had at the time of ratification. All of which were based upon Christianity. The belief in multiculturalism at the time of founding is a pipe dream.

.

The belief in multiculturalism at the time of founding is a pipe dream.

no bing, you are wrong -

america was the place for multiculturalism's birth and has continued since that time to the present day ...

Wrong context. Here’s the correct context from an eyewitness.


One Nation Under God: Alexis de Tocqueville

Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things.

In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country.

Religion in America...must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief.

I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion -- for who can search the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society.

In the United States, the sovereign authority is religious...there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.

In the United States, the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people...

Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent...

I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors...; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution.

Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great. The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law as well as the surest pledge of freedom. The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other. Christianity is the companion of liberty in all its conflicts -- the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims.

Tocqueville gives this account of a court case in New York:
While I was in America, a witness, who happened to be called at the assizes of the county of Chester (state of New York), declared that he did not believe in the existence of God or in the immortality of the soul. The judge refused to admit his evidence, on the ground that the witness had destroyed beforehand all confidence of the court in what he was about to say. The newspapers related the fact without any further comment. The New York Spectator of August 23rd, 1831, relates the fact in the following terms:

"The court of common pleas of Chester county (New York), a few days since rejected a witness who declared his disbelief in the existence of God. The presiding judge remarked, that he had not before been aware that there was a man living who did not believe in the existence of God; that this belief constituted the sanction of all testimony in a court of justice: and that he knew of no case in a Christian country, where a witness had been permitted to testify without such belief."

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Anyone convinced or of the opinion that Protestant Christianity was ”tied” to the US Constitution when it was written are certainly welcome to bring history, facts, and the best knowledge about the hearts, minds and souls of our founding fathers and the religion, philosophy and science they absorbed during their lifetimes to make that case.

I will make the case for separate and “untied” because I am certain that all must agree that Protestant Christianity was deeply involved in just about every aspect of the British America’s colonial culture ever since the day a group of Protestant Christians, subjects of the King of England, came to the New World aboard the Arbella in 1630 hearing these words from Governor John Winthrop as they sailed across the Atlantic:

“Secondly for the work we have in hand. It is by a mutual consent, through a special overvaluing providence and a more than an ordinary approbation of the churches of Christ, to seek out a place of cohabitation and consortship under a due form of government both civil and ecclesiastical. In such cases as this, the care of the public must oversway all private respects, by which, not only conscience, but mere civil policy, doth bind us. For it is a true rule that particular estates cannot subsist in the ruin of the public.” https://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A Model of Christian Charity.pdf


Yes, Christian settlers came to the New World with leaders such as Governor Winthrop to set up a Christian government tied to the British Crown.

All true, but one century later - an European and very non-Christian influence engaged the minds of many of Colonial America’s leaders who led during the Revolution and the founding of the United Stars of America.


The new founding influence was Deism. Here are a few paragraphs about that:

The Founding Fathers, Deism, and Christianity. WRITTEN BY: David L. Holmes

The Founding Fathers, Deism, and Christianity

“The sweeping disagreement over the religious faiths of the Founders arises from a question of discrepancy. Did their private beliefs differ from the orthodox teachings of their churches? On the surface, most Founders appear to have been orthodox (or “right-believing”) Christians. Most were baptized, listed on church rolls, married to practicing Christians, and frequent or at least sporadic attenders of services of Christian worship. In public statements, most invoked divine assistance.”


“But the widespread existence in 18th-century America of a school of religious thought called Deism complicates the actual beliefs of the Founders. Drawing from the scientific and philosophical work of such figures as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Isaac Newton, and John Locke, Deists argued that human experience and rationality—rather than religious dogma and mystery—determine the validity of human beliefs.”


“Thus, Deism inevitably subverted orthodox Christianity. Persons influenced by the movement had little reason to read the Bible, to pray, to attend church, or to participate in such rites as baptism, Holy Communion, and the laying on of hands (confirmation) by bishops.”


“But Deistic thought was immensely popular in colleges from the middle of the 18th into the 19th century. Thus, it influenced many educated (as well as uneducated) males of the Revolutionary generation. Although such men would generally continue their public affiliation with Christianity after college, they might inwardly hold unorthodox religious views. Depending on the extent to which Americans of Christian background were influenced by Deism, their religious beliefs would fall into three categories: non-Christian Deism, Christian Deism, and orthodox Christianity.”


Moving forward I will show how Deusm, Theism and Unitarianism, in the enlightened minds of sufficient numbers of our founding fathers is what brought about the new concept of separation of church and state thus ‘untying’ the knot between the US Federal Government and the dominate Protestant Christian Church and religion that Governor Winthrop brought to New England.

Is the Democratic Party based on loathing Wasps?

 

[Jitss617]

America was never multi cultural until democrats saw they could win elections with low iq humans

 

[whutTHEYsay]

#9 reply to #3.
“........the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens.,,,,,”From George Washington to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island, 18 August 1790

If that is not multi/culturalism I don’t know what is.

#3

The belief in multiculturalism at the time of founding is a pipe dream.

#9. I’m talking about multiculturalism on the national level. You know, the United States of America Constitution - not the individual state constitutions. The one that guarantees the right to all individuals under that Constitution the freedom of religion or no religion at all.

Here George Washington mention’s what Christian Nationalists refuse to hear.

“.. ...the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present {1790s} age.

"Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society." [George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 726]

"The blessed Religion revealed in the word of will remain an eternal and awful monument to prove that the best Institutions may be abused by human depravity; and that they may even, in some instances, be made subservient to the vilest of purposes."
[From an unused draft of Washington’s First Inaugural address]

George Washington Quotes on Religion and Church/State Separation
​

I’m saying GW was not very impressed with the behavior of the Protestant official religions of the thirteen colonies, and the Dogmatic intolerance they demanded from men and women’s consciences up to that time. That takes care of the Protestant discrimination against Catholics for sure.

Then there is this multi-cultural statement from GW to a very small minority Jewish Congregation as well:

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. ,”From George Washington to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island, 18 August 1790. Founders Online: From George Washington to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport …
​

Please come back with some facts next time and let us know when you under stand the thread is about the US Godless Constitution which all the states signed into when they joined the Union.

GW had some advice for the Protestant Clergy whiners about the godless Constitution as well;

In fact, I was reminded of George Washington’s response to a group of Presbyterians who were concerned about the omission of a reference to the Christian religion in the US Constitution. Washington attempted to alleviate their concern writing:

“The tribute of thanksgiving, which you offer to the gracious FATHER OF LIGHTS, for his inspiration of our publick councils with wisdom and firmness to complete the National Constitution, is worthy of men, who, devoted to the pious purposes of religion, desire their accomplishment by such means as advance the temporal happiness of their fellow men. And, here, I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe, that the path of true piety is so plain, as to require but little POLITICAL direction.
George Washington on Christianity and the U.S. Constitution​

 

[BreezeWood]

Dude, your understanding of separation of church and state is flawed.

The establishment clause was written expressly to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions of which half the state had at the time of ratification. All of which were based upon Christianity. The belief in multiculturalism at the time of founding is a pipe dream.

.

The belief in multiculturalism at the time of founding is a pipe dream.

no bing, you are wrong -

america was the place for multiculturalism's birth and has continued since that time to the present day ...

Wrong context. Here’s the correct context from an eyewitness.


One Nation Under God: Alexis de Tocqueville

Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things.

In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country.

Religion in America...must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief.

I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion -- for who can search the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society.

In the United States, the sovereign authority is religious...there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.

In the United States, the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people...

Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent...

I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors...; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution.

Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great. The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law as well as the surest pledge of freedom. The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other. Christianity is the companion of liberty in all its conflicts -- the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims.

Tocqueville gives this account of a court case in New York:
While I was in America, a witness, who happened to be called at the assizes of the county of Chester (state of New York), declared that he did not believe in the existence of God or in the immortality of the soul. The judge refused to admit his evidence, on the ground that the witness had destroyed beforehand all confidence of the court in what he was about to say. The newspapers related the fact without any further comment. The New York Spectator of August 23rd, 1831, relates the fact in the following terms:

"The court of common pleas of Chester county (New York), a few days since rejected a witness who declared his disbelief in the existence of God. The presiding judge remarked, that he had not before been aware that there was a man living who did not believe in the existence of God; that this belief constituted the sanction of all testimony in a court of justice: and that he knew of no case in a Christian country, where a witness had been permitted to testify without such belief."

.

Wrong context. Here’s the correct context from an eyewitness.

not quite bing -

Alexis de Tocqueville - Born: July 29, 1805,

On June 21, 1788, the Constitution became the official framework of the government of the United States of America when New Hampshire became the ninth of 13 states to ratify it.

your context wasn't even alive during the time ...

Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things.

thankfully, the bible belt's influence in the actual writing of the u s constitution was averted from establishing a religious, christian state and their limited influence remained to establish with the constitution's final enactment a primarily secular document.

the bible belt did not write the u s constitution, the actual document was for its time the foremost secular instrument to ever establish a government for any country throughout the entire world.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

#11 reply to #3.

The establishment clause was written expressly to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions of which half the state had at the time of ratification. All of which were based upon Christianity. The belief in multiculturalism at the time of founding is a pipe dream.

The problem Protestant Christian nationalists like you have is your pretending that today’s freely chosen and congenial Catholic/Protestant/Mormon Christianity (mostly now supportive of Judaism) is unambiguously somehow identical to the one dominant Protestant Christianity of 1776 British Colonial America.

You don’t recognize the change.

Back then before religious liberty was enshrined in the Constitution there was no tolerance by Protestant Christians for Catholics and Jews and other religions from around the world.

What liberal enlightened founding fathers saw was the necessity for the central government to not favor one Protestant sect over another Protestant Sect.

So the Federal Government forbade itself from endorsing Anglicans over Baptists, Luther over the Roman Pope, Quaker over Calvinism. or even Christianity over Judaism, and so on.

In that time the Fathers of our great nation had seen no European system of religion that regulated morals (when Christians were not killing and torturing other Christians and adherents to other religions) and civic duty as Christianity did within a sect that reached levels of security and prosperity under theirs monarchies. They had no way of knowing what the common uneducated mass of humanity would do in a free society liberated from authoritarian rulers aligned with God themselves.

There was no data on atheists running society because there was never that many around.

So when you tell us that the First Amendment keeps the Federal Government fromi interfering with state established religions, you are firgetting the most important part - the granting of every single citizen the right to believe in whatever religion they choose or no religion at all. And every single citizen falls under the protection of the Constitution as George Washington said it to a Hebrew congregation.

“For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. ,”​

in other words a citizen who behaved himself as good and supportive of civil doctors cannot be coerced by the states to think or believe our support what the preference of the state they live in wants them to believe.

That’s true Freedom if Religion and Christian Protestant Nationalists just can’t seem to recognize that freedom of religion or no religion is an inalienable right. Not to be messed with.

 

[ding]

#9 reply to #3.
“........the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens.,,,,,”From George Washington to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island, 18 August 1790

If that is not multi/culturalism I don’t know what is.

#3

The belief in multiculturalism at the time of founding is a pipe dream.

#9. I’m talking about multiculturalism on the national level. You know, the United States of America Constitution - not the individual state constitutions. The one that guarantees the right to all individuals under that Constitution the freedom of religion or no religion at all.

Here George Washington mention’s what Christian Nationalists refuse to hear.

“.. ...the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present {1790s} age.

"Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society." [George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 726]

"The blessed Religion revealed in the word of will remain an eternal and awful monument to prove that the best Institutions may be abused by human depravity; and that they may even, in some instances, be made subservient to the vilest of purposes."
[From an unused draft of Washington’s First Inaugural address]

George Washington Quotes on Religion and Church/State Separation
​

I’m saying GW was not very impressed with the behavior of the Protestant official religions of the thirteen colonies, and the Dogmatic intolerance they demanded from men and women’s consciences up to that time. That takes care of the Protestant discrimination against Catholics for sure.

Then there is this multi-cultural statement from GW to a very small minority Jewish Congregation as well:

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. ,”From George Washington to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island, 18 August 1790. Founders Online: From George Washington to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport …
​

Please come back with some facts next time and let us know when you under stand the thread is about the US Godless Constitution which all the states signed into when they joined the Union.

GW had some advice for the Protestant Clergy whiners about the godless Constitution as well;

In fact, I was reminded of George Washington’s response to a group of Presbyterians who were concerned about the omission of a reference to the Christian religion in the US Constitution. Washington attempted to alleviate their concern writing:

“The tribute of thanksgiving, which you offer to the gracious FATHER OF LIGHTS, for his inspiration of our publick councils with wisdom and firmness to complete the National Constitution, is worthy of men, who, devoted to the pious purposes of religion, desire their accomplishment by such means as advance the temporal happiness of their fellow men. And, here, I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe, that the path of true piety is so plain, as to require but little POLITICAL direction.
George Washington on Christianity and the U.S. Constitution​

Right. And when you point to separation of church and state as proof of multiculturalism, you are wrong. The establishment clause was written to prevent the federal government from establishing a national religion and interfering with state established religions.

 

[ding]

Dude, your understanding of separation of church and state is flawed.

The establishment clause was written expressly to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions of which half the state had at the time of ratification. All of which were based upon Christianity. The belief in multiculturalism at the time of founding is a pipe dream.

.

The belief in multiculturalism at the time of founding is a pipe dream.

no bing, you are wrong -

america was the place for multiculturalism's birth and has continued since that time to the present day ...

Wrong context. Here’s the correct context from an eyewitness.


One Nation Under God: Alexis de Tocqueville

Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things.

In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country.

Religion in America...must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief.

I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion -- for who can search the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society.

In the United States, the sovereign authority is religious...there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.

In the United States, the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people...

Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent...

I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors...; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution.

Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great. The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law as well as the surest pledge of freedom. The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other. Christianity is the companion of liberty in all its conflicts -- the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims.

Tocqueville gives this account of a court case in New York:
While I was in America, a witness, who happened to be called at the assizes of the county of Chester (state of New York), declared that he did not believe in the existence of God or in the immortality of the soul. The judge refused to admit his evidence, on the ground that the witness had destroyed beforehand all confidence of the court in what he was about to say. The newspapers related the fact without any further comment. The New York Spectator of August 23rd, 1831, relates the fact in the following terms:

"The court of common pleas of Chester county (New York), a few days since rejected a witness who declared his disbelief in the existence of God. The presiding judge remarked, that he had not before been aware that there was a man living who did not believe in the existence of God; that this belief constituted the sanction of all testimony in a court of justice: and that he knew of no case in a Christian country, where a witness had been permitted to testify without such belief."

.

Wrong context. Here’s the correct context from an eyewitness.

not quite bing -

Alexis de Tocqueville - Born: July 29, 1805,

On June 21, 1788, the Constitution became the official framework of the government of the United States of America when New Hampshire became the ninth of 13 states to ratify it.

your context wasn't even alive during the time ...

Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things.

thankfully, the bible belt's influence in the actual writing of the u s constitution was averted from establishing a religious, christian state and their limited influence remained to establish with the constitution's final enactment a primarily secular document.

the bible belt did not write the u s constitution, the actual document was for its time the foremost secular instrument to ever establish a government for any country throughout the entire world.

My context existed from the Mayflower Compact through the 19th century and beyond.

 

[ding]

#11 reply to #3.

The establishment clause was written expressly to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions of which half the state had at the time of ratification. All of which were based upon Christianity. The belief in multiculturalism at the time of founding is a pipe dream.

The problem Protestant Christian nationalists like you have is your pretending that today’s freely chosen and congenial Catholic/Protestant/Mormon Christianity (mostly now supportive of Judaism) is unambiguously somehow identical to the one dominant Protestant Christianity of 1776 British Colonial America.

You don’t recognize the change.

Back then before religious liberty was enshrined in the Constitution there was no tolerance by Protestant Christians for Catholics and Jews and other religions from around the world.

What liberal enlightened founding fathers saw was the necessity for the central government to not favor one Protestant sect over another Protestant Sect.

So the Federal Government forbade itself from endorsing Anglicans over Baptists, Luther over the Roman Pope, Quaker over Calvinism. or even Christianity over Judaism, and so on.

In that time the Fathers of our great nation had seen no European system of religion that regulated morals (when Christians were not killing and torturing other Christians and adherents to other religions) and civic duty as Christianity did within a sect that reached levels of security and prosperity under theirs monarchies. They had no way of knowing what the common uneducated mass of humanity would do in a free society liberated from authoritarian rulers aligned with God themselves.

There was no data on atheists running society because there was never that many around.

So when you tell us that the First Amendment keeps the Federal Government fromi interfering with state established religions, you are firgetting the most important part - the granting of every single citizen the right to believe in whatever religion they choose or no religion at all. And every single citizen falls under the protection of the Constitution as George Washington said it to a Hebrew congregation.

“For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. ,”​

in other words a citizen who behaved himself as good and supportive of civil doctors cannot be coerced by the states to think or believe our support what the preference of the state they live in wants them to believe.

That’s true Freedom if Religion and Christian Protestant Nationalists just can’t seem to recognize that freedom of religion or no religion is an inalienable right. Not to be messed with.

Different denominations isn’t multiculturalism. All religions fraction. Every single one.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

#15 reply to #14

Different denominations isn’t multiculturalism. All religions fraction. Every single one.

Yes, Christianity fractioned from Judaism and then Protestants fractured from Catholicism and Islam is fractured from that entire fracture.

The Abrahamic religions, also referred to collectively as Abrahamism, are a group of Semitic-originated religious communities of faith that claim descent from the Judaism of the ancient Israelites and the worship of the God of Abraham. The Abrahamic religions are monotheistic, with the term deriving from the patriarch Abraham (a major biblical figure from the Old Testament, who is recognized by Jews, Christians, Muslims, and others).[2] Abrahamic religions - Wikipedia​

So what are you telling us in your reply to my observation in post #11

Back then before religious liberty was enshrined in the Constitution there was no tolerance by Protestant Christians for Catholics and Jews and other religions from around the world.

Are you saying that in 1776 Protestants, Catholics and Jews all embraced each other as one religion and none imposed their religion over the other, and all shared equal rights in Pre-US Constitution society?

You are wrong.

Protestant Christians, Catholics and Jews are separate religions and did not live well together until enlightened men such as WASHINGTON ADAMS JEFFERSON AND MADISON led the nation to a liberal and enlightened multi cultural society under a secular minded US Constitution.


More multi-cultural preferences from our First President

George Washington expressed little preference as to the religion practiced by the Mount Vernon workforce. Writing in March of 1784, Washington noted: "If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mahometans [Mohammedans/Muslims], Jews, or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists."1. Islam at Mount Vernon
​

 

[whutTHEYsay]

#16 reply to #12

The establishment clause was written to prevent the federal government from establishing a national religion and interfering with state established religions.

Are you saying the US Constitution does not protect a Hebrew, Muslim or Atheist’s right to practice their religion in a State where White Protestant Christianity remained the established state religion.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

#17. Let’s talk about ”ceremonial”
Christianity in a government as opposed to legal Christianity at some point.


William Livingston (November 30, 1723 – July 25, 1790) was an American politician who served as the Governor of New Jersey (1776–1790) during the American Revolutionary War and was a signer of the United States Constitution.


“William Livingston to John Mason: The Bible is NOT the "Higher Law" of America

http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2012/04/william-livingston-to-john-mason-bible.html?m

I did a double take on the date and the letter when I first read this. Livingston is NOT talking about the US Constitution but the Articles of Confederation. They were written in 1777 but went into effect in 1781. They do mention God but (see the letter below) do NOT reference the Bible as the source of "higher law" in America. John Mason was one of the "religiously correct" of the Founding era who was sorely upset that America's Constitution was "Godless." AND he complained about it.

I don't have the original letter that Mason wrote to Livingston; but the context seems he approves of God being invoked in the Articles, but disapproves that the Bible is not referenced as a source of "Supreme Law" for the United States.

And, as we know, the US Constitution didn't even mention God; Mason (and other members of the "religiously correct") flipped out. And 200 years later gave the authors of "The Godless Constitution" fodder for their book.

Livingston's original letter, reproduced below, may be found here.

"TO THE REV. MR. JOHN MASON.
"Princeton, 29th May, 1778.

"Dear Sir.......

"To have prefaced the confederation with a decent acknowledgment of the superintending Providence of God, and his conspicuous interposition in our behalf, had doubtless been highly becoming a people so peculiarly favoured by Heaven as the Americans have hitherto been. But any article in the confederacy respecting religion was, I suppose, never in contemplation. The States being severally independent as to legislation and government, tho' connected by the federal league for mutual benefit, were presumed to have formed a political constitution to their own liking, and to have made such provision for religion as was most agreeable to the sentiments of their respective citizens ; and to have made the 'law of the eternal God, as contained in the sacred Scriptures, of the Old and New Testament, the supreme law of the United States,' would, I conceive, have laid the foundation of endless altercation and dispute, as the very first question that would have arisen upon that article would be, whether we were bound by the ceremonial as well as the moral law, delivered by Moses to the people of Israel. Should we confine ourselves to the law of God, as contained in the Scriptures of the New Testament (which is undoubtedly obligatory upon all Christians), there would still have been endless disputes about the construction of the of these laws. Shall the meaning be ascertained by every individual for himself, or by public authority? If the first, all human laws respecting the subject are merely nugatory; if the latter, government must assume the detestable power of Henry the Eighth, and enforce their own interpretations with pains and penalties.”

 

[ding]

#15 reply to #14

Different denominations isn’t multiculturalism. All religions fraction. Every single one.

Yes, Christianity fractioned from Judaism and then Protestants fractured from Catholicism and Islam is fractured from that entire fracture.

The Abrahamic religions, also referred to collectively as Abrahamism, are a group of Semitic-originated religious communities of faith that claim descent from the Judaism of the ancient Israelites and the worship of the God of Abraham. The Abrahamic religions are monotheistic, with the term deriving from the patriarch Abraham (a major biblical figure from the Old Testament, who is recognized by Jews, Christians, Muslims, and others).[2] Abrahamic religions - Wikipedia​

So what are you telling us in your reply to my observation in post #11

Back then before religious liberty was enshrined in the Constitution there was no tolerance by Protestant Christians for Catholics and Jews and other religions from around the world.

Are you saying that in 1776 Protestants, Catholics and Jews all embraced each other as one religion and none imposed their religion over the other, and all shared equal rights in Pre-US Constitution society?

You are wrong.

Protestant Christians, Catholics and Jews are separate religions and did not live well together until enlightened men such as WASHINGTON ADAMS JEFFERSON AND MADISON led the nation to a liberal and enlightened multi cultural society under a secular minded US Constitution.


More multi-cultural preferences from our First President

George Washington expressed little preference as to the religion practiced by the Mount Vernon workforce. Writing in March of 1784, Washington noted: "If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mahometans [Mohammedans/Muslims], Jews, or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists."1. Islam at Mount Vernon
​

Please don’t see insult my intelligence. I am telling you the different sects of Christianity does not support your belief in the country being founded on multiculturalism. Diversity of a specific religion is not multiculturalism.

 

[ding]

#16 reply to #12

The establishment clause was written to prevent the federal government from establishing a national religion and interfering with state established religions.

Are you saying the US Constitution does not protect a Hebrew, Muslim or Atheist’s right to practice their religion in a State where White Protestant Christianity remained the established state religion.

Only in so far as the oaths required by those states at that time to hold public office. At least that is my understanding.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

#20 reply to #18

I am telling you the different sects of Christianity does not support your belief in the country being founded on multiculturalism. Diversity of a specific religion is not multiculturalism.

I’m not telling you the fact that different sects of Christianity existed is what supports the fact that the country was founded on multiculturalism. I’m telling you that multiculturalism was in fact present within the enlightened liberal minds of at least half the founders. So much so that the ‘rigid and religiously correct’ minded founders accepted the enlightened way, which made religious toleration and multiculturalism the American way from the founding to the present day.

Christian nationalists want to take America back to what existed prior to ratification of the Constitution. White, Protestant, male dominated, fully Protestant Christian society. That set up was eliminated on a national level with signing of the Constitution. And then took hold state by state as each one of them disestablished the churches from the state as time went by.

Acceptance of diversity in religion and the actual restraint on the power of Protestant Christianity in 18th Century colonial America that granted freedom of religion to Jewish and Catholic communities was an unprecedented advancement for multiculturalism hardly seen in the world in its time.