Were Most Of America's Founding Fathers - Christians

[thebrucebeat]

Most is backed up by documents and personal letters found in the National Archives.

He cherry picks his documentation to support a position. He doesn't do thorough research to uncover whatever is there.
In the Treaty of Tripoli we have an official state document that specifically declares "Since the United States is in no way founded on the Christian faith...". Some of the Founders are in Congress and are signatories to this document.
Why is this not part of Barton's " research".
He is an agenda driven proselytizer.
Surely you can do better than him.

LOL. You pull out a treaty and that's "thorough research?" One document compared to hundreds or thousands? The treaty doesn't mean that our founding documents aren't strongly influenced by the Christian faith.

You are not "agenda driven" bruce? Why won't you acknowledge that the vast majority of America's founders were Christians, theologians, ministers, or, at least, Bible believers?

I readily acknowledge that.
Unlike today's believers, they felt no need to foist those ideas on anyone else.
They created a secular government.
Pretty cool.

 

[DriftingSand]

He cherry picks his documentation to support a position. He doesn't do thorough research to uncover whatever is there.
In the Treaty of Tripoli we have an official state document that specifically declares "Since the United States is in no way founded on the Christian faith...". Some of the Founders are in Congress and are signatories to this document.
Why is this not part of Barton's " research".
He is an agenda driven proselytizer.
Surely you can do better than him.

LOL. You pull out a treaty and that's "thorough research?" One document compared to hundreds or thousands? The treaty doesn't mean that our founding documents aren't strongly influenced by the Christian faith.

You are not "agenda driven" bruce? Why won't you acknowledge that the vast majority of America's founders were Christians, theologians, ministers, or, at least, Bible believers?

I readily acknowledge that.
Unlike today's believers, they felt no need to foist those ideas on anyone else.
They created a secular government.
Pretty cool.

They certainly didn't create a nation so that non-believers could "foist" their ideals and worldview upon believers. Why would they do something like that? That would be counter-productive considering the fact that they were fleeing a nation that was doing that exact thing.

But thanks for acknowledging that our nation was founded by Christian who lost life and limb so that you could freely hate them.

 

[DriftingSand]

"Doesn't change the fact that most of our founders were Christians and incorporated several of the tenets of Christianity into the founding documents"

Please identify those tenets for us - and demonstrate that none of them appears among the tenets of any other faith tradition, that they are uniquely and particularly 'Christian'.

Christianity is a pretty large tent - so you're also going to have to explain where you are drawing the edges of that tent......

1. The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches.

2. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”


3. When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18 “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:” This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women.


4. Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died.
Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7



5. In a study that appeared in the American Political Science Review in 1984, two political science professors, Dr. Donald Lutz and Dr. Charles Heineman researched 15,000 writings, letters, diaries, sermons and other works that were written by various leading Americans from 1760-1805. Their purpose was to identify quotations to find out who the founding fathers were quoting' where they got their ideas, what authorities they were most impressed with.

They found that by far the most widely quoted source in the founding fathers' writings was the Bible. Thirty-four percent of all quotations came out of the Bible. And the book of the Bible they quoted most often was the book of Deuteronomy. Now most of us don't go around quoting Deuteronomy a great deal today, but Deuteronomy is the book of the law. And they were writing about law and government.
Citizens for a Fashionable Republic |

Superb information!! Thanks. Love it!!!

 

[dblack]

... our nation was founded by Christians who lost life and limb so that you could freely hate them.

Indeed. It's the same kind of irony in recognizing how the principles of equality and human rights, that eventually led to the abolition of slavery, were enshrined into law by slaveowners. Ideas can take on a life of their own, and prompt us to rise above short sighted self interest - thus elevating the human condition.

 

[Newby]

“[The textbook] by Barton displays a clear devotional tone and contains a number of religious truth-claims that cross the line into promotion of a particular religion. Beyond this, the curriculum presents a problematic historical account of the founding period that falls well outside mainstream scholarly understanding, providing inaccurate, incomplete and biased profiles of various leading figures from that era.” Exposing David Barton?s Bad History | TFN Insider

Barton is an amateur historian, interesting but very flawed on the founding of America and the role of Christianity.

Most is backed up by documents and personal letters found in the National Archives.

Selectively picking and choosing and ignoring documents.

That is propaganda, not history.

Can you give an example of what has been misrepresented by 'selectively picking and choosing and/or ignoring'?

 

[Newby]

“[The textbook] by Barton displays a clear devotional tone and contains a number of religious truth-claims that cross the line into promotion of a particular religion. Beyond this, the curriculum presents a problematic historical account of the founding period that falls well outside mainstream scholarly understanding, providing inaccurate, incomplete and biased profiles of various leading figures from that era.” Exposing David Barton?s Bad History | TFN Insider

Barton is an amateur historian, interesting but very flawed on the founding of America and the role of Christianity.

Most is backed up by documents and personal letters found in the National Archives.

He cherry picks his documentation to support a position. He doesn't do thorough research to uncover whatever is there.
In the Treaty of Tripoli we have an official state document that specifically declares "Since the United States is in no way founded on the Christian faith...". Some of the Founders are in Congress and are signatories to this document.
Why is this not part of Barton's " research".
He is an agenda driven proselytizer.
Surely you can do better than him.

Talk about 'cherry picking' and ignoring... again, provide an example of something that's been misrepresented using historically authenicated documents by 'cherry picking'.

 

[Newby]

As a school board president for two school systeme, one public and one private, the members of the board and I always reviewed the text books.

The history books taught the English reformation, the Puritans and Pilgrims, the Catholics, the Quakers, etc, in the founding of the colonies.

They taught that the Constitution is a secular document with strong religious input.

They taught the 1st and 2nd Great Awakenings.

And so forth.

They do not teach fundamentalist modern day politicial principles.

Thank you. That's what I'm talkin' about! Strong Christian influence.

But not fundamentalist propaganda of today.

The documents clearly teach that the Founders were afraid of organized religion being a part of government.

That's why the Constitution is secular.

That's why the states got rid of established churches.

That's why modern Christians are not going to let fundamentlist dogma into our history books.

Provide some examples of what you would define as 'fundamentalist dogma'?

 

[Chuckt]

Most of which is true but certainly much better than leftist, secular, socialist propaganda -- comrade.

The American Revolution involved Churches:

Yuku slide show - folder: White Creek Fort

I hope you can view this slide show.

Wow. That's a great find. I'll watch the whole thing when I get home. I wonder how many secular/humanists fought for America's freedom. I haven't been able to find any documentation giving credit to the institution of Humanism for shedding any blood. They certainly enjoy the freedoms purchased by Christians though (but don't seem too grateful).

Tyranny Is Idolatry

When understood in its own times, the American Revolution was first and foremost a religious event. This is especially true in New England, where the first blood was shed.

1775 the ranks of Harvard- and Yale-educated clergymen swelled to over 600 ministers, distributed throughout every town and village in New England. Clergymen surveyed the events swirling around them; by 1775 liberals and evangelicals, Congregationalists and Presbyterians, men and women—all saw in British actions grounds for armed resistance.

In fact, not only was it right for colonists to resist British tyranny, it would actually be sinful not to pick up guns.

How did they come to this conclusion? They fastened on two arguments.

First, they focused on Parliaments 1766 Declaratory Act, which stated that Parliament had sovereignty over the colonies in all cases whatsoever. For clergymen this phrase took on the air of blasphemy. These were fighting words not only because they violated principles of representative government but even more because they violated the logic of sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) and Gods exclusive claim to sovereignty in all cases whatsoever.

From the first colonial settlements, Americans—especially New England Americans—were accustomed to constraining all power and granting absolute authority to no mere human being.

For Reformed colonists, these ideas were tied up with their historic, covenant theology. At stake was the preservation of their identity as a covenant people. Not only did Parliaments claims represent tyranny, they also represented idolatry. For colonists to honor those claims would be tantamount to forsaking God and abdicating their national covenant pledge to have no other gods before them.

https://www.christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/preaching-the-insurrection/

https://www.christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/issue/christianity-and-the-american-revolution/

 

[thebrucebeat]

Most is backed up by documents and personal letters found in the National Archives.

Selectively picking and choosing and ignoring documents.

That is propaganda, not history.

Can you give an example of what has been misrepresented by 'selectively picking and choosing and/or ignoring'?

The declaration in the Treaty of Tripoli that specifically stated the country was NOT based on the Christian faith and signed by Congress, including some of the founders.
That's a good place to start.

 

[Newby]

"Doesn't change the fact that most of our founders were Christians and incorporated several of the tenets of Christianity into the founding documents"

Please identify those tenets for us - and demonstrate that none of them appears among the tenets of any other faith tradition, that they are uniquely and particularly 'Christian'.

Christianity is a pretty large tent - so you're also going to have to explain where you are drawing the edges of that tent......

That question in context really makes no sense.

What would that prove exactly? Even if they are tenets held by other religions, it doesn't change the fact that most of the founders were Christians and used their faith and the tenets of their religion, which was Christianity, in the founding documents.

I don't think anyone has made the claim that they're all exclusive to Christianity, but in this instance, since they were indeed Christians, their beliefs and their faith played a role in what they saw as important when building a nation, so their Christian faith played a part.

If you say that 'freedom' is a tenet in Islam, are you going to imply that the founding fathers took that tenet from Islam as opposed to what they practiced and believed in throughout their lives day in and day out, Christianity? That's just silly.

 

[DriftingSand]

... our nation was founded by Christians who lost life and limb so that you could freely hate them.

Indeed. It's the same kind of irony in recognizing how the principles of equality and human rights, that eventually led to the abolition of slavery, were enshrined into law by slaveowners. Ideas can take on a life of their own, and prompt us to rise above short sighted self interest - thus elevating the human condition.

It's certainly a good thing that so many Christian Americans and churches fought for abolition.

 

[Newby]

Selectively picking and choosing and ignoring documents.

That is propaganda, not history.

Can you give an example of what has been misrepresented by 'selectively picking and choosing and/or ignoring'?

The declaration in the Treaty of Tripoli that specifically stated the country was NOT based on the Christian faith and signed by Congress, including some of the founders.
That's a good place to start.

Um no, that's not what I was asking, pay attention. Can you please go back and read the string of quoted posts if you don't understand the question, and try again.

And in addition, the T of T argument has been well worn out, surely you have other examples of your claim (that has nothing to do with my original question of course).

 

[amrchaos]

Now that many of you are convinced that America is a Christian nation, all that is left to determine is whose interpretation of the Christian Constitution is correct:The Potestants or The Catholics?

Isn't this the road that Europe had to jump off of? So maybe, if you take a secular socialists point of view, it is a good idea to let you have this argument and see how far you run with it?

 

[thebrucebeat]

Can you give an example of what has been misrepresented by 'selectively picking and choosing and/or ignoring'?

The declaration in the Treaty of Tripoli that specifically stated the country was NOT based on the Christian faith and signed by Congress, including some of the founders.
That's a good place to start.

Um no, that's not what I was asking, pay attention. Can you please go back and read the string of quoted posts if you don't understand the question, and try again.

And in addition, the T of T argument has been well worn out, surely you have other examples of your claim (that has nothing to do with my original question of course).

The TofT argument never gets worn out, because it can't be refuted.

 

[Newby]

Now that many of you are convinced that America is a Christian nation, all that is left to determine is whose interpretation of the Christian Constitution is correct:The Potestants or The Catholics?

Isn't this the road that Europe had to jump off of? So maybe, if you take a secular socialists point of view, it is a good idea to let you have this argument and see how far you run with it?

America being a Christian nation and being built on Christian principles by practicing Christians are two different things. Hopefully you already knew that.

I'm curious, can you give an example of how a Catholic and Protestant constitution would differ?

 

[Newby]

The declaration in the Treaty of Tripoli that specifically stated the country was NOT based on the Christian faith and signed by Congress, including some of the founders.
That's a good place to start.

Um no, that's not what I was asking, pay attention. Can you please go back and read the string of quoted posts if you don't understand the question, and try again.

And in addition, the T of T argument has been well worn out, surely you have other examples of your claim (that has nothing to do with my original question of course).

The TofT argument never gets worn out, because it can't be refuted.

It's all about context, Brucie. See my response to Chaos...

 

[Chuckt]

Selectively picking and choosing and ignoring documents.

That is propaganda, not history.

Can you give an example of what has been misrepresented by 'selectively picking and choosing and/or ignoring'?

The declaration in the Treaty of Tripoli that specifically stated the country was NOT based on the Christian faith and signed by Congress, including some of the founders.
That's a good place to start.

The 1805 treaty did not contain the phrase "not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

Treaty of Tripoli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[DriftingSand]

Now that many of you are convinced that America is a Christian nation, all that is left to determine is whose interpretation of the Christian Constitution is correct:The Potestants or The Catholics?

Isn't this the road that Europe had to jump off of? So maybe, if you take a secular socialists point of view, it is a good idea to let you have this argument and see how far you run with it?

On many issues, Christians, Protestants, and Catholics will agree. As for "who" will get to decide who interprets the Constitution it's generally self explanatory but it was specifically designed so that no one religious entity could foist it's particular beliefs or ideology upon the others. That's what the early, American Christians were fleeing -- England's demand that all must be Anglican -- or else.

 

[Chuckt]

The declaration in the Treaty of Tripoli that specifically stated the country was NOT based on the Christian faith and signed by Congress, including some of the founders.
That's a good place to start.

Um no, that's not what I was asking, pay attention. Can you please go back and read the string of quoted posts if you don't understand the question, and try again.

And in addition, the T of T argument has been well worn out, surely you have other examples of your claim (that has nothing to do with my original question of course).

The TofT argument never gets worn out, because it can't be refuted.

It wasn't in the original treaty and the English differs from the Arabic.

The 1805 treaty did not contain the phrase "not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

Treaty of Tripoli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[thebrucebeat]

Um no, that's not what I was asking, pay attention. Can you please go back and read the string of quoted posts if you don't understand the question, and try again.

And in addition, the T of T argument has been well worn out, surely you have other examples of your claim (that has nothing to do with my original question of course).

The TofT argument never gets worn out, because it can't be refuted.

It's all about context, Brucie. See my response to Chaos...

The context was a legal document produced by Congress in the name of the United States and was signed by some of the original founders of the country.