Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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
Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, t renders the heart torpid or produces only atheists or fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of despotism, and as ameans of wealth, the avarice of priests, but so far as respects the good of man in general it leads to nothing here or hereafter. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
George Washington called one of them "That dumb deist". Wonder which one it was.
It appears that the treaty HAD to include that "not a Christian nation" clause as a means to protect American ships traveling near the Barbary Coast. That's very interesting.
Lack of faith?
They lied?
Or the clause was added at a later time!
The religious views of the Founding Fathers are of great interest to propagandists of todays American right, anxious to push their version of history. Contrary to their view, the fact that the United States was not founded as a Christian nation was early stated in the terms of a treaty with Tripoli (2006, p. 40, emp. added).
In an article on Dawkins Web site, titled The Enigma of Americas Secular Roots (Haselby, 2011), Sam Haselby parrots the same sentiment. He attempts to paint as irreligious the American envoy who negotiated and signed the treaty, Joel Barlow, on the basis of Barlows book Advice to the Privileged Orders (1793). [NOTE: As President Washingtons appointed envoy (in 1793) to negotiate treaties with Algeria, Tripoli, and Tunis, Colonel David Humphreys ultimately delegated his responsibilities to junior agents, including Joel Barlow as well as Joseph Donaldson (Irwin, 1931, p. 84; Treaty of Peace , 1846a, 8:156).]
Joel Barlow
American Consul at Algiers 1795-1797
Regardless of Barlows personal religious sentiments, Haselby unquestionably misrepresents Barlows writing. He fails to recognize that Barlow was not condemning human religion carte blanche, let alone espousing the atheistic viewpointas do Dawkins and his fellow atheists. Rather, he was decrying false religion, as well as perversions and abuses of Christianity (e.g., Catholicismpp. 60,62,69, et al.). More particularly, he condemned the state-establishment of religion [w]hen the Christian religion was perverted and pressed into the service of Government, under the name of the Christian Church (pp. 61,68, italics in orig., emp. added). In the commencement of his denunciation of The Church, Barlow included a footnote to eliminate the very misunderstanding that atheists seek to perpetrate on others. He explained:
From that association of ideas, that usually connects the church with religion, I may run the risque [sic] of being misunderstood by some readers, unless I advertise them, that I consider no connection as existing between these two subjects; and that where I speak of church indefinitely, I mean the government of a state, assuming the name of God, to govern by divine authority; or in other words, darkening the consciences of men, in order to oppress them. In the United States of America, there is, strictly speaking, no such thing as a Church; and yet in no country are the people more religious (pp. 53-54, italics in orig., emp. added)
Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, t renders the heart torpid or produces only atheists or fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of despotism, and as ameans of wealth, the avarice of priests, but so far as respects the good of man in general it leads to nothing here or hereafter. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
Good thing our Christian founders saw to it that you could freely voice your opinion. I will thank them on your behalf and thank God for inspiring them to create the best possible government that a group of fallen men could possibly create. Their wisdom suggests that they fully understood than men needed to be kept in check for if too much power is given to too few men then corruption would certainly be born.
I dare any secular/humanist institution to provide a blueprint for a better form of Government than our Christian founders provided for us.
Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, t renders the heart torpid or produces only atheists or fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of despotism, and as ameans of wealth, the avarice of priests, but so far as respects the good of man in general it leads to nothing here or hereafter. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
George Washington called one of them "That dumb deist". Wonder which one it was.
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
It is very amusing you cite this article, because it makes the specific case that the version that was ratified by the Congress was the English version that does include the phrase in question.
You punked your own argument.
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 issue is misrepresented by "'selectively picking and choosing'" by leaving out any discussion of the Treaty.
It is only one example of many that the founders made.
He discusses only that which supports his thesis and ignores anything else.
Lack of faith?
They lied?
Or the clause was added at a later time!
[MENTION=47390]DriftingSand[/MENTION]
I Found the answer:
The religious views of the Founding Fathers are of great interest to propagandists of todays American right, anxious to push their version of history. Contrary to their view, the fact that the United States was not founded as a Christian nation was early stated in the terms of a treaty with Tripoli (2006, p. 40, emp. added).
In an article on Dawkins Web site, titled The Enigma of Americas Secular Roots (Haselby, 2011), Sam Haselby parrots the same sentiment. He attempts to paint as irreligious the American envoy who negotiated and signed the treaty, Joel Barlow, on the basis of Barlows book Advice to the Privileged Orders (1793). [NOTE: As President Washingtons appointed envoy (in 1793) to negotiate treaties with Algeria, Tripoli, and Tunis, Colonel David Humphreys ultimately delegated his responsibilities to junior agents, including Joel Barlow as well as Joseph Donaldson (Irwin, 1931, p. 84; Treaty of Peace , 1846a, 8:156).]
Joel Barlow
American Consul at Algiers 1795-1797
Regardless of Barlows personal religious sentiments, Haselby unquestionably misrepresents Barlows writing. He fails to recognize that Barlow was not condemning human religion carte blanche, let alone espousing the atheistic viewpointas do Dawkins and his fellow atheists. Rather, he was decrying false religion, as well as perversions and abuses of Christianity (e.g., Catholicismpp. 60,62,69, et al.). More particularly, he condemned the state-establishment of religion [w]hen the Christian religion was perverted and pressed into the service of Government, under the name of the Christian Church (pp. 61,68, italics in orig., emp. added). In the commencement of his denunciation of The Church, Barlow included a footnote to eliminate the very misunderstanding that atheists seek to perpetrate on others. He explained:
From that association of ideas, that usually connects the church with religion, I may run the risque [sic] of being misunderstood by some readers, unless I advertise them, that I consider no connection as existing between these two subjects; and that where I speak of church indefinitely, I mean the government of a state, assuming the name of God, to govern by divine authority; or in other words, darkening the consciences of men, in order to oppress them. In the United States of America, there is, strictly speaking, no such thing as a Church; and yet in no country are the people more religious (pp. 53-54, italics in orig., emp. added)
Apologetics Press - The Treaty of Tripoli and America's Founders
Wow! Nothing to do with the OP. Thanks a lot. You are free to go.
By the way ... don't forget all of those early Christians who fought and died so that you could have the freedom to hate them. A little gratitude might me in order.
Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, t renders the heart torpid or produces only atheists or fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of despotism, and as ameans of wealth, the avarice of priests, but so far as respects the good of man in general it leads to nothing here or hereafter. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
To John Adams Monticello, April 11, 1823
The Letters of Thomas Jefferson DEAR SIR,
-- The wishes expressed, in your last favor, that I may continue in life and health until I become a Calvinist, at least in his exclamation of `_mon Dieu!_ jusque a quand'! would make me immortal. I can never join Calvin in addressing _his god._ He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did. The being described in his 5. points is not the God whom you and I acknolege and adore, the Creator and benevolent governor of the world; but a daemon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no god at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin. Indeed I think that every Christian sect gives a great handle to Atheism by their general dogma that, without a revelation, there would not be sufficient proof of the being of a god. Now one sixth of mankind only are supposed to be Christians: the other five sixths then, who do not believe in the Jewish and Christian revelation, are without a knolege of the existence of a god! This gives compleatly a gain de cause to the disciples of Ocellus, Timaeus, Spinosa, Diderot and D'Holbach. The argument which they rest on as triumphant and unanswerable is that, in every hypothesis of Cosmogony you must admit an eternal pre-existence of something; and according to the rule of sound philosophy, you are never to employ two principles to solve a difficulty when one will suffice. They say then that it is more simple to believe at once in the eternal pre-existence of the world, as it is now going on, and may for ever go on by the principle of reproduction which we see and witness, than to believe in the eternal pre-existence of an ulterior cause, or Creator of the world, a being whom we see not, and know not, of whose form substance and mode or place of existence, or of action no sense informs us, no power of the mind enables us to delineate or comprehend. On the contrary I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in it's parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to percieve and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of it's composition. The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces, the structure of our earth itself, with it's distribution of lands, waters and atmosphere, animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles, insects mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organised as man or mammoth, the mineral substances, their generation and uses, it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regenerator into new and other forms. We see, too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power to maintain the Universe in it's course and order. Stars, well known, have disappeared, new ones have come into view, comets, in their incalculable courses, may run foul of suns and planets and require renovation under other laws; certain races of animals are become extinct; and, were there no restoring power, all existences might extinguish successively, one by one, until all should be reduced to a shapeless chaos. So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent that, of the infinite numbers of men who have existed thro' all time, they have believed, in the proportion of a million at least to Unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a creator, rather than in that of a self-existent Universe. Surely this unanimous sentiment renders this more probable than that of the few in the other hypothesis. Some early Christians indeed have believed in the coeternal pre-existance of both the Creator and the world, without changing their relation of cause and effect. That this was the opinion of St. Thomas, we are informed by Cardinal Toleto, in these words `Deus ab aeterno fuit jam omnipotens, sicut cum produxit mundum. Ab aeterno potuit producere mundum. -- Si sol ab aeterno esset, lumen ab aeterno esset; et si pes, similiter vestigium. At lumen et vestigium effectus sunt efficientis solis et pedis; potuit ergo cum causa aeterna effectus coaeterna esse. Cujus sententiae est S. Thomas Theologorum primus' Cardinal Toleta.
Of the nature of this being we know nothing. Jesus tells us that `God is a spirit.' 4. John 24. but without defining what a spirit is {pneyma o Theos}. Down to the 3d. century we know that it was still deemed material; but of a lighter subtler matter than our gross bodies. So says Origen. `Deus igitur, cui anima similis est, juxta Originem, reapte corporalis est; sed graviorum tantum ratione corporum incorporeus.' These are the words of Huet in his commentary on Origen. Origen himself says `appelatio {asomaton} apud nostros scriptores est inusitata et incognita.' So also Tertullian `quis autem negabit Deum esse corpus, etsi deus spiritus? Spiritus etiam corporis sui generis, in sua effigie.' Tertullian. These two fathers were of the 3d. century. Calvin's character of this supreme being seems chiefly copied from that of the Jews. But the reformation of these blasphemous attributes, and substitution of those more worthy, pure and sublime, seems to have been the chief object of Jesus in his discources to the Jews: and his doctrine of the Cosmogony of the world is very clearly laid down in the 3 first verses of the 1st. chapter of John, in these words, `{en arche en o logos, kai o logos en pros ton Theon kai Theos en o logos. `otos en en arche pros ton Theon. Panta de ayto egeneto, kai choris ayto egeneto ode en, o gegonen}. Which truly translated means `in the beginning God existed, and reason (or mind) was with God, and that mind was God. This was in the beginning with God. All things were created by it, and without it was made not one thing which was made'. Yet this text, so plainly declaring the doctrine of Jesus that the world was created by the supreme, intelligent being, has been perverted by modern Christians to build up a second person of their tritheism by a mistranslation of the word {logos}. One of it's legitimate meanings indeed is `a word.' But, in that sense, it makes an unmeaning jargon: while the other meaning `reason', equally legitimate, explains rationally the eternal preexistence of God, and his creation of the world. Knowing how incomprehensible it was that `a word,' the mere action or articulation of the voice and organs of speech could create a world, they undertake to make of this articulation a second preexisting being, and ascribe to him, and not to God, the creation of the universe. The Atheist here plumes himself on the uselessness of such a God, and the simpler hypothesis of a self-existent universe. The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors.
So much for your quotation of Calvin's `mon dieu! jusqu'a quand' in which, when addressed to the God of Jesus, and our God, I join you cordially, and await his time and will with more readiness than reluctance.
May we meet there again, in Congress, with our antient Colleagues, and recieve with them the seal of approbation `Well done, good and faithful servants.'
The Christian god is a three headed monster, cruel, vengeful, and capricious. If one wishes
to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the
caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and
hypocrites.
When we see religion split into so many thousands of sects, and I may say Christianity
itself divided into it's thousands also, who are disputing, anathematizing, and where the
laws permit, burning and torturing one another for abstractions which no one of them
understand, and which are indeed beyond the comprehension of the human mind, into
which of the chambers of this Bedlam would a man wish to thrust himself. The sum of all
religion as expressed by it's best preacher, "fear god and love thy neighbor,' contains
no mystery, needs no explanation - but this wont do. It gives no scope to make dupes;
priests could not live by it."
..........Letter to George Logan, November 12, 1816
"Creeds have been the bane of the Christian church ... made of Christendom a
slaughter-house."
..........To Benjamin Waterhouse, Jun. 26, 1822
Wow! Nothing to do with the OP. Thanks a lot. You are free to go.
By the way ... don't forget all of those early Christians who fought and died so that you could have the freedom to hate them. A little gratitude might me in order.
Quoting the founding fathers is hating christians?
Most were deists Welcome To The Deism Site!
Thomas Jefferson:
"The Christian god is a three headed monster, cruel, vengeful, and capricious. If one wishes
to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the
caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and
hypocrites.
When we see religion split into so many thousands of sects, and I may say Christianity
itself divided into it's thousands also, who are disputing, anathematizing, and where the
laws permit, burning and torturing one another for abstractions which no one of them
understand, and which are indeed beyond the comprehension of the human mind, into
which of the chambers of this Bedlam would a man wish to thrust himself. The sum of all
religion as expressed by it's best preacher, "fear god and love thy neighbor,' contains
no mystery, needs no explanation - but this wont do. It gives no scope to make dupes;
priests could not live by it."
..........Letter to George Logan, November 12, 1816
"Creeds have been the bane of the Christian church ... made of Christendom a
slaughter-house."
..........To Benjamin Waterhouse, Jun. 26, 1822
Fundamentalist Christians are currently working overtime to convince the American public that the founding fathers intended to establish this country on "biblical principles," but history simply does not support their view. The men mentioned above and others who were instrumental in the founding of our nation were in no sense Bible-believing Christians. Thomas Jefferson, in fact, was fiercely anti-cleric. In a letter to Horatio Spafford in 1814, Jefferson said, "In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their purposes" (George Seldes, The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey Citadel Press, 1983, p. 371). In a letter to Mrs. Harrison Smith, he wrote, "It is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read. By the same test the world must judge me. But this does not satisfy the priesthood. They must have a positive, a declared assent to all their interested absurdities. My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest" (August 6, 1816).
Jefferson was just as suspicious of the traditional belief that the Bible is "the inspired word of God." He rewrote the story of Jesus as told in the New Testament and compiled his own gospel version known as The Jefferson Bible, which eliminated all miracles attributed to Jesus and ended with his burial. The Jeffersonian gospel account contained no resurrection, a twist to the life of Jesus that was considered scandalous to Christians but perfectly sensible to Jefferson's Deistic mind. In a letter to John Adams, he wrote, "To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, God, are immaterial is to say they are nothings, or that there is no God, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise" (August 15, 1820). In saying this, Jefferson was merely expressing the widely held Deistic view of his time, which rejected the mysticism of the Bible and relied on natural law and human reason to explain why the world is as it is. Writing to Adams again, Jefferson said, "And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" (April 11, 1823). These were hardly the words of a devout Bible-believer.
Jefferson didn't just reject the Christian belief that the Bible was "the inspired word of God"; he rejected the Christian system too. In Notes on the State of Virginia, he said of this religion, "There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites" (quoted by newspaper columnist William Edelen, "Politics and Religious Illiteracy," Truth Seeker, Vol. 121, No. 3, p. 33).[1] Anyone today who would make a statement like this or others we have quoted from Jefferson's writings would be instantly branded an infidel, yet modern Bible fundamentalists are frantically trying to cast Jefferson in the mold of a Bible believing Christian. They do so, of course, because Jefferson was just too important in the formation of our nation to leave him out if Bible fundamentalists hope to sell their "Christian-nation" claim to the public. Hence, they try to rewrite history to make it appear that men like Thomas Jefferson had intended to build our nation on "biblical principles." The irony of this situation is that the Christian leaders of Jefferson's time knew where he stood on "biblical principles," and they fought desperately, but unsuccessfully, to prevent his election to the presidency. Saul K. Padover's biography related the bitterness of the opposition that the clergy mounted against Jefferson in the campaign of 1800
The religious issue was dragged out, and stirred up flames of hatred and intolerance. Clergymen, mobilizing their heaviest artillery of thunder and brimstone, threatened Christians with all manner of dire consequences if they should vote for the "in fidel" from Virginia. This was particularly true in New England, where the clergy stood like Gibraltar against Jefferson (Jefferson A Great American's Life and Ideas, Mentor Books, 1964, p.116).
Why would contemporary clergymen have so vigorously opposed Jefferson's election if he were as devoutly Christian as modern preachers claim? The answer is that Jefferson was not a Christian, and the preachers of his day knew that he wasn't.
In a minor sense he is. He was no more than a pamphleteer and writer who inspired the Patriots in revolution, but that was enough to regard him among our revolutionary figures.When it comes to Franklin, whether he was a Quaker or Puritan, we can agree he was a christian in the general sense of the word.
I think the most radical founding father when it came to thoughts of god and faith was probably Thomas Paine.
I seriously doubt he was an atheist. Are these public school teaching Paine is an atheist? If they are not, who are the public schools accusing is an atheist?
Of all the founders, I think Paine was the only one who was possibly Deist, and Deism, of course, includes a belief in God.When it comes to Franklin, whether he was a Quaker or Puritan, we can agree he was a christian in the general sense of the word.
I think the most radical founding father when it came to thoughts of god and faith was probably Thomas Paine.
I seriously doubt he was an atheist. Are these public school teaching Paine is an atheist? If they are not, who are the public schools accusing is an atheist?
I am not aware that Thomas Paine was a founding father, he was not a representative of any state, did not attend the Continental Congress, spent but a brief time in America.
Influential yes, a Founding Father no.
Doesn't change the fact that most of our founders were Christians and incorporated several of the tenets of Christianity into the founding documents.
Far right social conservative political propaganda.
Most of which is true but certainly much better than leftist, secular, socialist propaganda -- comrade.
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'?
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'?
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...
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.
The Christian god is a three headed monster, cruel, vengeful, and capricious. If one wishes
to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the
caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and
hypocrites.
When we see religion split into so many thousands of sects, and I may say Christianity
itself divided into it's thousands also, who are disputing, anathematizing, and where the
laws permit, burning and torturing one another for abstractions which no one of them
understand, and which are indeed beyond the comprehension of the human mind, into
which of the chambers of this Bedlam would a man wish to thrust himself. The sum of all
religion as expressed by it's best preacher, "fear god and love thy neighbor,' contains
no mystery, needs no explanation - but this wont do. It gives no scope to make dupes;
priests could not live by it."
..........Letter to George Logan, November 12, 1816
"Creeds have been the bane of the Christian church ... made of Christendom a
slaughter-house."
..........To Benjamin Waterhouse, Jun. 26, 1822
Wow! Nothing to do with the OP. Thanks a lot. You are free to go.
By the way ... don't forget all of those early Christians who fought and died so that you could have the freedom to hate them. A little gratitude might me in order.
The document, by itself, is a piece of evidence but not proof. I would also include the fact that Jefferson started a church right in the halls of Congress and also send missionaries to evangelize the Indians. If he wasn't a Christian he certainly seemed to act like one.
Jefferson also owned slaves and wrote his own bible.
Doesn't change the fact that most of our founders were Christians and incorporated several of the tenets of Christianity into the founding documents.
