YES, America CERTAINLY WAS FOUNDED as a CHRISTIAN NATION...

[logical4u]

Don't you get that many of the Founders could have religious convictions, some less than stellar convictions, and all still wish to separate church and state and the reasons why?

David Barton does not get it, and apparently neither do you.

Don't you get that without "religious convictions" this country would not have the gov't that it has? Can't you see that Christianity is FREEDOM? It is about the personal relationship between yourself and the Lord. If each person tries to live that, there is no reason to have laws for men, they have already been written on their hearts. You are getting hung up thinking about organized religion, that is totally different than personal religion. What many of us have been trying to get thru your thick skull is that because there were soooo many different Christian faiths that went into this country, that each one wanted the freedom to continue practicing their own faith, and so, wrote out a gov't that did not have the POWER to say if you are a citizen, you will be Protestant, the next leader says you will be Quaker, the next, Catholic. If the gov't could not have the power to tell its citizens something that basic, as had been done for hundreds of years, there were a lot of other things that were not going to be dictated as well. The Bill of Rights reflects that. Use your noodle. There is a difference between a "Christian country" and a "Christian dictator".

 

[JimBowie1958]

Now you are lying along with moving the goal posts.

I never said anything of the sort, and your comment is trollish.

I did say much of what our country has done was wrong, and that is the flat truth.

But no country anywhere at anytime can match our DoI and US Constitution. When we Americans live up to them, we are a great people. When we don't, we are hypocrites like Rush, Sean, and Glenn.

Oh, Lord knows I dont agree with Rush, Hannity and Beck so much, about 50% of the time I guess, but compared to you?

Sheesh, they are flipping geniuses rivaling daVinci, Kepler, Einstein and Tesla all rolled into one person, lol.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Don't you get that many of the Founders could have religious convictions, some less than stellar convictions, and all still wish to separate church and state and the reasons why?

David Barton does not get it, and apparently neither do you.

They DID seperate dchurch and state, meaning the federal government did not have an official church as England had the Anglican church.

That is what seperation of church and state meant to them and everyone else too untill the militant atheists took over the judiciary.

 

[UltimateReality]

Don't you get that many of the Founders could have religious convictions, some less than stellar convictions, and all still wish to separate church and state and the reasons why?

David Barton does not get it, and apparently neither do you.

Separation of Church and State is a modern myth. The myth began when The Origin of the Species was published in 1856 and the move began to eradicate God from every part of government. Most folks would be surprised to find out that church services were held in the House of Representatives and Jefferson was a regular attender.

The historical revisionists have all but stomped out the truth, and they famously used Jefferson's quote "a wall of separation" in his letter to Danbury Baptist out of context to justify all manner of evil.

Folks have been brainwashed to confuse the word church, which refers to an organization or sect, with the word religion. The founders never intended for there to be separation of religion and state.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Are you reading what I am writing?

I wrote that religious people with religious convictions would wish to separate church and state, and they did so in 1787. Within 50 years, the states fell in line.

Don't you get that many of the Founders could have religious convictions, some less than stellar convictions, and all still wish to separate church and state and the reasons why?

David Barton does not get it, and apparently neither do you.

Don't you get that without "religious convictions" this country would not have the gov't that it has? Can't you see that Christianity is FREEDOM? It is about the personal relationship between yourself and the Lord. If each person tries to live that, there is no reason to have laws for men, they have already been written on their hearts. You are getting hung up thinking about organized religion, that is totally different than personal religion. What many of us have been trying to get thru your thick skull is that because there were soooo many different Christian faiths that went into this country, that each one wanted the freedom to continue practicing their own faith, and so, wrote out a gov't that did not have the POWER to say if you are a citizen, you will be Protestant, the next leader says you will be Quaker, the next, Catholic. If the gov't could not have the power to tell its citizens something that basic, as had been done for hundreds of years, there were a lot of other things that were not going to be dictated as well. The Bill of Rights reflects that. Use your noodle. There is a difference between a "Christian country" and a "Christian dictator".

 

[JakeStarkey]

The myth is that evolution is about the origins of life: it is not.

The myth is that evolution is a salvation issue.

The myth is that God has been removed from the classroom: s/he has not.

The myth is that Jefferson, Adams, and Washington were religiously like the far right conservative Christians alive today.

The myth is that the first century Christians were religiously like the far right conservative Christians alive today.

Don't you get that many of the Founders could have religious convictions, some less than stellar convictions, and all still wish to separate church and state and the reasons why?

David Barton does not get it, and apparently neither do you.

Separation of Church and State is a modern myth. The myth began when The Origin of the Species was published in 1856 and the move began to eradicate God from every part of government. Most folks would be surprised to find out that church services were held in the House of Representatives and Jefferson was a regular attender.

The historical revisionists have all but stomped out the truth, and they famously used Jefferson's quote "a wall of separation" in his letter to Danbury Baptist out of context to justify all manner of evil.

Folks have been brainwashed to confuse the word church, which refers to an organization or sect, with the word religion. The founders never intended for there to be separation of religion and state.

 

[logical4u]

Are you reading what I am writing?

I wrote that religious people with religious convictions would wish to separate church and state, and they did so in 1787. Within 50 years, the states fell in line.

Don't you get that many of the Founders could have religious convictions, some less than stellar convictions, and all still wish to separate church and state and the reasons why?

David Barton does not get it, and apparently neither do you.

Don't you get that without "religious convictions" this country would not have the gov't that it has? Can't you see that Christianity is FREEDOM? It is about the personal relationship between yourself and the Lord. If each person tries to live that, there is no reason to have laws for men, they have already been written on their hearts. You are getting hung up thinking about organized religion, that is totally different than personal religion. What many of us have been trying to get thru your thick skull is that because there were soooo many different Christian faiths that went into this country, that each one wanted the freedom to continue practicing their own faith, and so, wrote out a gov't that did not have the POWER to say if you are a citizen, you will be Protestant, the next leader says you will be Quaker, the next, Catholic. If the gov't could not have the power to tell its citizens something that basic, as had been done for hundreds of years, there were a lot of other things that were not going to be dictated as well. The Bill of Rights reflects that. Use your noodle. There is a difference between a "Christian country" and a "Christian dictator".

So you are admitting that this was and is a "Christian" nation?

 

[logical4u]

The myth is that evolution is about the origins of life: it is not.

The myth is that evolution is a salvation issue.

The myth is that God has been removed from the classroom: s/he has not.

The myth is that Jefferson, Adams, and Washington were religiously like the far right conservative Christians alive today.

The myth is that the first century Christians were religiously like the far right conservative Christians alive today.

Don't you get that many of the Founders could have religious convictions, some less than stellar convictions, and all still wish to separate church and state and the reasons why?

David Barton does not get it, and apparently neither do you.

Separation of Church and State is a modern myth. The myth began when The Origin of the Species was published in 1856 and the move began to eradicate God from every part of government. Most folks would be surprised to find out that church services were held in the House of Representatives and Jefferson was a regular attender.

The historical revisionists have all but stomped out the truth, and they famously used Jefferson's quote "a wall of separation" in his letter to Danbury Baptist out of context to justify all manner of evil.

Folks have been brainwashed to confuse the word church, which refers to an organization or sect, with the word religion. The founders never intended for there to be separation of religion and state.

Are we "moving the goal posts" JS? Or are you trying to back paddle?

 

[UltimateReality]

The Supreme Courts Liberal Interpretation of Jefferson's letter was used to mistakenly uphold the materialist claim. History had shown for almost a hundred years, The US Government and "church" had very much been UN-separated. All of this info is available on the Library Of Congress website, which thankfully the revisionists have not been able to destroy but my fear is it won't be long until these manuscripts and letters are locked away and forgotten.

"It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers."

"On January 8, 1826, Bishop John England (1786-1842) of Charleston, South Carolina, became the first Catholic clergyman to preach in the House of Representatives. The overflow audience included President John Quincy Adams, whose July 4, 1821, speech England rebutted in his sermon. Adams had claimed that the Roman Catholic Church was intolerant of other religions and therefore incompatible with republican institutions. England asserted that "we do not believe that God gave to the church any power to interfere with our civil rights, or our civil concerns." "I would not allow to the Pope, or to any bishop of our church," added England, "the smallest interference with the humblest vote at our most insignificant balloting box."

"Charles Boynton (1806-1883) was in 1867 chaplain of the House of Representatives and organizing pastor of the First Congregational Church in Washington, which was trying at that time to build its own sanctuary. In the meantime the church, as Boynton informed potential donors, was holding services "at the Hall of Representatives" where "the audience is the largest in town. . . .nearly 2000 assembled every Sabbath" for services, making the congregation in the House the "largest Protestant Sabbath audience then in the United States." The First Congregational Church met in the House from 1865 to 1868."

Religion and the Federal Government, Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions - Library of Congress

 

[UltimateReality]

The tradition of opening House sessions with prayer each day has also not yet been eradicated by the atheist revisionists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USAUnZgnXLQ

 

[logical4u]

The Supreme Courts Liberal Interpretation of Jefferson's letter was used to mistakenly uphold the materialist claim. History had shown for almost a hundred years, The US Government and "church" had very much been UN-separated. All of this info is available on the Library Of Congress website, which thankfully the revisionists have not been able to destroy but my fear is it won't be long until these manuscripts and letters are locked away and forgotten.

"It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers."

"On January 8, 1826, Bishop John England (1786-1842) of Charleston, South Carolina, became the first Catholic clergyman to preach in the House of Representatives. The overflow audience included President John Quincy Adams, whose July 4, 1821, speech England rebutted in his sermon. Adams had claimed that the Roman Catholic Church was intolerant of other religions and therefore incompatible with republican institutions. England asserted that "we do not believe that God gave to the church any power to interfere with our civil rights, or our civil concerns." "I would not allow to the Pope, or to any bishop of our church," added England, "the smallest interference with the humblest vote at our most insignificant balloting box."

"Charles Boynton (1806-1883) was in 1867 chaplain of the House of Representatives and organizing pastor of the First Congregational Church in Washington, which was trying at that time to build its own sanctuary. In the meantime the church, as Boynton informed potential donors, was holding services "at the Hall of Representatives" where "the audience is the largest in town. . . .nearly 2000 assembled every Sabbath" for services, making the congregation in the House the "largest Protestant Sabbath audience then in the United States." The First Congregational Church met in the House from 1865 to 1868."

Religion and the Federal Government, Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions - Library of Congress

 

[JakeStarkey]

They have to become states to somehow not be imperialist conquests?

Go back to school, please, and stop posting. You are embarrassing yourself.

Several hundred Indian nations, Spanish Florida, Hispanic Texas and the Southwest, California, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, Midway, Philippines (until 1946), Japan (until 1955), Iraq and so forth.

We are a neo-con imperial power that can't learn.

And I am glad that you have returned for further instruction as well, logical4u.

Still waiting for you to answer the question of which countries we have taken over (conquered, occupied, and assimilated), as a result of military action?.......

I was unaware that the Philipines, Puerto Rico, Midway, Guam, Japan, Iraq were states of the United States. As far as the "Indian nations", can you provide a map of those "nations"? Can you identify which ones were specifically were militarily conquered (as opposed to the Indians blending with the settlers, or selling their land to settlers)? Florida and the Southwest were as a result of purchases/agreements/defense against other gov'ts; they were not an out and out invasion from America (in some places, it was a response to those territories peoples invading American properties). Did Hawaii vote to become a state?

Please, just for giggles, remind me why we were at war with Japan, and why were we in the Philipines?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are, I am glad to see, admitting I am right.

That the Founders, regardless of religious or non-religious beliefs, created a secular national government and that the states eventually fell in line.

Good for you.

Are you reading what I am writing?

I wrote that religious people with religious convictions would wish to separate church and state, and they did so in 1787. Within 50 years, the states fell in line.

Don't you get that without "religious convictions" this country would not have the gov't that it has? Can't you see that Christianity is FREEDOM? It is about the personal relationship between yourself and the Lord. If each person tries to live that, there is no reason to have laws for men, they have already been written on their hearts. You are getting hung up thinking about organized religion, that is totally different than personal religion. What many of us have been trying to get thru your thick skull is that because there were soooo many different Christian faiths that went into this country, that each one wanted the freedom to continue practicing their own faith, and so, wrote out a gov't that did not have the POWER to say if you are a citizen, you will be Protestant, the next leader says you will be Quaker, the next, Catholic. If the gov't could not have the power to tell its citizens something that basic, as had been done for hundreds of years, there were a lot of other things that were not going to be dictated as well. The Bill of Rights reflects that. Use your noodle. There is a difference between a "Christian country" and a "Christian dictator".

So you are admitting that this was and is a "Christian" nation?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am glad that you see that you moved the goal posts.

I am glad that you see I am correcting your myths, and that will no longer back paddle, logical4u.

The myth is that evolution is about the origins of life: it is not.

The myth is that evolution is a salvation issue.

The myth is that God has been removed from the classroom: s/he has not.

The myth is that Jefferson, Adams, and Washington were religiously like the far right conservative Christians alive today.

The myth is that the first century Christians were religiously like the far right conservative Christians alive today.

Separation of Church and State is a modern myth. The myth began when The Origin of the Species was published in 1856 and the move began to eradicate God from every part of government. Most folks would be surprised to find out that church services were held in the House of Representatives and Jefferson was a regular attender.

The historical revisionists have all but stomped out the truth, and they famously used Jefferson's quote "a wall of separation" in his letter to Danbury Baptist out of context to justify all manner of evil.

Folks have been brainwashed to confuse the word church, which refers to an organization or sect, with the word religion. The founders never intended for there to be separation of religion and state.

Are we "moving the goal posts" JS? Or are you trying to back paddle?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The myth that church and state are one was exploded during the Jeffersonian and Madisonian presidencies.

Church and state are separated, while religious and secular opinion inform our voting.

The tradition of opening House sessions with prayer each day has also not yet been eradicated by the atheist revisionists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USAUnZgnXLQ

 

[JakeStarkey]

This makes us a "Christian nation", the prayers of Hindus and Moslems and Catholics and agnostics and Mormons and Baptists and Congregationalists and Unitarians and Quakers and so on and so forth?

Silly myth makers, you, getting your myths exploded, every one. So easy to do.

The Supreme Courts Liberal Interpretation of Jefferson's letter was used to mistakenly uphold the materialist claim. History had shown for almost a hundred years, The US Government and "church" had very much been UN-separated. All of this info is available on the Library Of Congress website, which thankfully the revisionists have not been able to destroy but my fear is it won't be long until these manuscripts and letters are locked away and forgotten.

"It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers."

"On January 8, 1826, Bishop John England (1786-1842) of Charleston, South Carolina, became the first Catholic clergyman to preach in the House of Representatives. The overflow audience included President John Quincy Adams, whose July 4, 1821, speech England rebutted in his sermon. Adams had claimed that the Roman Catholic Church was intolerant of other religions and therefore incompatible with republican institutions. England asserted that "we do not believe that God gave to the church any power to interfere with our civil rights, or our civil concerns." "I would not allow to the Pope, or to any bishop of our church," added England, "the smallest interference with the humblest vote at our most insignificant balloting box."

"Charles Boynton (1806-1883) was in 1867 chaplain of the House of Representatives and organizing pastor of the First Congregational Church in Washington, which was trying at that time to build its own sanctuary. In the meantime the church, as Boynton informed potential donors, was holding services "at the Hall of Representatives" where "the audience is the largest in town. . . .nearly 2000 assembled every Sabbath" for services, making the congregation in the House the "largest Protestant Sabbath audience then in the United States." The First Congregational Church met in the House from 1865 to 1868."

Religion and the Federal Government, Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions - Library of Congress

 

[bodecea]

Are you reading what I am writing?

I wrote that religious people with religious convictions would wish to separate church and state, and they did so in 1787. Within 50 years, the states fell in line.

Don't you get that without "religious convictions" this country would not have the gov't that it has? Can't you see that Christianity is FREEDOM? It is about the personal relationship between yourself and the Lord. If each person tries to live that, there is no reason to have laws for men, they have already been written on their hearts. You are getting hung up thinking about organized religion, that is totally different than personal religion. What many of us have been trying to get thru your thick skull is that because there were soooo many different Christian faiths that went into this country, that each one wanted the freedom to continue practicing their own faith, and so, wrote out a gov't that did not have the POWER to say if you are a citizen, you will be Protestant, the next leader says you will be Quaker, the next, Catholic. If the gov't could not have the power to tell its citizens something that basic, as had been done for hundreds of years, there were a lot of other things that were not going to be dictated as well. The Bill of Rights reflects that. Use your noodle. There is a difference between a "Christian country" and a "Christian dictator".

So you are admitting that this was and is a "Christian" nation?

Nope...and it isn't. There are a majority of many different sects that call themselves christian...but the majority is in flux as is the current sects calling themselves christian compared to the sects present in the 1780s.

 

[UltimateReality]

This makes us a "Christian nation", the prayers of Hindus and Moslems and Catholics and agnostics and Mormons and Baptists and Congregationalists and Unitarians and Quakers and so on and so forth?

Silly myth makers, you, getting your myths exploded, every one. So easy to do.

The Supreme Courts Liberal Interpretation of Jefferson's letter was used to mistakenly uphold the materialist claim. History had shown for almost a hundred years, The US Government and "church" had very much been UN-separated. All of this info is available on the Library Of Congress website, which thankfully the revisionists have not been able to destroy but my fear is it won't be long until these manuscripts and letters are locked away and forgotten.

"It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers."

"On January 8, 1826, Bishop John England (1786-1842) of Charleston, South Carolina, became the first Catholic clergyman to preach in the House of Representatives. The overflow audience included President John Quincy Adams, whose July 4, 1821, speech England rebutted in his sermon. Adams had claimed that the Roman Catholic Church was intolerant of other religions and therefore incompatible with republican institutions. England asserted that "we do not believe that God gave to the church any power to interfere with our civil rights, or our civil concerns." "I would not allow to the Pope, or to any bishop of our church," added England, "the smallest interference with the humblest vote at our most insignificant balloting box."

"Charles Boynton (1806-1883) was in 1867 chaplain of the House of Representatives and organizing pastor of the First Congregational Church in Washington, which was trying at that time to build its own sanctuary. In the meantime the church, as Boynton informed potential donors, was holding services "at the Hall of Representatives" where "the audience is the largest in town. . . .nearly 2000 assembled every Sabbath" for services, making the congregation in the House the "largest Protestant Sabbath audience then in the United States." The First Congregational Church met in the House from 1865 to 1868."

Religion and the Federal Government, Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions - Library of Congress

Wow. You are in such denial that even when presented with concrete evidence, you twist the truth and remain in your blindness. You are incorrect in your assertion. Hindu's and Muslims were not part of the pre-1960's American story. Jefferson himself referred to the Muslims as infidels. Funny how they turned that term back on Christians and those ignorant to history, think the term was coined by Islam. Sorry Obama, the only part of the American story Islam has ever been a part of was the Twin Towers.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your sloppy and willful thinking in a selective minority-driven list of cites ignores the sweep and breadth of the American narrative. Yet you disregard the truth of what I wrote above.

You need to start reading reputable material. Begin with Waldman's Founding Faith.

"Whether in legal briefs or op-ed articles, we are as passionate about religion as the founders were. Unfortunately, our passions make for a lot of sloppy and willful historical thinking and writing. In “Founding Faith,” Steven Waldman, a veteran journalist and co-founder of Beliefnet.com, a religious Web site, surveys the convictions and legacy of the founders clearly and fairly, with a light touch but a careful eye." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/books/review/Brookhiser-t.html

 

[UltimateReality]

Your sloppy and willful thinking in a selective minority-driven list of cites ignores the sweep and breadth of the American narrative. Yet you disregard the truth of what I wrote above.

You need to start reading reputable material. Begin with Waldman's Founding Faith.

"Whether in legal briefs or op-ed articles, we are as passionate about religion as the founders were. Unfortunately, our passions make for a lot of sloppy and willful historical thinking and writing. In “Founding Faith,” Steven Waldman, a veteran journalist and co-founder of Beliefnet.com, a religious Web site, surveys the convictions and legacy of the founders clearly and fairly, with a light touch but a careful eye." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/books/review/Brookhiser-t.html

The article you cite was published in 2008, which is too late to have any relevance, having been tainted by the revisionist doctrines you subscribe to.

Much has been made of Jefferson's copy of the Alcoran of Mohammed, but one need only seek out the copy and read the first few pages to understand the permeation of Christian beliefs in society at the time it was written. It is obvious to even the casual observer that our once great nation is in demise due to the abandonment of Christian doctrines and, if actions speak louder than words, our nation is no longer a Christian nation. However, this does not change history. Our nation was founded by Christian men on Christian principles, with the most sacred of teachings being that our rights are derived from the Creator (capital C). As this belief slowly erodes, we are left with a society in which human rights are granted by the state. One only has to look around at how quickly rights that come from another human with a fancy hat can be disposed of. You and other atheist revisionist like yourself, love to quote Jefferson, albeit, out of context. Jefferson was but one of many founders, and due to his liberal religious leanings, was at times very much anti-Christian. And why not, after having been subject to the religious oppression of England, two camps emerged: One that chose to redefine their beliefs and practice Christianity according to the Bible and not the oppressive church doctrines and the other, that leaned towards abandoning Christianity entirely. This is very much akin to many in the atheist movement today. They are not true atheist in the sense the merely don't believe in God, but are souls that have developed an intense hatred for Him. The source of this hatred can be many things, including a horrendous tragedy they cannot make sense of, an inability to reconcile evil in the world, or perhaps a same sex attraction that ostracizes them from their family. These are the militant atheists that seek to destroy all belief systems that would dare to mention God, for their anger with God is intense. They attack Christians at every turn, and make it their personal mission of hate to distort, discredit and demonize religion. They do not believe in freedom of religion, nor freedom from religion, but seek a world in which the mere mention of God's name would be outlawed.

For your reference:

The Koran: or, Alcoran of Mohammed