Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room The Founding Fathers Weren't Christian

Jolly, you don't take this too seriously do you? A good half these quotes are likely from Thomas Paine (in the "Age of Reason") seeking to debunk the fallacies, misstatements, internal inconsistencies, and just plain untruth of traditional readings of the Bible. If you were looking for a more modern thinker whose work is filled with Biblical quotations and citations, a good place to start would be Madelyn Murray O'Hair.

I don't know if half the quotes are from Paine, or not. I did think the percentages were interesting.

There were two large religious revivals in the U.S., both imported from England, in the early part of the 19th Century -- the first was around 1805 (and marked by the founding of the American Bible Society -- prior to this, Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" outsold the Bible by about 3 to 1), and the second just before 1820 (and marked by the founding of the American Mission Society at the Haystacks Monument at Williams College -- my alma mater).

Prior to 1805, you see almost no arguments about, for example, "Biblical inerrancy" in American Christianity, even among the followers of Cotton Mather. The "new lights" - believers in a more mystical view of religion (Christianity being the only one they knew) -- rejected formalistic reading of the Bible, seeking its "spirit" in the day-to-day world. The "new lights" were cross-denominational, and held sway in many states for quite some time (especially Rhode Island and upstate New York.) The Founding Fathers (as I already noted with the adoption of the Constitution and the First Amendment) were not out of line with general thinking in the rest of the country -- Christian, well yes, because that is what they knew, but assuredly rejected from membership in Jolly's church. Bible-quoting? Well, yes, but just as likely for the purpose of proving its errors. And, as already noted, they FEARED Christianity and the negative impacts it could have on the country, and this is reflected in both the Constitution and the First Amendment, both adopted with broad public debate and support.

The "new lights" continued on into the 19th Century. Among Quakers, the whole debate is quite interesting because in the late 18th century, they would have been thought of as conservative theologically (relative to what Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, etc. believed.) But, in New England, a group of "new light" Quakers evolved, with a "progressivist" interpretation of revelation. They didn't reject the Bible, but since Quakers believe in continuing revelation, they argued that not only is revelation continuing, but actually gets BETTER all the time! In other words, it is not so much that the New Testament is untrue, simply "old hat". They were ridden out of Friendlydom. Many of them became followers of Joseph Smith (Latter Day Saints) as the latest revelation; others became transcendalists and became the backbone of the utopian communities of Hope Farm and Brook Farm, and hobnobbed with Emerson and Alcott. The rest mostly became universalists, later merged with the Unitarians.

More than you ever wanted to know (but just the tip of a large iceberg )

Shant,
Where can I read more on this?

Ariel,
I've enjoyed reading since I was small. But, I have pretty eclectic tastes as to what I read. I hop from subject to subject. Barnes and Noble was a lot of fun but the hours were crazy. We use to do "overnights" when we changed displays and traded out books. Fortunately, I didn't spend a lot of money on books because we could borrow anything we wanted. I'd borrow it and then if I liked it I would buy it.
Right now I'm reading "Letters from Prison" by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Are you familiar with him?
He was one of the few Christian pastors who were martyred during the Holocaust. It's beautiful and inspirational even for non-Christians.
From your posts I gather you travel a lot. Is this true?
Peggy

Jolly wrote: These, to me, are puzzling statements logically. What exactly do they mean? First, how could these profs determine which quotes had a "significant impact" on these great patriots?

Secondly, what does the 60% statistic mean? Still more perplexing...That the "founders" were quoting from a quote, and the final quote has special signficance BECAUSE the first quoter was relying on the Bible for rhetorical power?? (whew, all in one breath!)

Don't quite get it. Also confused about what these polit-sci profs were doing. Was this part of an actual research project, or were they just collecting suitable quotes for an anthology or to print an article in "Focus on the Family"? Was a personal after-hours recreational (or religious) pursuit or what? These things do matter you know, Jolly.

A number of you all see fit to ridicule research in the Social Sciences (though I bet it would be canonized if it bolstered a favored argument - as you are doing here, tho' I admit that you are not one of those who takes the name "psychology" in vain - so far as I know anyhow! )

But the fact of the matter is, if something is to be considered proper research, it has to be "objective". That means among other things that the people conducting it don't have an ax to grind or the opposite (whatever a suitable metaphor would be).

If these two profs for example, are born-agains seeking to make a point to buttress their particular camp, I'm sorry to say, it really doesn't mean a whole lot. They might as well be Jr. High School kids combing the web - the credibility of the sources in terms of their accuracy, context and selection bias are just as meaningless...

Rvaga pointed out that one of the quotes alluded to in my link was guilty of spin, just because it left out the word "as" before the lead sentence, to wit:
"As...the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion..." You know what a dirty word "spin" is these days. My whole link can actually be considered "spin", in fact, as it is not the product of my genuine research from primary sources - I just wanted to present some "food for thought" and discussion!

That's why sound statistics - not the damned lies kind - are at the foundation of any research project, in the hard or soft sciences.

By the way, are you ever going to answer my question about their faith from the honest perspective of your own (see above)? I think "Deists" believe in God too, as do most Unitarians I know.

Ariel

Shantinik said after his most appreciated post (which I haven't had time to do justice to yet): Wrong, wrong, wrong! Thanks ever so much. I REALLY appreciate it. I don't know if you happened to read my confession about having failed to pay attention to anything in my obligatory H.S. course in American History, as a form of rebellion. (I also deliberately failed the AP test attached to it, as a form of protest - against being made to take two exams. I analyzed the entire American Revolution in some fashion as based on George Washington's dissatisfaction with his wooden false teeth - and other such trivia.)

And now - as these things go (and naturally there is much more)- I bitterly regret it. Thanks for helping me fill the gap! Renauda and Peggy too.

Ariel

Ariel

Peggy,

This will have to be my last post of the day as I have procrastinated too much in doing something I need to deliver in a matter of hours. However, I did want to reply to you too.

Yes, I have indeed heard of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (without your post right in front of me I'm sure to be mispelling his name). He was a saint. It must be a wonderful book. Don't dare take it out of the library right now, having just returned twelve biographies late - all partially read (they were taken out to give my son a selection in doing a school project), but it sounds like one to put on my list!

And about traveling - well, yes and no. That is, yes, I used to travel a lot (though itt didn't seem like traveling because I stayed in one place for years at a time); but, no, because I have been rooted to this spot for longer than I care to admit..And now I am such a mess orthopedically, I don't see how I can travel again. Hopefully, someday, maybe with one of my strong sons to carry my luggage (and me too, at this rate!).

I love learning languages - your classic xenophile. That's one of the reasons I know so little about this country, as I now realize for the first time!

Ariel

I will have to try to figure out where to send you for the best sources. Most of my general church history is background reading for some more serious work I do on Quaker history (in which Paine, Major General Nathaniel Greene, Stephen Hopkins, and Dickinson are important figures, though not as much as John Woolman.) My readings on the Revolution are broad, and new biographies of Jefferson in particular are very fruitful. (Joseph Ellis' Jefferson: An American Sphinx, although flawed (there's nothing on his 2nd term in office), is terrific at getting under his skin so that we can see, if but dimly, what made him tick. There is also a new edition of "Jefferson's Bible" now available. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...4/sr=2-1/ ref=sr_2_1/002-2105826-9056866

By the way, Jolly, every line in this book is a "quote from the Bible" -- are they included in the count?

In some ways, though, Madison is more interesting -- Jefferson played a very distant role in the Constitutional debates.)

Got some of my dates reversed. The BRITISH Bible Society came to the U.S. in 1805 -- the official founding of the American Bible Society was 1816 (one of the reasons for the delay is that many of the denominations -- including Friends and northern Baptists -- were very reluctant to jump on board.) The American Foreign Mission Society dates from the Haystack Monument incident of 1806. Here's a picture

http://www.williams.edu/library/archives/manuscriptguides/haystack/bio.html

I use to lay a blanket near the monument and study (on those few, rare days when it wasn't too cold!)

P.S. -- Here's a special treat for the Canadians: (sometimes one might wonder what all of this has to do with music...well...

http://www.sharontemple.ca/music.html )

Finally, the two clauses of the 1st Amendment (and all the discussion around them) clearly indicate that the Founders intended both Freedom FROM Religion (religious tests, state observances, etc. which they themselves couldn't pass), and Freedom OF Religion (prohibiting laws that would curtail minority religious practices). In both cases, the only threat was Christianity.

i am really mystified by the b.s. the right wingers here keep slinging around about how "freedom of religion" doesn't mean "freedom from religion."

i mean, what is the point of this? i certainly do cherish my freedom from religion. are you trying to tell me i'm not entitled to be non-religious if i am a citizen of the u.s.?

i feel just as strongly that religion is about one of the worst inventions ever by humankind, as you, jolly, feel about its positive value. are you trying to tell me that those of us who want nothing to do with religion in any form must adopt some sort of religion simply because we are u.s. citizens? or pray in schools? or say the pledge of allegiance with the word "god" in it? or listen to the president of ALL the people blather on about jesus christ in his public speeches at public functions?

i will never, never, never, never accept that.

what makes a country a christian country?

1. that its founders were christian? that's irrelevant.

2. that the majority of its citizens believe in christianity? absolutely not. if all the christians died tomorrow from a rare virus contracted only by reading the new testament, and the majority religious belief in this country became hindu, would that make this a hindu country? nope.

and anyway, majority does not rule in a republic. as unfortunately we saw in the last presidential election. you can't have it both ways.

3. that its laws are explicitly based on christian beliefs? yes. that is the only test. and the u.s. fails that test. rather, in the u.s. the laws are quite explicitly NOT based on christian or any other religious beliefs.

what ticks me off is that the current presidential administration is obviously trying to change that. his personal religious beliefs have absolutely no place in public policy making that affects all the people.

including us heretics from the jefferson mold, who belong to no "isms."

You think you are mystified. To us up here in "Godless" Canada- a country, I might add, that was founded on the Christian principles of the Church of England through an Act of the British Parliament- it seems quite odd that Americans today would even debate the issue being that its founding fathers would have wanted to reject all things associated with British Absolutism. I quite agree then that "Freedom from Religion" is very much a part of the American political tradition.

Yet as you say, Pique, there appears to be elements of the society who wish it to be otherwise. Could it be that that is one of the many reasons why the Federal G'ovt is so determined to take charge of education?

The words "separation of church and state" do not appear that I know of, in any founding documents. I believe the first use was in a 1947 ACLU case.

Americans of the pre-1900 era, would probably chortle with laughter at this discussion.

In 1774, the first meeting of what would be known as the Continental Congress was opened by prayer, from an Episcopalian minister (of course, some may not consider the Episcopalians Christians, but I stiil do).

As I said, in my view, and that of many others, the U.S. was founded on Christian principles, as a Christian nation, by Founding Fathers who were predominately Christian.

Actually, Jefferson talked about the need for "a wall of separation between church and state", and the first clause of the 1st Amendment was specifically proposed to carry out that end. In practice, they meant a wall between Christianity and state (Rastafarians and Hindus weren't an issue.)

"TO Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802."

The important thing to note here is not that Jefferson thought there "should be" a wall of separation between church and state, but that he saw it as specifically enshrined in the intent of the Establishment clause. (and I think he oughtta know. :rolleyes: )
-----

The best single book on this subject (it is HUGE and expensive, but has all the documentary history) is "The Complete Bill of Rights
The Drafts, Debates, Sources, and Origins" edited by Neil Cogan, Oxford University Press --

http://www.oup-usa.com/search/jsp/d....html%40oup&querytext=bill+of+rights

We managed to get one on sale for only $50!

Jolly, you are welcome to believe what you like -- I just hope that some day folks with beliefs resembling those of the Founding Fathers apply to your membership committee. (or better, that they BE the membership committee.)

But it was in a letter, wasn't it? Not in any founding document of our country. But I think the real debate is "what does that mean?"

I have cited the letter above. The documents in the Cogan book make it clear that Jefferson was correct about the intent, and the very structure of the 1st amendment, in two clauses, shows the two purposes: 1) Freedom FROM Religion; and 2) Freedom OF Religion. You can say what you like, but the founders, who saw that they had not gone far enough in simply leaving God and Jesus out of the Constitution, were extremely clear in their intent.

For the sake of discussion, Jolly, let us assume you are right.

What specific implications do you see this having today? What would be different in the way we do things in this country? What would you like to see or believe should be different in the way we do things in this country because of this "Christian" bent of the Founding Fathers?

Renauda, it's not the Federal Government, it's Bush and the ultra-conservative right wingers who are running the Republican party. If Bush had his way, every child would be forced to say the pledge (with God in it), the Lord's Prayer, and praise George three times, before starting school each day. :rolleyes:

I'm a Christian, who fiercely believes in TOTAL seperation of church and state. I believe this was the founding father's intent, and that they were absolutely brilliant in doing so. What their own religious beliefs were, is irrelevant. You can talk about religious "freedom of" or "freedom from" or "freedom to", from now til doomsday, but it still has no place in government.

The right-wingers and moral-majorityites, have done this country a great dis-service by pushing their religious and moral agendas into the political arena where they don't belong. Now Bush, is trying to make even more headway with his so-called "faith based initiative", which is nothing more than government meddling in religion. Bush would also like to take away a woman's right of choice on abortion, sneak religion into public schools, reduce or eliminate basic human services for those who need them most like the indigent, children, and the elderly and on and on ...

Anyone still not believe me when I say that it is Bush and the Republicans who are taking away Americans civil and individual rights? When you really think about it, it's scary. I'm afraid we may wake up one day and find our country has lost much of what we once thought guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. We also may wake up and realize that we let big business put them there, and they could very well keep them there.

instead of referring to it tangentially, let us consider the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere that I can read in the amendment, does it say anything about separation of Church and State, especially when Church is defined in its' looser terms, as meaning the assembly and practice of religion.

To consider the background, most of the Founding Fathers were from colonies that had State sponsored religions (11 of 13, I believe?). The amendment means what it says, there will be no state sponsored religion, nor a nationally preferred religion, as in England, at that time.

Americans are free to practice whatever religion they choose (as long as they break no civil laws such as murder), or are free to practice no religion at all. What the amendment does not say, and it could have been added if so desired, is separation of Church and State.

The writers of the Constitution went to great lengths to write in the separation of powers in the original document. If they were so inclined to agree on that principle of separation in the amendments, does not one think they would have written it in, if they wished to make that point clear?

But Jolly,

What do see see as the implications of this? What do you think we should be doing differently based on your interpretation of all of this? What SPECIFICALLY do you feel needs to be changed in this society to reflect your view of what the Founding Fathers intended this society to be?

Or are things the way you think they should be and all of this discussion is just for intellectual fun?

Well said, bcarey.

Jodi