Discussion of the religiousness of the framers of the US Constitution

[jackson33]

The first 7 posts of this thread were moved from the Gay Marriage thread, because they are only slightly related to that thread’s topic.

 

Infinite post 511;

Bill - With 510 posts to this thread, and the fact that I've used the word "secular" in pretty much every one of mine, if you really don't know what I mean and are only just now asking, you should start by reading this:

 

Infinite; I wish I had more time to discuss this issue, even though it's not new to any forum you participate on. The Founders or Framers of the Confederation, US Declaration of Independence, the Constitution where not only religious in nature, but Christian. You have on more than one occasion depicted these folks as anything but, picking out deist or a branch of Christian Philosophy as your reference and that they created those doctrines in some manner to prevent Religious influence by a Federal/State Government in the American Society. I suppose you could say in producing a Secular Constitution, they intended for a immoral society (from their viewpoint) to develop from Individual Rights being offered, but nothing indicates this and that deviance from the morals involved would certainly void the meanings of their words.

 

In addition to your previous mentioned deist (arguable) are many of the 56 signers of the Constitution, a majority in fact trained (educated) and practiced (preached) Christianity, Jesus and all. You should recall many of the letters and comments already submitted for your review on another forum.....

WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - The Founding Fathers on Jesus, Christianity and the Bible

 

A Few Declarations of Founding Fathers and Early Statesmen on Jesus, Christianity, and the Bible

 

My last word on this issue; The American Society, above that of the UK or even Canada or Australia, certainly more so that all of Asia is a cluster of religious viewpoints from all parts of the world, that have for the most part melted into a basically Christian Society, long ago. This is NOT a bad thing, something to be ashamed of or ridicule. You, I and others might have a different viewpoint of religion, but I don't understand how you can deny these truths. The moral code that you live with itself is an example of a tolerance, unheard of not 250 years ago or in most the World today. We really do have a thousand plus different religions, not all believing in a Messiah but are morally near the same. What on earth is wrong with that???

 

 

 

The Big Dog; Last night on the Huckabee Fox Show, David Barton was a guest, reminding me of you and what may appear to be a fruitless effort in discussing colonial religion in the US. Not all Atheist/Agnostic or non Christians, in fact very few try to push their attitudes off on others, I'd bet less than 1% of what is a small minority of the American population. Any way, thought you might like review his site, in particular the owned documentation from the Colonial and early days of this republic.

 

WallBuilders | Presenting America's forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on our moral, religious, and constitutional heritage.

 

I apologize for being off topic, don't have time to follow up on a new thread and wanted to address IN's definition of Secular. Feel sure dannie (T/A) would understand.

[InfiniteNow]

The Founders or Framers of the Confederation, US Declaration of Independence, the Constitution where not only religious in nature, but Christian.

 

<snip>

 

I apologize for being off topic, don't have time to follow up on a new thread...

You're right. It IS off-topic, and I've already addressed it here:

http://hypography.com/forums/biology/13837-evolution-must-be-taught-public-schools-42.html#post262706

 

...and here:

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/16311-theistic-and-atheistic-influences-on-society.html#post238389

 

...and here:

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/16311-theistic-and-atheistic-influences-on-society-2.html#post238552

 

...and in other places, as well.

 

 

And... on top of all of that... EVEN if the founding fathers were a bunch of bible-thumping christian nutters (which, they weren't, but hey, it won't be the first falsehood asserted as truth by the religious in our nation)... that doesn't matter in the least, as our governing documents are not only secular, but DEMAND that our laws be as well.

 

History of the Separation of Church and State in America

 

 

I now return you to your regularly scheduled program of ignorant arguments against same sex marriage based on nothing more than bigotry, and continue to await relevant secular reasons to treat same sex couples any differently than opposite sex couples, and relevant secular reasons to call them by another name and prevent their ability to use the term "marriage" when describing their relationship.

[jackson33]

Infinite now;

Wow, Tormod. Thanks for waking the sleeping dogs and abusing your Administrator privileges by giving me two consecutive neg reps for this thread this morning (on top of the one you already gave me three weeks ago).

 

I must say, I'm rather disgusted at how you've been treating feedback here, including the fact that bugs on the site are going unresolved.

 

"Ditto" on both counts Mr. InfiniteNow; First I was responding to YOUR post, BEGGING for an off topic reply to an off topic post, then explaining my reasons. Second, I believe your the bigot in the room, opposing anything religious, this coming from a self admitted agnostic, which I believe is one of your problems. You are searching for religious answers yourself and in your frustrations are can't accept the fact "Some people are happy" in their religious belief's/convictions. Third, your an out and out hypocrite about this forum or any you have posted on. I believe your a 'Secular Progressive**', or one that would prefer religion itself be outlawed, then any opinion you have be made law. Traditions mean nothing to you or does what any majority believe.

 

You don't exactly make user comments about the site and its functioning a safe and welcoming option for people who wish to share them.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/user-feedback/15405-marketing-of-the-forum-2.html

 

**

SECULAR= 1. PERTAINING TO WORLDLY THINGS OR TO THINGS NOT REGARDED AS SACRED; TEMPORAL. 2. NOT RELATING TO OR CONCERNED WITH RELIGION (OPPOSED TO SACRED). 3. CONCERNED WITH NON-RELIGIOUS SUBJECTS; SECULAR SCHOOLS.

 

PROGRESSIVE= 1. ADVOCATING PROGRESS OR REFORM, ESP. IN POLITICAL AND SOCIAL MATTERS. 2. EMPLOYING OR ADVOCATING MORE LIBERAL IDEAS, NEW METHOD, ETC. A PROGRESSIVE COMMUNITY. 3. GOING FORWARD OR ONWARD; PASSING SUCCESSIVELY FROM ONE STAGE TO THE NEXT. 4. CONTINUOUSLY INCREASING IN EXTENT OR SEVERITY AS A DISEASE.

Debate.org | Secular Progressive movement will destroy this country

 

One more time; The founders were highly religious by any of todays standards and the Constitution was written with that thought in their minds. SSM, would have never been a thought in this country, until the mid/ late 20th Century, at least as a socially acceptable format. Opposing (I do not) makes no one a bigot, that's crazy, or your really saying 80-90% of the human race are bigots. YOUR argument makes no sense.

 

On 'separation' and must be a repeat; From your article Paine said "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church." which is the essence of the founders desire to keep one religion from being dominate or sponsor by any State or the US. That was the point, NOT the elimination of religion from society, quite the opposite the Freedom of ALL to practice. Add and mentioned elsewhere, religion is a personal belief/opinion/conviction or whatever you call it, including believing in nothing. If you wish, the first RIGHT granted(A-1) after the formula for governance...

 

For the record, I have never given or taken points toward or from any poster (believe it's a means for a forum to maintain like minded posters or censor -get rid of- those not in line with the forums purpose and believe me, they ALL have one). I am not at all convinced this forums agenda and yours are anything close to the same, even Dave...

[pamela]

"Ditto" on both counts Mr. InfiniteNow; First I was responding to YOUR post, BEGGING for an off topic reply to an off topic post, then explaining my reasons. Second, I believe your the bigot in the room, opposing anything religious, this coming from a self admitted agnostic, which I believe is one of your problems. You are searching for religious answers yourself and in your frustrations are can't accept the fact "Some people are happy" in their religious belief's/convictions. Third, your an out and out hypocrite about this forum or any you have posted on. I believe your a 'Secular Progressive**', or one that would prefer religion itself be outlawed, then any opinion you have be made law. Traditions mean nothing to you or does what any majority believe.

While you are entitled to your opinion, jackson, mudslinging is rather beneath you.You have taken the time to construct some well thought out posts, but it would behoove you to leave the emotion out:)

What infinitenow does not believe is of no consequence to you,and his searches are his own and not up for discussion.He is not a hypocrit, infact he has shown himself to be forthright in his convictions.Whereas these tradtions listed in this thread may not hold any significance for him, it is unfair to say that he doesnt uphold others. And kudos to him for not resorting to becoming a sheeple just because the majority rules the opinion.

[InfiniteNow]

Hi Jackson - As I stated before, I suggest you focus on supporting your own position, or showing where mine is faulty. These personal comments don't do you any good, and weaken your debating position. Also, I've linked to other threads which you are free to bump if you'd like to continue discussing the religious predilections of our founding fathers.

 

I am more than happy to engage you on that topic, but there is a proper arena in which to do so, and this thread on gay marriage simply isn't it.

[jackson33]

pamela; First thank you for your nice comments on 'some' of my post. I have tried to raise my grammar level and gratified it's been noticed....

 

My post to IN, was based on he, AGAIN either giving me or a cause for my rep points going into the red (responsible or not, he knows this). This would make it the 5th or 6th time to my user name and I have no idea how many others he is responsible for. The fact he can complain to management, yet do no less to others himself, in my mind is hypocritical. You are correct however, I was and am upset (emotional), but for reasonable cause, my opinion. As for his issue oriented comments, yes he is consistent and I frankly rarely agree with ANY majority myself. A beer drinking, womanizing, smoker, rather old and set in my ways, has left me no choice. However at some point my objecting to the laws/rules/government mandates, over the last 70 years that have infringed on a good many personal rights, becomes a judgment of respect for a majority.

 

Infinite; Since somehow on two post I've managed to go from three green to three red dots, I accept the point I am not wanted on this forum. It's up to the the administration, whether they call this fair and just or not to my many post or the time taken.

[freeztar]

There's no need for that, Jackson.

 

If you feel a post has violated the rules, then report it using the red button on the top right of the offending post.

 

Otherwise, let's carry on. :cup:

[CraigD]

WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - The Founding Fathers on Jesus, Christianity and the Bible

… Last night on the Huckabee Fox Show, David Barton was a guest

Jackson, I think you should be careful using David Barton, or his website, wallbuilders.com, to form or support your views on American history, and recommend you carefully read the preceding linked wikipedia article and its linked references to form an objective assessment of Barton’s character, motives, and abilities.

 

As best I can tell from reading this information, Barton is, as he, his supporters, and his detractors claim, a very influential Evangelical Christian minister. His and his supporters’ claim that “His exhaustive research has rendered him an expert in historical and constitutional issues”, appears to me dubious, as his only formal academic training is in religious education (a BA from Oral Roberts University), and his writing has been poorly received by many respected and well-educated historians. He has also apparently welcomed the praise of Sam Browback, a US senator who has publically stated that he does not believe in evolution, and favors the teaching of Intelligent Design via “teach the controversy” approach.

 

These people appear to be dedicated proponents of Christianity, but their methods suggest that they are opponents of science and objective truth.

[InfiniteNow]

The links I shared above (in what is now post #2 since the thread split... thanks Craig) support my position clearly, but I will summarize it again here.

 

Many of the founders were Christian, but this was not the dominant belief of the day. The dominant belief was deism, and many of those at the center of our nations founding (Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and others) were without question NOT christian. Further, it was not Christianity which was at the center of our nations founding, but reason, rationality, and secularity.

 

This is true. Deal with it. The "Christian nation" claim is a myth (also supported by my links to my own posts above).

 

Further, even though our founders practiced various forms of belief in their lives, they very expressly ensured that belief did not factor into our government, and that all legislation had a legitimate purpose and was based on empirical needs not dicated by religious belief. They ensured the protection of all forms of belief, all forms of non-belief, and made sure that no laws in our system were based on religious teaching alone (especially since there are so many different types of religion and so many different interpretations even within the same sect).

 

Our nation was expressly created to be secular, and this is evidenced solidly in our founding documents, quotes from our founding fathers, and the Supreme Court rulings regarding the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment which have been consistent and clear through the generations about this issue, expanding with precedents such as the Lemon Test.

 

 

I shared it above, but I'll share it again because it's worth the read all the way through. If you're going to debate this topic, then at least know the facts. You're welcome to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

 

History of the Separation of Church and State in America

[enorbet2]

I wish I had more time to discuss this issue, even though it's not new to any forum you participate on. The Founders or Framers of the Confederation, US Declaration of Independence, the Constitution where not only religious in nature, but Christian.

...

 

This is patently false especially when considers who the real architects of The Constitution were, not only directly but also indirectly due to The Age of Enlightenment's abundance of Deists. As for directly..... Quoted from the wiki on "Deism" Deism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Deism in the United States

 

In the United States, Enlightenment philosophy (which itself was heavily inspired by deist ideals) played a major role in creating the principle of separation of church and state, expressed in Thomas Jefferson's letters, and the principle of religious freedom expressed in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. American Founding Fathers, or Framers of the Constitution, who were especially noted for being influenced by such philosophy include Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, and Hugh Williamson. Their political speeches show distinct deistic influence. Other notable Founding Fathers may have been more directly deist. These include James Madison, John Adams, possibly Alexander Hamilton, Ethan Allen [32] and Thomas Paine (who published The Age of Reason, a treatise that helped to popularize deism throughout America and Europe). Elihu Palmer (1764-1806) wrote the "Bible" of American deism in his Principles of Nature (1801) and attempted to organize deism by forming the "Deistical Society of New York."

 

Incidentally this is but a sample and I highly recommend reading the whole article to understand the breadth and depth of difference of Deism from Christianity and the sheer number of movers and shakers who for over a century leading up to an age of revolution rejected the most basic tenets of Christianity and, in fact, most organized religion.

 

For an even deeper look, see Religion and the Founding Fathers

or better, just read The Age of Reason and The Rights of Man by Thomas Paine, since more than any other single person of the time, he articulated the value as well as the rightness of the democratic system in which all are equal under the law.

 

A little more slanted but nonetheless historically accurate account can be found here

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.htm

 

Here's a relevant exerpt

When the Founders wrote the nation's Constitution, they specified that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3) This provision was radical in its day-- giving equal citizenship to believers and non-believers alike. They wanted to ensure that no single religion could make the claim of being the official, national religion, such as England had. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention religion, except in exclusionary terms. The words "Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, and God" are never mentioned in the Constitution-- not once.

 

The Declaration of Independence gives us important insight into the opinions of the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the power of the government is derived from the governed. Up until that time, it was claimed that kings ruled nations by the authority of God. The Declaration was a radical departure from the idea of divine authority.

 

The 1796 treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "in no sense founded on the Christian religion" (see below). This was not an idle statement, meant to satisfy muslims-- they believed it and meant it. This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams.

 

Even more than today, since heretics are rarely burned at the stake anymore but were back then, many public men were (and still are) obliged to put on a religious face for the masses. Despite that it was actually physically dangerous in the 1700's and not just to one's career as it is today, the most important men of the Founding Fathers, of action and above all of ideas and ideals, did not talk, write, or act as Christians. They were Deists.

 

Jackson, I challenge you or anyone else to actually back up any statement alluding to the USA being founded on Christianity or any other intervening Supreme Being handing down morality from on high. This was and is about The Age of Reason. No amount of spin-doctoring can co-opt historical fact no matter how much the religious right would love to rewrite both The Bill of Rights and History itself.

[jackson33]

Jackson, I challenge you or anyone else to actually back up any statement alluding to the USA being founded on Christianity or any other intervening Supreme Being handing down morality from on high. This was and is about The Age of Reason. No amount of spin-doctoring can co-opt historical fact no matter how much the religious right would love to rewrite both The Bill of Rights and History itself.

 

enorbet2; Since you have taken a great deal of time offering the above post, generally which I do NOT disagree with, I'll offer some comments;

 

First; your replying to a comment, out of context to another post and a poster that for years has declared the Founders and the Society of that day as secular or in some way not Christian or anti- Christian. The apparent 'flame' comments coming from 'Wallbuilders', which was offered to a member of this forum, an apparent strong belief in his religion, who happened to have been on the Mike Huckabee Fox program the day before.

 

Related; Although I feel Mike Huckabee is a fine person and no doubt a great Governor for Arkansas would never have been elected, did NOT get my support and probably lost a great deal of support over the weekend by guesting David Baron, in the first place. If anything about GWB that concerned me it was his religious conviction and the potential for his judgments being based on those convictions.

 

Second; I understand Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison have made deist comments (not believing in a Christ or a Messiah) and Franklin may have had reservations on religion itself, arguably many others. That's not the point...They also made comments/quotes to the other side or professed the Christian Agenda, for the most part away or after serving (purposely or keeping to the separation), including Mr. Franklin. It's my belief the society that existed in the late 18th Century, would make todays society seem atheistic, by comparison. I do believe the vast majority of the signers (of each document) and promoters of the Republic that formed were in fact Christian and my point the society, which remains today, to a majority degree.

 

Related; Since I believed you missed this,.. Personally I am not Christian and call myself a Constitutional Conservative (Smaller Government, Fiscal Responsibility and the like) who happens to vote, support and promote the Republican Party. While the Evangelical Movements of the 19th and early 20th Centuries formed many of our moral dilemma of today, they also had a great deal of influence into giving purpose of/to life itself to a struggling society, that firmed the intend of those founders. IMO.

 

Third; Spin doctoring works both ways. On the thread issue SSM, trying to insert the Founders or their intent on personal rights is an insult to intelligence. While Slavery, Womens Roll in Governing or the many issues of today were being discussed then and before the Constitution, they would have never considered Same Sex Marriage and from the laws of the many States then, I would suggest they or future generation to this day would have or will Amend the Constitution to forbid any thought of such recognition.

 

Related and again, think you may have missed; I DO NOT OPPOSE same sex ANYTHING. I strongly believe that sexual conduct is a personal issue, the choice of being attracted to anything a person choice (not genetic), be it a red head, tall person, another race or the same sex, BUT in making that choice there may or can be social consequences/limits which should be expected and accepted, in making that choice. Then and most important to this thread and many others here or elsewhere, folks with established ideology on the meaning and concepts of 'what constitutes a marriage' have equal rights to protect that meaning. I would have the same opinion in watching a porn flick, if in the middle they are took a time out and prayed, it borders on intimidation/harassment of a portion (very large) of society or trying to establish in some manner an acceptance of life style, which to virtually every religion, by vast majorities, is unacceptable.

 

Forth; In bringing in 'Secular Progressive Movement', if you noticed, even the mention of a Slippery Slope or incremental achievement of an end objective, will get a response from ever poster with any distaste on the society they live in, regardless how trivial that objective may be. "All I want, is this little rule" and so on....

 

Related; On the forth point, in my life, or in my study of History, I've noted a hundred well intentioned movements that became established law of the day and have evolved well beyond the capacity for any society to maintain, finance, enforce and in many cases the ending of that society.