So now that you have found another Sam Harris production to paste here how about answering a few simple questions about America.  Before the Constitution and the debate about it.

Do you know what the founding fathers were, with regards to whether or not they were Christians?

Another few Questions: 

Who were the Quakers?  Their Religion?

Who were the Pilgrims?   Their Religion?

Who were the Puritans?  Their Religion?

Why did these settlers come to America?

If they wanted freedom FROM Religion why were they all very religious?

It was the Quakers who were responsible for the tolerance of other beliefs which meant that Pennsylvania was settled with more Amish, Jews and the like.  

How about maybe you should "show some respect" and address the above. Trying to switch the subject of a new thread on the first reply is bad manners. I thought you were all about that? I'll gladly re-answer your old questions again, in-kind.

Please respond to why "the greatest lines ever written, on any subject, in any language" which are "so profound that the creator of the universe felt the need to physically write them himself and in stone" are so lame, even to someone with the intelligence of a modern six year-old. (btw, why are our women lumped in with other 'property' like slaves, ox and houses in #10? sounds so bronze-age human male)

Is "Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being" not so much more elegant, grand and worthy of an all-knowing, all-loving deity? (btw, notice both the brevity and wit encompassed in it?)

 

Oh so you now wish total control of what is posted?  Is that what you are saying?   Sounds to me like some internal resentment at being revealed in another subject in this forum.  Did you say anywhere in your topic or post that no one can post other questions?  NO  I think my question are very valid and germane to one statement in your copied post.   In fact you didn't post anything of your own anyway but copied what another person printed elsewhere.  Where did you ask to stick to the topic when you created it?  Where ?  Did I miss it or was it not there? 

 

If you want it to be something else then ASK plainly for thankfully I cannot read your mind.  Speaking of disrespectful how about seeing YOUR post under the subject I created where I did ask atheist not to disrespect our attempt to discuss scripture yet you did not show that courtesy and yet now you call a response in your topic disrespectful?  How so?  Did I say anything about you?  Anything about your belief?  Anything about Atheism?.

 

It is amusing that I have certainly hit an atheist nerve with many of the atheist here on the forum.  I revealed many of your disrespectful motives therefore you are now trying to manufacturer something.  My address to the above is the questions I ask about who the first European settlers were with relation to their religion.  This is a Religion forum, Your subject is  about the TEN Commandments as while listing them, which is the extent of any relation to them, your copied text is referring to how the constitution doesn't repeat them and therefore this is NOT a Christian nation.  

 

Here is a statement in the author's text that you copied and posted:

 

many Christians believe that our nation was founded on "Judeo-Christian principles." Strangely, the Ten Commandments are often cited as incontestable proof of this fact.

I simply ask questions which would clarify why many Christians say or believe that our Nation was founded on Judeo-Christian Principals so yes my questions get at the root of that statement as all three groups made up most of the settlers to this country in it's origin and they all were very Religious and they were ALL Christians.  The freedom they sought which was responsible for the First Amendment was Separation of Church and State and that was because they were from England where the Church of England was the Government and told them how they were to worship and what they were to believe.  The intent of the First amendment was to say the Church should not dictate Government nor should Government dictate what the Church teaches and believes but not removing God from the government.

 

Hey Arob, IF my post is disrespectful to you or your topic then report it .. click that littlered flag and report me and let the Times Daily decide.  I think you know their response already.  My questions remain.  Do you even know about the History of this Country and our beginning States and their citizen's relation to Christianity and God and if they believed in God?    Your still stewing about being revealed on other post so you need to get over it and concentrate on the questions/post at hand if you can?   Please try posting some of your beliefs or material rather than copying one of the atheistic heroes.

Three points, then I'm going to bed.

 

1] Why are so many people like you immune to simple satire? Since I have to explain it to you, I was mocking you in the 1st two sentences. Lord have mercy.

2] I asked for brevity and wit, you give me neither again. Oh I'm so offended (quick! is that satire?)

3] Don't be an idiot, no mind reading involved. I told you if you answer my questions, I'll gladly respond in kind ...You know, it's like having a nice conversation. Like a two-way discussion? No? Doesn't ring a bell? Marketplace of ideas? no? Bueller?

 

3a] Still, after all this disrespect for my wonderful but ruined wishes and intentions (satire/sarcasm/mockery?), I'll answer whatever I can decipher of your questions. You took so long to write another meandering diatribe, that you'll have to wait and be totally still and quite until I return from work tomorrow though. Awww

Fair enough.  Unless you expect people to read your mind and you want something specific in response to a post you make whether your thoughts or a copied post of another's thoughts then as a courtesy why don't you preface your post with your request.  Maybe if someone knew what you wanted they might be willing to comply.  Without that compliance with your wishes IS IMPOSSIBLE.

 

Is that concise enough?

 

Bet you wouldnt stick that finger in MY face Old Gal!

 

You just got your heathern butt kicked with a good reply Mr Robustus! LOL!

I think you can guess which finger I'd use for you "rum mama". 

 

Bet you wouldnt stick that finger in MY face Old Gal!

Well...That didn't take long... heh.

I love it..the preacher wannabes get all "Waaaah! The heathens are interrupting our sermons!" and then they turn around and do the exact same thing to the heathens. LMAO!

 

Kwitcherbiatchin' preachers....What goes around comes around.

 

I notice gbrk goes blue when he's in "god mode." 

 

Hey! gbrk! "Light blue" is a bugger to read after awhile against a "grey-blue" background.

 

 

 I've always figured that 'morality' preceded 'religion.'

 

 

 

Your real tough when you cant be in face to face Mr Wife beater pansy boy. LOL

One more point-since no one, christians included, even follows ALL the 10 commandments why are they so hot to have them posted in public buildings?

================

Graffiti jenn dear has been around since ancient times according to Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gra****i

The article also points out:

 

Controversies that surround graffiti continue to create disagreement amongst city officials/law enforcement and graffitists who wish to display and appreciate work in public locations. There are many different types and styles of graffiti and it is a rapidly developing art form whose value is highly contested, reviled by many authorities while also subject to protection, sometimes within the same jurisdiction.

So? That still doesn't answer my question.

=======================

You ask why it was done. I was simply pointing out that it is a form of graffiti.

Graffiti does not require a paint can. The Wiki article shows similar things scratched on publick facades.

Humans do it as a form of expression. You are not required to agree with its intent or content.

It is there due to some cause.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe putting graffiti on buildings you don't own is illegal.

I think one of the fallacies common in atheistic reasoning is they fail to see the difference in something that exists and the view of that same thing with their head turned away. One may not like certain things but one must deal with the reality that these things must be included as affecting society. Constantly screaming its not there is an Adot.

 Not liking something goes a long way when it's your own property that you feel is being defaced. Put the 10 commandments all over your yard, house, even your own business, but don't put it on my property, and public property IS as much ours as it is yours.

 

Adot you silly person.  You left off the 613 other commandments, sir.

Yes, there are actually 623 commandments spoken directly by Yahweh.  Don't go outside today.  Or stay inside. If you do, you will surely break at least a dozen of them.

==========================

Darlin’ your question was not to it’s appropriateness or legality but why they are there.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

??? Lil' early to start drinkin' ain't it, buf?

So rum mama is buf? I was wondering which retread it was.

**********************************************************************************************************

 

No, that was not the question. The question was not WHY they were there. The question was why are they so hot to have them there since no one follows ALL of them anyway.

And try to keep up ramn. I didn't mention the legality of the commandments, we were discussing the legality of graffiti.

Good grief jenn I'm not explaining anything else to you and don't say sheesh any more it sounds goofy.

Thank you-since you are absolutely no good at explaining anything to anyone that will be a relief. You should stop twisting words and posts to "say" things they don't, that's what's goofy.

====================hey jenn

I’ll show you goofy on the cops face when I boss hogg thru that li’l town of yours in my 74 caddy convertible, top down , seat slid back my arm hangin’ out the car window the wind flappin ketsup an mustard off my dress white shirt from ‘Dub’s’. I’m in Madison County before Barney pulls out in the road. hahaha

 Please do that. I'd pay to see the look on your face when you find out they aren't barney's.

Yeah. Ain't it kinda obvious?

 

 

 

 

 

gbrk,
I guess I should start by noting that you still haven't answered or addressed my questions or Sam Harris' comments on The (apologies to Uno) 10 Commandments, which I thought was part of the quid pro quo for my answer to you. I hereby benevolently release you if you wish not to follow through for some reason. I should also probably say that I've been posting on or starting threads here for about a year without ever feeling the need to explain what was posted or caring to direct anybody on how to respond or specifying who can/can't reply. I don't care for that head-case level of control over an idea and less over other people. As to posting someone else's ideas/words, I don't see the need reinvent the wheel in order to feign credit for an idea that someone else put together so well that I feel is worth sharing. It's no skin off my nose to do so and I don't think I've ever been accused of not having something to say or the ability to say it.

So anyway, in your impatience I believe you answered your own questions last night. Perhaps your answers are all you want to hear?

So I'll say this, pointing out that the Founding Fathers of our country were religious (Deist, Christian, etc.) is only helpful to secularists like me and directly leads to the fact that the religiously-minded Founding Fathers carefully, thoughtfully and purposely designed a secular government. The precepts of secularism (not Christianity or any other religion) is the only philosophical concept directly aligned with the American freedoms we enjoy. If you're claiming that the USA was founded on Christian principles, then please identify these particular Christian principles.

Here's a partial list of very American principles that are nowhere to be found in the Bible: Democracy (!), Freedom of Religion (which is in direct opposition to your 10 Commandments), Freedom of Speech (where is the right to dissent in the Bible?), Freedom from Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Right to Privacy, Equality of the Genders and "Races", Freedom of Assembly and Press, Trial by Jury, Due Process, Habeas Corpus, Right to Education, Balance of Power, Etc. I'm sure there's others but none of the above are Christian principles. And what's more American that democracy, freedom of religion and freedom of speech?

Next, kindly show me where the foundational document of this country (The Constitution) refers to the Bible, Jesus or any endorsements of Christianity. Please demonstrate how the Bill of Rights is based on Christian dogma rather than secular ethical values. Please read up on the history of how the Constitution came into being and the fervent debates that lead to purposely leaving Christianity out of the realm of government and governance. While you're at it read up on the Treaty of Tripoli which was negotiated under order of George Washington and signed into law by John Adams in 1797, stating, "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded in the Christian Religion".

I'll repeat, the fact that many of the Founding Fathers were Christian (don't equate Enlightenment Christians of 200+ years ago to modern Christians, btw) and that Christianity was culturally dominant at the time of our nation's founding ONLY proves my point that the separation of Christianity and other religions from government was deliberately fought for and agreed upon by our Founding Fathers.

Adot, you are wasting your time. Our fore fathers based the country on Christian principles. accept it and move on. You are a master in futility.

The best parts of the 10 suggestions were stolen from other religions. Most Christian beliefs were plagiarized from other religions. They didn't have the intellectual capacity to be original.

Anybody that kisses you is kissing a azz.LOL~

---

 

I have no problem addressing  your request to reply to the questions or statements regarding you initial post however I chose to respond in time and to sections of my own choosing as I find time and opportunity, so bear with me it is not a case of seeking to avoid the subject.

---

The fact that Christians were culturally dominant is not only evident from historical records but just common reasoning realizing that those who risk life and their families lives did to due mainly to the Church of England and the actions of that Church and how it effected the Government they were ruled by.  Those who came here then set up, within their own communities, rules to Govern themselves by and one prevailing thought and goal they set forth was to have the freedom to worship God in whatever way they wanted to without having it dictated to them.  It is my belief that this same sentiment carried over all the way into the First Amendment in the Constitution.  The irony, at least to me, is that they wanted great protection that no Government would be controlled by a Church and hence dictate, to them, how they would worship God.  The translation that has morphed into through the years to today's time is that Government now dictates that you cannot worship God in any way that is connected to the Government.  I don't believe that was the intent of the First Amendment.  It was to protect from a Theocracy but was to expand the citizens right to practice their religion (worship of God) in freedom and whatever way they wanted.

 

Today what that evolved into is that if a person/citizen is on Government property that they cannot worship God in any way.  No Prayers or setting up a prayer group or study group on anywhere that is Federal property.   The key, I believe, is this.  Freedom of Worshiping as one individually wants without Government dictating how such worship happens. 

 

IF it was the other way around, the way that many interpret it today then how do you or anyone else explain the purchase and distribution of Bibles by Congress?  There are many references to God as creator and recognition of God within the text of the words of addresses and speeches given by many of the founding fathers and Government officials.  The principal protection was not from the Church but from the Government to allow Government to do it's job rather than dictating worship of the people.  Today that is to prevent the worship of the people if it happens on Government property such as banning the display of Christmas displays or the 10 Commandments in and around many Government buildings. 

 

I propose that our founding fathers along with the Constitution and Federalist Papers all reflect the same sentiment of the people from the original settlers.  They were not trying to convert people to Christianity but they were protecting the right of people to worship as they felt led to worship.  I fully believe the background and historical documents and records will reinforce that thought.  Today however there seems to be a movement to eliminate God from anything to do with Government and in doing so I do not believe that was the original intent of our leaders back then.  I further do not believe they ever envisioned a society in which God was denied as Creator and God.  As people came here they did so and acclimated themselves to our society and Land and although there was great diversity in the various people that came here they came here to enjoy freedom and the ability to create for them a bountiful life of prosperity.  They came here because of the nature of our Government.  Today however many come here and expect the Government to acclimate to them rather than the opposite. 

If one understands and comprehends the reasons for the settlers to risk their and their families lives to come to this country then it should not be a surprise to anyone that our Governing Document should not be a Religious Document.  If one looks at the first amendment one can realize that the fear of the people was that America would become as England or other countries where Religion dictated the running of the Government including telling people how to worship and what view of Christianity was right.  It should not be expected then that within the very document that is set up to govern our Country would be written and worded so as not to endorse any particular religion or denomination and this was purposefully done by an overwhelming number of professing and practicing Christians.  They did not want to create a document that would force upon themselves the very reason they left England and Europe in the first place.  They wanted the freedom to worship as they saw fit and how they wanted so the First Amendment protected that and the remaining document (The Constitution) established the order of our Country and how it would be run.   As for attempts to separate the Document from Christianity or use it to isolate it from Christian practice of acknowledgement of God is just either wishful thinking or revisionary History or just plain denial.  Consider the following article :

---

from: http://www.apologeticspress.or...y=7&article=2556

---

Christianity is in the Constitution

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

 

Those who insist that America was not intended to be a “Christian nation” point to the obvious absence of specific directives regarding Christianity in the federal Constitution. The popular propaganda since the 1960s has been that “the irreligious Framers did not want the nation to retain any attachment to the Christian religion.” Such an assertion is a monstrous perversion of historical fact. The truth of the matter is that they were fearful of the potential interference by the federal government in its ability to place restrictions on the free exercise of the Christian religion. Consequently, they desired that the specifics of religion be left up to the discretion of the several states.

Nevertheless, we must not think for a moment that the federal Framers did not sanction the nation’s intimate affiliation with Christianity, or that they attempted to keep religion out of the Constitution. On the contrary, the Christian religion is inherently assumed and implicitly present in the Constitution. In fact, the United States Constitution contains a direct reference to Jesus Christ! Consider three proofs for these contentions (See Constitution of the United..., 1789).

First, consider the meaning of the First Amendment to the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....” We have been told that, by “establishment of religion,” the Framers meant for the government to maintain complete religious neutrality and that pluralism ought to prevail, i.e., that all religions (whether Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or Hinduism), though equally tolerated, must not be given any acknowledgement in the public sector. But such an outlandish claim is absolutely false. All one has to do is to go directly to the delegate discussions pertaining to the wording of the First Amendment in order to ascertain the context and original intent of the final wording (Annals of Congress, 1789, pp. 440ff.). The facts of the matter are that by their use of the term “religion,” the Framers had in mind the several Protestant denominations. Their concern was to prevent any single Christian denomination from being elevated above the others and made the State religion—a circumstance that the Founders had endured under British rule when the Anglican Church was the state religion of the thirteen colonies. They further sought to leave the individual States free to make their own determinations with regard to religious (i.e., Christian) matters (cf. Story, 1833, 3.1873:730-731). The “Father of the Bill of Rights,” George Mason, actually proposed the following wording for the First Amendment, which demonstrates the context of their wording:

[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others (as quoted in Rowland, 1892, 1:244, emp. added).

By “prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” the Framers intended to convey that the federal government was not to interfere with the free and public practice of the Christian religion—the very thing that the courts have been doing since the 1960s.

Second, consider the wording of a sentence from Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution: “If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it....” “Sundays excepted”? The government shuts down and does not transact business on Sunday? Why? If this provision had been made in respect of Jews, the Constitution would have read “Saturdays excepted.” If provision had been made for Muslims, the Constitution would have read “Fridays excepted.” If the Founders had intended to encourage a day of inactivity for the government without regard to any one religion, they could have chosen Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. Instead, the federal Constitution reads “Sundays excepted”—proving conclusively that America was Christian in its orientation and that the Framers themselves shared the Christian worldview and gave political recognition to and accommodation of that fact.

Third, if these two allusions to Christianity are not enough, consider yet another. Immediately after Article VII, the Constitution closes with the following words:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth....

Did you catch it? Their work was done “in the Year of our Lord.” The Christian world dates all of human history in terms of the birth of Christ. “B.C.” means “before Christ,” and “A.D.” is the abbreviation for the Latin words “anno Domini,” meaning “year of our Lord.” If the Framers were interested in being pluralistic, multi-cultural, and politically correct, they would have refrained from using the B.C./A.D. designation. Or they would have used the religionless designations “C.E.,” Common Era, and “B.C.E.,” Before the Common Era (see “Common Era,” 2008). In so doing, they would have avoided offending Jews, atheists, agnostics, and humanists. Or they could have used “A.H.” (anno hegirae—which means “in the year of the Hijrah” and refers to Muhammad’s flight from Mecca in A.D. 622), the date used by Muslims as the commencement date for the Islamic calendar. Instead, the Framers chose to utilize the dating method that indicated the worldview they shared. What’s more, their reference to “our Lord” does not refer to a generic deity, nor does it refer even to God the Father. It refers to God the Son—an explicit reference to Jesus Christ. Make no mistake: the Constitution of the United States contains an explicit reference to Jesus Christ—not Allah, Buddha, Muhammad, nor the gods of Hindus or Native Americans!

Let’s get this straight: The Declaration of Independence contains four allusions to the God of the Bible. The U.S. Constitution contains allusions to the freedom to practice the Christian religion unimpeded, the significance and priority of Sunday worship, as well as the place of Jesus Christ in history. So, according to the thinking of the ACLU and a host of liberal educators, politicians, and judges, the Constitution is—unconstitutional! Go figure.

REFERENCES

Annals of Congress (1789), “Amendments to the Constitution,” June 8, [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/...1/llac001.db&rec Num=221.

“Common Era” (2008), Encyclopædia Britannica Online, [On-line], URL: http://www.britannica.com/EBch...ic/128268/Common-Era.

Constitution of the United States (1789), [On-line], URL: http://www.archives.gov/exhibi...rs/constitution.html.

Rowland, Kate (1892), The Life of George Mason (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons).

Story, Joseph (1833), Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston, MA: Hilliard, Gray, & Co.), [On-line], URL: http://www.constitution.org/js/js_344.htm.

---

 

The above is but one reference and there are many more.  Many are repetitious and I will use one more in a post after this one in order to reduce the amount of space in the reply.  Again the point I wanted to say was IF the Founding Fathers wanted to protect against a Government that was a Theocracy the best way to do it would be to create a Constitution that was not replete with the very thing you were seeking to avoid.  The Constitution was to serve a purpose and be the guide for the establishment of our Countries Government and therefore carried through the whole document the sentiments professed in the First Amendment.  Attempts to REMOVE GOD or the Christian influence from the Document or it's writers though is unwarranted and not backed up from History.  

 

 

This is the second reply to the above section and rather than copy and past parts of a document/url page that I believe addresses it I will paste the whole article as it dose far better at conveying the thought and information than I could alone.  Note the following is from:

---

"The Faith of our Fathers"  Stand to Reason at the following URL

http://www.str.org/site/News2?...sArticle&id=5243

---

 

Who Were the Founding Fathers?

Historical proof-texts can be raised on both sides. Certainly there were godless men among the early leadership of our nation, though some of those cited as examples of Founding Fathers turn out to be insignificant players. For example, Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen may have been hostile to evangelical Christianity, but they were firebrands of the Revolution, not intellectual architects of the Constitution. Paine didn't arrive in this country until 1774 and only stayed a short time.

As for others--George Washington, Samuel Adams, James Madison, John Witherspoon, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, John Adams, Patrick Henry, and even Thomas Jefferson--their personal correspondence, biographies, and public statements are replete with quotations showing that these thinkers had political philosophies deeply influenced by Christianity.

 

The Constitutional Convention

It's not necessary to dig through the diaries, however, to determine which faith was the Founder's guiding light. There's an easier way to settle the issue.

The phrase "Founding Fathers" is a proper noun. It refers to a specific group of men, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. There were other important players not in attendance, like Jefferson, whose thinking deeply influenced the shaping of our nation. These 55 Founding Fathers, though, made up the core.

The denominational affiliations of these men were a matter of public record. Among the delegates were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists--Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin--this at a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith.[1]

This is a revealing tally. It shows that the members of the Constitutional Convention, the most influential group of men shaping the political foundations of our nation, were almost all Christians, 51 of 55--a full 93%. Indeed, 70% were Calvinists (the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and the Dutch Reformed), considered by some to be the most extreme and dogmatic form of Christianity.

 

Benjamin Franklin

Even Franklin the deist is equivocal. He was raised in a Puritan family and later adopted then abandoned deism. Though not an orthodox Christian, it was 81-year-old Franklin's emotional call to humble prayer on June 28, 1787, that was the turning point for a hopelessly stalled Convention. James Madison recorded the event in his collection of notes and debates from the Federal Convention. Franklin's appeal contained no less than four direct references to Scripture.

And have we forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, sir, a long time and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings that 'except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.[2]

Three of the four cornerstones of the Constitution--Franklin, Washington, and Madison--were firmly rooted in Christianity. But what about Thomas Jefferson? His signature cannot be found at the end of the Constitution, but his voice permeates the entire document.

 

Thomas Jefferson

Though deeply committed to a belief in natural rights, including the self-evident truth that all men are created equal, Jefferson was individualistic when it came to religion; he sifted through the New Testament to find the facts that pleased him.

Sometimes he sounded like a staunch churchman. The Declaration of Independence contains at least four references to God. In his Second Inaugural Address he asked for prayers to Israel's God on his behalf. Other times Jefferson seemed to go out of his way to be irreverent and disrespectful of organized Christianity, especially Calvinism.

It's clear that Thomas Jefferson was no evangelical, but neither was he an Enlightenment deist. He was more Unitarian than either deist or Christian.[3]

This analysis, though, misses the point. The most important factor regarding the faith of Thomas Jefferson--or any of our Founding Fathers--isn't whether or not he had a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. The debate over the religious heritage of this country is not about who is ultimately going to heaven, but rather about what the dominant convictions were that dictated the structure of this nation.

Even today there are legions of born-again Christians who have absolutely no skill at integrating their beliefs about Christ with the details of their daily life, especially their views of government. They may be "saved," but they are completely ineffectual as salt and light.

By contrast, some of the Fathers may not have been believers in the narrowest sense of the term, yet in the broader sense--the sense that influences culture--their thinking was thoroughly Christian. Unlike many evangelicals who live lives of practical atheism, these men had political ideals that were deeply informed by a robust Christian world view. They didn't always believe biblically, having a faith leading to salvation, but almost all thought biblically, resulting in a particular type of government.

Thomas Jefferson was this kind of man. In Defending the Declaration, legal historian Gary Amos observes, "Jefferson is a notable example of how a man can be influenced by biblical ideas and Christian principles even though he never confessed Jesus Christ as Lord in the evangelical sense."[4]

What Did the Founding Fathers Believe and Value?

When you study the documents of the Revolutionary period, a precise picture comes into focus. Here it is:

 

• Virtually all those involved in the founding enterprise were God-fearing men in the Christian sense; most were Calvinistic Protestants.
• The Founders were deeply influenced by a biblical view of man and government. With a sober understanding of the fallenness of man, they devised a system of limited authority and checks and balances.
• The Founders understood that fear of God, moral leadership, and a righteous citizenry were necessary for their great experiment to succeed.
• Therefore, they structured a political climate that was encouraging to Christianity and accommodating to religion, rather than hostile to it.
• Protestant Christianity was the prevailing religious view for the first 150 years of our history.

 

However...

 

• The Fathers sought to set up a just society, not a Christian theocracy.
• They specifically prohibited the establishment of Christianity--or any other faith--as the religion of our nation.

 

A Two-Sided Coin

We can safely draw two conclusions from these facts, which serve to inform our understanding of the relationship between religion and government in the United States.

First, Christianity was the prevailing moral and intellectual influence shaping the nation from its outset. The Christian influence pervaded all aspects of life, from education to politics. Therefore, the present concept of a rigid wall of separation hardly seems historically justified.

Virtually every one of the Founders saw a vital link between civil religion and civil government. George Washington's admonitions in his Farewell Speech, September 19, 1796, were characteristic of the general sentiment:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports....And let us indulge with caution the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles.[5]

Second, the Founders stopped short of giving their Christian religion a position of legal privilege. In the tradition of the early church, believers were to be salt and light. The First Amendment insured the liberty needed for Christianity to be a preserving influence and a moral beacon, but it also insured Christianity would never be the law of the land.

This ought to call into serious question a common tactic of the so-called Religious Right. "We were here first," their apologists proclaim. "Our country was stolen from us, and we demand it back." Author John Seel calls this "priority as entitlement."

The sad fact of the matter is that cultural authority was not stolen from us; we surrendered it through neglect. Os Guinness pointed out that Christians have not been out-thought. Rather, they have not been around when the thinking was being done.

Choosing cultural monasticism rather than hard-thinking advocacy, Christians abandoned the public square to the secularists. When the disciples of Jesus Christ retreated, the disciples of Dewey, Marx, Darwin, Freud, Nietzsche, Skinner, and a host of others replaced them.

Seel warns of the liability of an "appeal to history as a basis of Christian grounds to authority."[6] Playing the victim will not restore our influence, nor will political strong-arm tactics. Shouldn't our appeal rather be on the basis of truth rather than on the patterns of the past?

 

The faith of our Founding Fathers was Christianity, not deism. In this regard, many secularists--and even some Christians--have been wrong in their assessment of our history. On the other hand, many Christians have also been mistaken in their application of the past to the present.

Christians have no special privileges simply because Christianity was America's first faith. "If America ever was or ever will be a 'Christian nation,'" Seel observes, "it is not by conscious design or written law, but by free conviction."[7]

Success for the Christian cannot be measured in numbers or political muscle, but only in faithfulness. Our most important weapon is not our voting power, but the power of the truth freely spoken and freely heard.

 

Recommended Reading:

Let Freedom Ring--A Basic Outline of American History, available through the Family Research Council, 700 Thirteenth St., N.W., Suite 500, Washington D.C. 20005, 1-800-225-4008

The Light and the Glory, Peter Marshall and David Manuel (Grand Rapids: Revell, 1977)

Christianity and the Constitution--The Faith of Our Founding Fathers, John Eidsmoe (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987)

Defending the Declaration--How the Bible and Christianity Influenced the Writing of the Declaration of Independence, Gary T. Amos (Brentwood, TN: Wogelmuth & Hyatt, 1989)

Positive Neutrality: Letting Religious Freedom Ring, Stephen T. Monsma, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993)

---