Court upholds 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance

[Foxfyre]

In the 1770's, the Founders weren't confused on which God they meant.

No, they weren't. And no Deist would proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior which most of the Founders did and no Deist would consider the Bible a holy book which most of the Founders did.

Nor would a man who truly believed that all men are created equal own slaves and refuse to free his own children.

The FF were men. They were not gods. They were oft wrong. They knew they could be wrong, that's why the system was designed to be changeable.

Then why are so many of you so gung ho to make a Deist out of Thomas Jefferson, the most famous of the Founders who owned slaves? Or John Locke, not a Founder, but another so many of you want to make a great Deist had no problem with slavery in the Carolinas. And free their own children from what? I certainly believe 'freeing' your children before they reach the age of majority is not the proper duty of a parent.

Can you say with certainty what your own beliefs and attitudes would be had you been born into their time instead of ours? Or what their beliefs and attitudes would be had they been born into our time instead of theirs?

The Founders of course were not infallible and they did provide a means to amend the Constitution. But they were absolutely firm in their conviction that the underlying basis of personal liberty and right to choose one's own destiny that were written into the Constitution must never be allowed to be violated. Once we lose that principle, we lose it all. They did not intend it to be a document that could be interpreted any old way that an ideologically partisan group wanted to interpret it.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

No, they weren't. And no Deist would proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior which most of the Founders did and no Deist would consider the Bible a holy book which most of the Founders did.

Nor would a man who truly believed that all men are created equal own slaves and refuse to free his own children.

The FF were men. They were not gods. They were oft wrong. They knew they could be wrong, that's why the system was designed to be changeable.

Then why are so many of you so gung ho to make a Deist out of Thomas Jefferson, the most famous of the Founders who owned slaves?

I have never appealed to Jefferson as an authority on anything save his own writings and actions.

Or John Locke, not a Founder, but another so many of you want to make a great Deist had no problem with slavery in the Carolinas

It is well known on this forum that I disagree with Locke on many things and hold those who worship him and his blatantly dishonest 'philosophy' in disdain.

. And free their own children from what?

Slavery, you dolt.

Can you say with certainty what your own beliefs and attitudes would be had you been born into their time instead of ours? Or what their beliefs and attitudes would be had they been born into our time instead of theirs?

Had their beliefs actually been what they had written,I'd have had almost no problems with them. Their actions prove their words hollow.

The Founders of course were not infallible and they did provide a means to amend the Constitution. But they were absolutely firm in their conviction that the underlying basis of personal liberty and right to choose one's own destiny that were written into the Constitution must never be allowed to be violated.

-unless you were black, female, or poor.

 

[Coyote]

TO: COYOTE:

To save time I didn't include the full context for the quotations I used, but I should have said that. In my opinion, every single one will hold up within the full context as well as it does outside of it. I don't think you can find many quotations to rebut them that would hold up within their full context. I will concede that there may be one or two out there, but I can't think of what they would be.

Here are some examples.

Thomas Jefferson: despite attempts to make Jefferson into a devout Christian there is very little material to support that. For example, Jefferson frequently makes mention of the Laws of Nature and Nature's God (a term used by Diests). Jefferson rejected much of of the religious aspect of Christianity and even edited the Bible to remove references to miracles, superstition, and mysticism. Jefferson was regarded as an "infidel" by his electoral enemies for his views on Christianity. Simply because he referenced "God" does not mean belief in or identification with the personal God of Christianity - a common mistake made when people try to rewrite history to present a more Christian view of historical figures like Jefferson. Was he a Deist? He never formally identified himself with a Deist movement but much of his writings, particularly later in life reflected a complex interweaving of Deism, Christianity, and what would now be considered Unitarianism. He was a man who asked penetrating questions and his beliefs really can't be boxed into a neat package labeled "Christian" or "Deist" for todays political convenience.

Here are some quotes (without context to save time):

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. Notes on Virginia, 1782

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Notes on Virginia, 1782

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814


Ben Franklin may have been raised Episcopal, but he was a Deist as an adult with a more moderate attitude towards religion than Jefferson.

Some Franklin quotes:
"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble."The entire quote (a bit long to put here) is here: Ben Franklin Quotes- ExChristian.Net - Articles

It reflects a more Deist point of view than a Christian one, which hinges upon accepting Christ's divinity.

Also from the same source:
"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it."[Benjamin Franklin from "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion", Nov. 20, 1728]

"It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin's general good character and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers" [Priestley's Autobiography, p. 60, on Benjamin Franklin]

Thomas Paine was without a doubt a Deist who did not believe in the personal god of Christianity (I notice you avoid mentioning any of his quotes):

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.

I do not believe because a man and a woman make a child that it imposes on the Creator the unavoidable obligation of keeping the being so made in eternal existance hereafter. It is in His power to do so, or not to do so, and it is not in my power to decide which He will do.

Or, lets look at George Washington: a lifelong member of the Episcopal Church (a church affiliation was required for public life) but he was neither deeply religious, nor was he particularly Christian. In fact, most historians consider him a Deist though he never formally joined a movement, or a Theist. Washingtons own writing reflected a blend of deist and non-deist views. His religious views were generally broad and non-specific.


In none of these people is there the consistent strength of belief to support your statement: ...but they believed that it would be people of faith, primarily the Christians, who would understand the Constitution and would defend the individual liberties it offered. And they believed that if those Christian defenders of the Constitution should become a minority, the Republic and those liberties would not be sustained.

Even the definition of Deism that you posted does not rebut my opinion that very few, if any, of the Founders were Deists. I believe that is propaganda and a rewrite of history introduced by Atheists some years ago and the intent was to discredit the religious history and heritage that influenced the content of the Constitution. Our Founders were mostly devoutly religious, intensely aware of a God in their lives, and secure in their salvation in Jesus.

Well, right there we leave reason and resort to ad hominum. The writings of the ones I mentioned above do not reflect your last sentence but rather, indicate a much more complex view of religion closer to a deist/theist point of view than a "devoutly religious" one.

Did they intend this to be a Christian nation? I believe they absolutely did even as the doors would be open to a wide assortment of Christian disciplines and non-Christians alike or people of no religion. They were determined that there be no theocracy, but they believed that it would be people of faith, primarily the Christians, who would understand the Constitution and would defend the individual liberties it offered. And they believed that if those Christian defenders of the Constitution should become a minority, the Republic and those liberties would not be sustained.
It remains to be seen whether they were right.

Where do Jefferson, Washington, Franklin or Paine express that belief?

 

[Foxfyre]

TO: COYOTE:

To save time I didn't include the full context for the quotations I used, but I should have said that. In my opinion, every single one will hold up within the full context as well as it does outside of it. I don't think you can find many quotations to rebut them that would hold up within their full context. I will concede that there may be one or two out there, but I can't think of what they would be.

Here are some examples.

Thomas Jefferson: despite attempts to make Jefferson into a devout Christian there is very little material to support that. For example, Jefferson frequently makes mention of the Laws of Nature and Nature's God (a term used by Diests). Jefferson rejected much of of the religious aspect of Christianity and even edited the Bible to remove references to miracles, superstition, and mysticism. Jefferson was regarded as an "infidel" by his electoral enemies for his views on Christianity. Simply because he referenced "God" does not mean belief in or identification with the personal God of Christianity - a common mistake made when people try to rewrite history to present a more Christian view of historical figures like Jefferson. Was he a Deist? He never formally identified himself with a Deist movement but much of his writings, particularly later in life reflected a complex interweaving of Deism, Christianity, and what would now be considered Unitarianism. He was a man who asked penetrating questions and his beliefs really can't be boxed into a neat package labeled "Christian" or "Deist" for todays political convenience.

Here are some quotes (without context to save time):

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. Notes on Virginia, 1782

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Notes on Virginia, 1782

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814


Ben Franklin may have been raised Episcopal, but he was a Deist as an adult with a more moderate attitude towards religion than Jefferson.

Some Franklin quotes:
"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble."The entire quote (a bit long to put here) is here: Ben Franklin Quotes- ExChristian.Net - Articles

It reflects a more Deist point of view than a Christian one, which hinges upon accepting Christ's divinity.

Also from the same source:
"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it."[Benjamin Franklin from "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion", Nov. 20, 1728]

"It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin's general good character and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers" [Priestley's Autobiography, p. 60, on Benjamin Franklin]

Thomas Paine was without a doubt a Deist who did not believe in the personal god of Christianity (I notice you avoid mentioning any of his quotes):

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.

I do not believe because a man and a woman make a child that it imposes on the Creator the unavoidable obligation of keeping the being so made in eternal existance hereafter. It is in His power to do so, or not to do so, and it is not in my power to decide which He will do.

Or, lets look at George Washington: a lifelong member of the Episcopal Church (a church affiliation was required for public life) but he was neither deeply religious, nor was he particularly Christian. In fact, most historians consider him a Deist though he never formally joined a movement, or a Theist. Washingtons own writing reflected a blend of deist and non-deist views. His religious views were generally broad and non-specific.


In none of these people is there the consistent strength of belief to support your statement: ...but they believed that it would be people of faith, primarily the Christians, who would understand the Constitution and would defend the individual liberties it offered. And they believed that if those Christian defenders of the Constitution should become a minority, the Republic and those liberties would not be sustained.

Even the definition of Deism that you posted does not rebut my opinion that very few, if any, of the Founders were Deists. I believe that is propaganda and a rewrite of history introduced by Atheists some years ago and the intent was to discredit the religious history and heritage that influenced the content of the Constitution. Our Founders were mostly devoutly religious, intensely aware of a God in their lives, and secure in their salvation in Jesus.

Well, right there we leave reason and resort to ad hominum. The writings of the ones I mentioned above do not reflect your last sentence but rather, indicate a much more complex view of religion closer to a deist/theist point of view than a "devoutly religious" one.

Did they intend this to be a Christian nation? I believe they absolutely did even as the doors would be open to a wide assortment of Christian disciplines and non-Christians alike or people of no religion. They were determined that there be no theocracy, but they believed that it would be people of faith, primarily the Christians, who would understand the Constitution and would defend the individual liberties it offered. And they believed that if those Christian defenders of the Constitution should become a minority, the Republic and those liberties would not be sustained.
It remains to be seen whether they were right.

Where do Jefferson, Washington, Franklin or Paine express that belief?

In the quotations, whether in or out of context, that I posted and there are many others. I am well aware of the quotations you posted but put into their proper context, each was an argument against a state religion and not a statement against God or Christianity.

Do not confuse a conviction rejecting a state religion with a conviction that the nation would not be best served by people of faith. Those are two very different things. The Founders, to a man, rejected a state religion. And to a man, each knew that a people without faith that provided a moral center would not and could not sustain the Republic given to them in the Constitution.

Even Thomas Paine, who WAS a Deist agreed with that. Even as he rejected formal religion as practiced by Christians and Jews et al, he wrote in his "Age of Reason":

"As several of my colleagues and others of my fellow-citizens of France have given me the example of making their voluntary and individual profession of faith, I also will make mine; and I do this with all that sincerity and frankness with which the mind of man communicates with itself.

I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.

I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy."

 

[Coyote]

In the quotations, whether in or out of context, that I posted and there are many others. I am well aware of the quotations you posted but put into their proper context, each was an argument against a state religion and not a statement against God or Christianity.

Do not confuse a conviction rejecting a state religion with a conviction that the nation would not be best served by people of faith. Those are two very different things. The Founders, to a man, rejected a state religion. And to a man, each knew that a people without faith that provided a moral center would not and could not sustain the Republic given to them in the Constitution.

I am aware of the difference between arguing against state religion, which they all did, and feelings towards God or Christianity.

Even those quotes arguing against a state religion, reflect an ambivalence or even hostility towards Christianity or the idea that one religion is the only right one. The writings of both Jefferson and Franklin and Pain express a view that is more akin to deist/theist then "devout Christian who believes Jesus is salvation." - that view, and a certainty in the divinity of Jesus (a central tenant) is scarce in their works. Instead - you have a lot of questioning and questioning the role of religion in public life.

Even Thomas Paine, who WAS a Deist agreed with that. Even as he rejected formal religion as practiced by Christians and Jews et al, he wrote in his "Age of Reason":

"As several of my colleagues and others of my fellow-citizens of France have given me the example of making their voluntary and individual profession of faith, I also will make mine; and I do this with all that sincerity and frankness with which the mind of man communicates with itself.

I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.

I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy."

Agreed - but, he was a Deist.

 

[Anguille]

TO: COYOTE:

To save time I didn't include the full context for the quotations I used, but I should have said that. In my opinion, every single one will hold up within the full context as well as it does outside of it. I don't think you can find many quotations to rebut them that would hold up within their full context. I will concede that there may be one or two out there, but I can't think of what they would be.

Here are some examples.

Thomas Jefferson: despite attempts to make Jefferson into a devout Christian there is very little material to support that. For example, Jefferson frequently makes mention of the Laws of Nature and Nature's God (a term used by Diests). Jefferson rejected much of of the religious aspect of Christianity and even edited the Bible to remove references to miracles, superstition, and mysticism. Jefferson was regarded as an "infidel" by his electoral enemies for his views on Christianity. Simply because he referenced "God" does not mean belief in or identification with the personal God of Christianity - a common mistake made when people try to rewrite history to present a more Christian view of historical figures like Jefferson. Was he a Deist? He never formally identified himself with a Deist movement but much of his writings, particularly later in life reflected a complex interweaving of Deism, Christianity, and what would now be considered Unitarianism. He was a man who asked penetrating questions and his beliefs really can't be boxed into a neat package labeled "Christian" or "Deist" for todays political convenience.

Here are some quotes (without context to save time):

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. Notes on Virginia, 1782

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Notes on Virginia, 1782

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814


Ben Franklin may have been raised Episcopal, but he was a Deist as an adult with a more moderate attitude towards religion than Jefferson.

Some Franklin quotes:
"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble."The entire quote (a bit long to put here) is here: Ben Franklin Quotes- ExChristian.Net - Articles

It reflects a more Deist point of view than a Christian one, which hinges upon accepting Christ's divinity.

Also from the same source:
"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it."[Benjamin Franklin from "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion", Nov. 20, 1728]

"It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin's general good character and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers" [Priestley's Autobiography, p. 60, on Benjamin Franklin]

Thomas Paine was without a doubt a Deist who did not believe in the personal god of Christianity (I notice you avoid mentioning any of his quotes):

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.

I do not believe because a man and a woman make a child that it imposes on the Creator the unavoidable obligation of keeping the being so made in eternal existance hereafter. It is in His power to do so, or not to do so, and it is not in my power to decide which He will do.

Or, lets look at George Washington: a lifelong member of the Episcopal Church (a church affiliation was required for public life) but he was neither deeply religious, nor was he particularly Christian. In fact, most historians consider him a Deist though he never formally joined a movement, or a Theist. Washingtons own writing reflected a blend of deist and non-deist views. His religious views were generally broad and non-specific.


In none of these people is there the consistent strength of belief to support your statement: ...but they believed that it would be people of faith, primarily the Christians, who would understand the Constitution and would defend the individual liberties it offered. And they believed that if those Christian defenders of the Constitution should become a minority, the Republic and those liberties would not be sustained.




Well, right there we leave reason and resort to ad hominum. The writings of the ones I mentioned above do not reflect your last sentence but rather, indicate a much more complex view of religion closer to a deist/theist point of view than a "devoutly religious" one.

Did they intend this to be a Christian nation? I believe they absolutely did even as the doors would be open to a wide assortment of Christian disciplines and non-Christians alike or people of no religion. They were determined that there be no theocracy, but they believed that it would be people of faith, primarily the Christians, who would understand the Constitution and would defend the individual liberties it offered. And they believed that if those Christian defenders of the Constitution should become a minority, the Republic and those liberties would not be sustained.
It remains to be seen whether they were right.

Where do Jefferson, Washington, Franklin or Paine express that belief?

In the quotations, whether in or out of context, that I posted and there are many others. I am well aware of the quotations you posted but put into their proper context, each was an argument against a state religion and not a statement against God or Christianity.

Do not confuse a conviction rejecting a state religion with a conviction that the nation would not be best served by people of faith. Those are two very different things. The Founders, to a man, rejected a state religion. And to a man, each knew that a people without faith that provided a moral center would not and could not sustain the Republic given to them in the Constitution.

Even Thomas Paine, who WAS a Deist agreed with that. Even as he rejected formal religion as practiced by Christians and Jews et al, he wrote in his "Age of Reason":

"As several of my colleagues and others of my fellow-citizens of France have given me the example of making their voluntary and individual profession of faith, I also will make mine; and I do this with all that sincerity and frankness with which the mind of man communicates with itself.

I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.

I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy."

You make a good argument for your opinion but I think the Paine quote that Coyote provided proves that Paine was clearly non Christian. I think a lot of Christians here would even claim that statement makes him anti-Christian.

 

[Anguille]

Do not confuse a conviction rejecting a state religion with a conviction that the nation would not be best served by people of faith. Those are two very different things. The Founders, to a man, rejected a state religion. And to a man, each knew that a people without faith that provided a moral center would not and could not sustain the Republic given to them in the
Constitution.

Pure projection on your part. A truly fanciful notion.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The Founders, to a man, rejected a state religion. And to a man, each knew that a people without faith that provided a moral center would not and could not sustain the Republic given to them in the
Constitution.

right....


How many genocides does God command in the OT? How many wars and genocides have been justified using that same god in the last 2000 years?

​

 

[Foxfyre]

Even those quotes arguing against a state religion, reflect an ambivalence or even hostility towards Christianity or the idea that one religion is the only right one. The writings of both Jefferson and Franklin and Pain express a view that is more akin to deist/theist then "devout Christian who believes Jesus is salvation." - that view, and a certainty in the divinity of Jesus (a central tenant) is scarce in their works. Instead - you have a lot of questioning and questioning the role of religion in public life.

I am very much a whole context person. I don't think you can take a single chapter or a single letter or a single paragraph out of the whole that the Founders wrote and hold it up as evidence as "See? This is what they preached." The quotation I used even for Thomas Paine is not altered in effect or meaning when placed within the whole of all he wrote.

For you to take those arguments of the Founders against state religion as proof that they were somehow not committed Christians is to deny all that they wrote regarding their personal Christian faith. They can be commended for knowing their religious history well enough to know that all of Christian history is not defensible in the cold light of moral scrutiny. And it was that knowledge that helped them resist affording Christianity any opportunity to be favored by government any more than any other religion would be favored--America was to never be any form of theocracy because of the dangers that would be inherent in that.

Thomas Jefferson wrote to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse in a letter dated June 26, 1822:
"Dear Sir,- I have received and read with thankfulness and pleasure your denunciation of the abuses of tobacco and wine. Yet, however sound in its principles, I expect it will be but a sermon to the wind. You will find it as difficult to inculcate these sanative precepts on the sensualities of the present day, as to convince an Athanasian that there is but one God. I wish success to both attempts, and am happy to learn from you that the latter, at least, is making progress, and the more rapidly in proportion as our Platonizing Christians make more stir and noise about it. The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.

1. That there is one only God, and he all perfect.
2. That there is a future state of rewards and punishments.
3. That to love God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself, is the sum of religion. . ."

That Jefferson did not accept all the ritual, trappings, and dogma of Christianity or that he acknowledged the hypocrisy that was sometimes demonstrated within it in no way diminished his love of God as revealed in Jesus. In fact, Jefferson's faith, was probably not that much different from mine. And I am in no way hostile to Christianity.

 

[Coyote]

Even those quotes arguing against a state religion, reflect an ambivalence or even hostility towards Christianity or the idea that one religion is the only right one. The writings of both Jefferson and Franklin and Pain express a view that is more akin to deist/theist then "devout Christian who believes Jesus is salvation." - that view, and a certainty in the divinity of Jesus (a central tenant) is scarce in their works. Instead - you have a lot of questioning and questioning the role of religion in public life.

I am very much a whole context person. I don't think you can take a single chapter or a single letter or a single paragraph out of the whole that the Founders wrote and hold it up as evidence as "See? This is what they preached." The quotation I used even for Thomas Paine is not altered in effect or meaning when placed within the whole of all he wrote.

For you to take those arguments of the Founders against state religion as proof that they were somehow not committed Christians is to deny all that they wrote regarding their personal Christian faith. They can be commended for knowing their religious history well enough to know that all of Christian history is not defensible in the cold light of moral scrutiny. And it was that knowledge that helped them resist affording Christianity any opportunity to be favored by government any more than any other religion would be favored--America was to never be any form of theocracy because of the dangers that would be inherent in that.

Thomas Jefferson wrote to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse in a letter dated June 26, 1822:
"Dear Sir,- I have received and read with thankfulness and pleasure your denunciation of the abuses of tobacco and wine. Yet, however sound in its principles, I expect it will be but a sermon to the wind. You will find it as difficult to inculcate these sanative precepts on the sensualities of the present day, as to convince an Athanasian that there is but one God. I wish success to both attempts, and am happy to learn from you that the latter, at least, is making progress, and the more rapidly in proportion as our Platonizing Christians make more stir and noise about it. The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.

1. That there is one only God, and he all perfect.
2. That there is a future state of rewards and punishments.
3. That to love God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself, is the sum of religion. . ."

That Jefferson did not accept all the ritual, trappings, and dogma of Christianity or that he acknowledged the hypocrisy that was sometimes demonstrated within it in no way diminished his love of God as revealed in Jesus. In fact, Jefferson's faith, was probably not that much different from mine. And I am in no way hostile to Christianity.

I too am very much “a whole context” person, which is why I don’t feel that isolated quotes or passages can make a case. If I understand you correctly, you are trying to make the case that the vast majority of the founders (indeed all?) were strong Christians who devoutly believed in the salvation offered by Jesus and in his Divinity since a belief in that is integral to being a Christian and thus, America was founded as a “Christian nation” – an argument often made. That is where I disagree. I feel they ran the gamut in terms of belief and the ones in particular that I quoted from may have professed some Christian beliefs, but they also raised serious questions. If you question essential doctrine, then you question the very nature of what it is to be “Christian”.

When I looked up and read the entire letter you quoted from, I came away with a different interpretation than you. His love of God is there but is it the “Christian God” or is it a theist view of God? When you read the entire letter referenced, Jefferson is arguing against established religion and all it’s trappings. He praises the Quakers and seems to identify himself as Unitarian. This is hardly mainstream Christian or is it a belief accepted by most who call themselves “Christian”. Early Unitarians rejected the Trinity, predestination, original sin, and considered the idea that that Jesus was not the son of God, but a man a unique relationship to God. This Unitarian view is evident in the Jefferson Bible where all references to divinity, miracles, resurrection are removed. In fact, he boils things down to the principle commandment: love God and love your fellow man. But, my most commonly accepted definitions - to be Christian means you must accept Jesus’ divinity, and that he died for you and that only through him can you attain Heaven.

From: Thomas Jefferson

It is probably safe to say that Jefferson first acquired from Joseph Priestley features of his world view and faith which he found confirmed to his satisfaction by further thought and study for the rest of his life. These included a withering a scorn for Platonic and all forms of Neoplatonic metaphysics; a fierce loathing of all "priestcraft" whose practitioners he held guilty of deliberately perpetrating rank superstition for centuries, thus maintaining their own power; a serene conviction that Jesus' moral teaching was entirely compatible with natural law as it may be inferred from the sciences; and a unitarian view of Jesus. These features are all well attested in his voluminous private correspondence.

Jefferson's earliest writings on religion exhibit a natural theology, a heavy reliance on reason, and the belief that morality comes not from special revelation but from careful attention to the inward moral sense. In a letter to his nephew Peter Carr in 1787, Jefferson advised, "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god."

He considered Jesus the teacher of a sublime and flawless ethic. Writing in 1803 to the Universalist physician Benjamin Rush, Jefferson wrote, "To the corruptions of Christianity, I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other."

Jefferson found the Unitarian understanding of Jesus compatible with his own. In 1822 he predicted that "there is not a young man now living in the US who will not die an Unitarian." Jefferson requested that a Unitarian minister be dispatched to his area of Virginia. "Missionaries from Cambridge [that is: Harvard Divinity School] would soon be greeted with more welcome, than from the tritheistical school of Andover." Jefferson's christology is apparent in these and similar letters, and also in one of his most famous writings, the "Jefferson Bible."

I'm not hostile to Christianity per se - in fact, my own views are pretty close to the above.

 

[Coyote]

James Madison: “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]

And we could go on and on and on with the quotations that almost all wrote into their speeches, letters, written treatises, etc. etc. etc.

Ravi addressed this quote in another post (thank you Ravi): http://www.usmessageboard.com/2106928-post13.html

According to Snopes.com, Madison never said those words.

This kind of makes me question these quotes, and your knowledge of the context. They sound more like a cut and paste from a list of pro-Christian advocates for the Constitution.

I will admit I do not have a deep enough knowledge here - thus, I try to look stuff up to back up what I am saying. If I am wrong - I'll fess up, but I do not think I am when it comes the breadth of religious views held by the "founders".

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Founders...so what. It is the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land that counts. Many of our Founders were slave holders too. Do you want to hold that up as a founding principle we should continue to follow too? Using your logic...if you were consistant, you would answer "yes" to that.

I don't think you can take the Constitution in isolation as the "Supreme Law" - in order to understand what went into it, you have to read the Federalist Papers and other sources. It was incredibly complex, divisive, and quite argumentative at times. A lot of thought went into it and I don't think it can be properly appreciated or understood in absence of that.

I can buy that...now, show me where god is in the Federalist Papers.

Have you read the federalist papers before?. I'll give you a link and direction

The Federalist Papers all of them online in this link

They talk about God in the Papers but not Jesus or Christians.

Here's an example. It is paragraphs 4-5 in Federalist Paper #2:

4 "I find pleasure in observing that independent America isn't composed of detached, distant territories. Instead, the destiny of our western sons of liberty is one connected, fertile, wide-spreading country. God blessed it with a variety of soils, watered with innumerable streams, for the delight and accommodation of it inhabitants. As if to bind it together, navigable water forms a kind of chain around its borders. And the most noble rivers in the world form convenient highways for easy communication and transportation of commodities.

5 "I often note with equal pleasure that God gave this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in manners and customs. They fought side by side through a long and bloody war, establishing liberty and independence."

 

[☭proletarian☭]

James Madison: “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]

And we could go on and on and on with the quotations that almost all wrote into their speeches, letters, written treatises, etc. etc. etc.

Ravi addressed this quote in another post (thank you Ravi): http://www.usmessageboard.com/2106928-post13.html

According to Snopes.com, Madison never said those words.

This kind of makes me question these quotes, and your knowledge of the context. They sound more like a cut and paste from a list of pro-Christian advocates for the Constitution.

Why do you think it says 'we'?

 

[Coyote]

I don't think you can take the Constitution in isolation as the "Supreme Law" - in order to understand what went into it, you have to read the Federalist Papers and other sources. It was incredibly complex, divisive, and quite argumentative at times. A lot of thought went into it and I don't think it can be properly appreciated or understood in absence of that.

I can buy that...now, show me where god is in the Federalist Papers.

Have you read the federalist papers before?. I'll give you a link and direction

The Federalist Papers all of them online in this link

They talk about God in the Papers but not Jesus or Christians.

Here's an example. It is paragraphs 4-5 in Federalist Paper #2:

4 "I find pleasure in observing that independent America isn't composed of detached, distant territories. Instead, the destiny of our western sons of liberty is one connected, fertile, wide-spreading country. God blessed it with a variety of soils, watered with innumerable streams, for the delight and accommodation of it inhabitants. As if to bind it together, navigable water forms a kind of chain around its borders. And the most noble rivers in the world form convenient highways for easy communication and transportation of commodities.

5 "I often note with equal pleasure that God gave this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in manners and customs. They fought side by side through a long and bloody war, establishing liberty and independence."

Good points but...she's a Dudette

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm not hostile to Christianity per se - in fact, my own views are pretty close to the above.

Well I would take an evaluation of Jefferson from a Unitarian site that desperately wanted Jefferson to be Unitarian with a huge grain of salt as i would take an analysis of the "Jeffersonian Bible" on an Atheist site. If you got a different perspective from that letter than I did, you certainly did not read it through the same eyes or frame of reference. The fact that Jefferson's faith was boiled down to the core principles, much as C.S. Lewis outlined in Mere Christianity and that he sternly rejected Calvinism--he was by no means alone in that--does not make him a Deist nor a Unitarian as we understand Unitarianism today. I think he did pull away from his Anglican roots somewhat and did reject some or most of the dogma inherent in that, but I can find no evidence that Jefferson ever rejected Jesus or Christianity.

At the end of the day I do not expect to change your mind and will respect your point of view. I cannot agree with it. And while I've enjoyed the exercise, I suspect we'll bore other members out of their minds if we continue along this vein.

 

[Coyote]

I'm not hostile to Christianity per se - in fact, my own views are pretty close to the above.

Well I would take an evaluation of Jefferson from a Unitarian site that desperately wanted Jefferson to be Unitarian with a huge grain of salt as i would take an analysis of the "Jeffersonian Bible" on an Atheist site. If you got a different perspective from that letter than I did, you certainly did not read it through the same eyes or frame of reference. The fact that Jefferson's faith was boiled down to the core principles, much as C.S. Lewis outlined in Mere Christianity and that he sternly rejected Calvinism--he was by no means alone in that--does not make him a Deist nor a Unitarian as we understand Unitarianism today. I think he did pull away from his Anglican roots somewhat and did reject some or most of the dogma inherent in that, but I can find no evidence that Jefferson ever rejected Jesus or Christianity.

At the end of the day I do not expect to change your mind and will respect your point of view. I cannot agree with it. And while I've enjoyed the exercise, I suspect we'll bore other members out of their minds if we continue along this vein.

I can certainly respect that - it's nice to have an actual (and civil) debate

As an aside - I was using the description of Unitarian from a historical perspective - not what we consider it today, as what is typically called Unitarian-Universalist....and, at least I gave my sources

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm not hostile to Christianity per se - in fact, my own views are pretty close to the above.

Well I would take an evaluation of Jefferson from a Unitarian site that desperately wanted Jefferson to be Unitarian with a huge grain of salt as i would take an analysis of the "Jeffersonian Bible" on an Atheist site. If you got a different perspective from that letter than I did, you certainly did not read it through the same eyes or frame of reference. The fact that Jefferson's faith was boiled down to the core principles, much as C.S. Lewis outlined in Mere Christianity and that he sternly rejected Calvinism--he was by no means alone in that--does not make him a Deist nor a Unitarian as we understand Unitarianism today. I think he did pull away from his Anglican roots somewhat and did reject some or most of the dogma inherent in that, but I can find no evidence that Jefferson ever rejected Jesus or Christianity.

At the end of the day I do not expect to change your mind and will respect your point of view. I cannot agree with it. And while I've enjoyed the exercise, I suspect we'll bore other members out of their minds if we continue along this vein.

I can certainly respect that - it's nice to have an actual (and civil) debate

As an aside - I was using the description of Unitarian from a historical perspective - not what we consider it today, as what is typically called Unitarian-Universalist....and, at least I gave my sources

Yes you did and I applaud a most worthy opponent.

 

[Anguille]

5 "I often note with equal pleasure that God gave this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in manners and customs. They fought side by side through a long and bloody war, establishing liberty and independence."

That must have been after God took it away from the Great White Spirit.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

5 "I often note with equal pleasure that God gave this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in manners and customs. They fought side by side through a long and bloody war, establishing liberty and independence."

That must have been after God took it away from the Great White Spirit.

Ummmmm ok

 

[Svarstaad]

. . .

Pledge:
A pledge is a promise or agreement by which one binds himself to do or forbear something. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., p. 1153, (BLD6-1153))

Allegiance:
Obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives. (BLD6-74).

Just WHY is everyone ignoring the “elephant in the room” with respect to this debate about the presence of the word “God” in the “Pledge of Allegiance?”

I say, dump the whole pledge, it’s mind control.​

Elephant in the Room:

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HAS NO DUTY TO PROTECT YOU​

South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed.433 (1856)
(the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws.);

FindLaw | Cases and Codes
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 109 S.Ct. 998, 1989 (1989)
(There is no merit to petitioner's contention that the State's knowledge of his danger and expressions of willingness to protect him against that danger established a "special relationship" giving rise to an affirmative constitutional duty to protect. While certain "special relationships" created or assumed by the State with respect to particular individuals may give rise to an affirmative duty, enforceable through the Due Process [489 U.S. 189, 190] Clause, to provide adequate protection,

see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97; Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307,
the affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitations which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf, through imprisonment, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty.)​

U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/04-278P.ZO
Castle Rock v. Gonzales (04-278) 545 U.S. 748 (2005)
366 F.3d 1093, reversed.

(Ms. Gonzales did not have a "property interest" in enforcing the restraining order, Justice Scalia said, adding that "such a right would not, of course, resemble any traditional conception of property." Although the protective order did mandate an arrest, or an arrest warrant, in so many words, Justice Scalia said, "a well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes."​

Under the legal doctrine of sovereign immunity, the police have no duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection.
See, for example,
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)
(no federal Constitutional requirement that police provide protection);
Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (S.Ct. Ala. 1985);
Cal. Govt. Code SSSS 845

(no liability for failure to provide police protection) and 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody);​

Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982);
Stone v. State, 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal. Rep. 339 (1980);
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983);
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App 1981);
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied_ 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977);
Ill. Rev. Stat. 4-102;
Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968);
Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977);
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.);
Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969);
Wuetrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930, certif. denied, 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978);
Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981);
Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984).

Read this book: Call 911 and Die

OVERVIEW OF THE BOOK: Do the police owe a duty to protect you from criminal attack? In most of the United States, the answer is "no." In fact, in most cases the police do not even have to respond to your emergency 911 call.

Don't believe it? Read the true stories from all across America about citizens who depended solely upon their telephone and police response for emergency help against a violent criminal. Not only did those crime victims not get help, the local government and police escaped legal responsibility for failing to help those victims.

This compact paperback reviews the law in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the District of Columbia and Canada, showing how statutes and court decisions consistently hold that the police generally have "no duty" to protect individual citizens. When it comes to personal self-defense, citizens are on their own.

Highlighting the importance of preparing to protect oneself and family, the book also retells 45 stories about people who successfully defended themselves long before any police could help.

Check the law of your state, and of the states where your loved ones live. If you are interested in public policy questions about government liability, gun control or victims' rights, or if protecting yourself and your family is your worry, this book tells you what you need to know about whether you have any "right" to police protection.

Certainly you will never look at your telephone the same way again.

. . .