Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Founding Fathers did indeed believe that we are endowed with unalienable rights. But because they needed the southern states in the union, and some in those southern states would not agree that black men were wholly human, they didn't deal with that in the initial constitution. It was dealt with later, however.
But yes, the Founders, to a man, agreed that God or a Creator or Supreme Being is the source of unalienable rights that men would not be able to set aside for any reason.
And they did absolutely use Christian principles to forge the country that they gave us:
"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this - that it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." - John Quincy Adams
*****************************
"The Bible is the cornerstone of liberty. A student's perusal of the sacred volume will make him a better citizen, a better father, a better husband." - Thomas Jefferson
*****************************
"The Bible is the rock on which our Republic rests." - Andrew Jackson
*****************************
"In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed." - Noah Webster
*****************************
"We have staked the future of American civilization upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." - James Madison
*****************************
"He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world." - Benjamin Franklin
*****************************
"It can not be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions but on the gospel of Jesus Christ." - Patrick Henry
*****************************
"The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles...to this we owe our free constitutions of government." - Noah Webster
*****************************
"Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed the conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?" - Thomas Jefferson
*****************************
"Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly implore His protection and favor." - George Washington
*****************************
"Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited.... What a utopia, what a paradise would this region be." - John Adams
*****************************
"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
(I have furnished sources for all these in earlier posts in this thread so did not do that again here.)
So which is a better indicator of what a politician believes:
What is the best evidence:
Their words or their actions?
What holds more water and credibility in the world? Words spoken or legislation passed and supported?
Which is it? Which is more important for the people? Which protects the people and governs the people?
Words or legislation? Which is a better indicator of where a politician really stands?
So which is a better indicator of what a politician believes:
What is the best evidence:
Their words or their actions?
What holds more water and credibility in the world? Words spoken or legislation passed and supported?
Which is it? Which is more important for the people? Which protects the people and governs the people?
Words or legislation? Which is a better indicator of where a politician really stands?
Their actions were to put their lives on the line, be willing to spill their blood, be willing to lose everything in order to be a free people who would govern themselves. And once they won freedom, they secured it by giving us the original U.S. Constitution. That was the great experiment of the Unitied States. A central government would secure the rights of the people and then leave them alone to govern themselves. There had never been anything like it in the history of the world. It produced the most free, most innovative, most productive, and most prosperous nation the world had ever known.
If their actions that could have cost them all that they had including their lives isn't sufficient for you as proof of where they stood, then I fear that you are quite hopeless and uneducable.
You dodged my question. Slant, distort and twist.
Their actions were to put their lives on the line, be willing to spill their blood, be willing to lose everything in order to be a free people who would govern themselves. And once they won freedom, they secured it by giving us the original U.S. Constitution. That was the great experiment of the Unitied States. A central government would secure the rights of the people and then leave them alone to govern themselves. There had never been anything like it in the history of the world. It produced the most free, most innovative, most productive, and most prosperous nation the world had ever known.
If their actions that could have cost them all that they had including their lives isn't sufficient for you as proof of where they stood, then I fear that you are quite hopeless and uneducable.
You dodged my question. Slant, distort and twist.
I really think that, unfortunately, like the other nitwit on here, you don't have the intellectual capacity to even have this conversation. All you and the other one know how to do is repeat the same thing over and over again like it means something. Neither of you are worth the wasted effort. Or as your partner in crime is so fond of,
Hello again.
You dodged my question. Slant, distort and twist.
I really think that, unfortunately, like the other nitwit on here, you don't have the intellectual capacity to even have this conversation. All you and the other one know how to do is repeat the same thing over and over again like it means something. Neither of you are worth the wasted effort. Or as your partner in crime is so fond of,
Hello again.
How odd that you would say that considering that we are the ones willing to continue this conversation while you are the one disengaging, with a few parting personal shots about US rather than the topic.
I really think that, unfortunately, like the other nitwit on here, you don't have the intellectual capacity to even have this conversation. All you and the other one know how to do is repeat the same thing over and over again like it means something. Neither of you are worth the wasted effort. Or as your partner in crime is so fond of,
Hello again.
How odd that you would say that considering that we are the ones willing to continue this conversation while you are the one disengaging, with a few parting personal shots about US rather than the topic.
You're not 'engaging' in anything but your immature, perceived 'put downs'. All you've done here is repeat the same damn thing throughout this entire thread. You've not discussed anything that anyone has said in return, you just repeat yourself over and over. You do it not only here, but pretty much every thread I've ever seen you post in. You have no desire to hear anyone else's point of view or to even think about what they say, or take them seriously. You're only here to negate everything they say and to put them down, you've already made up your mind and it's not going to change regardless of what anyone else might say or bring up. And not only that, you feel that you are superior to them in some warped way because you think you have the superior belief system, whatever that may be. You have a serious chip on your shoulder regarding religion, I can only assume because you're gay and you take offense to their thoughts on your lifestyle. And you put down anything to do with it as a knee jerk reaction, I don't think you even give it a thought, it's ingrained in your psyche by this point. I don't think there's really any hope of you maturing and getting to the point where you can be critical about yourself and your own though processes and realize what you are doing. I mean, facts stare you right in the face and you still refute them. I'm guessing if we could somehow conjure up the founding fathers and have them tell you directly what their intentions were, you'd call them liars and not believe them. It's just a complete waste of time to even engage you in any discussion about it, because really there just isn't a 'discussion', there's only missles thrown back and forth like we're in a grade school play ground or something.
The Founding Fathers did indeed believe that we are endowed with unalienable rights. But because they needed the southern states in the union, and some in those southern states would not agree that black men were wholly human, they didn't deal with that in the initial constitution. It was dealt with later, however.
But yes, the Founders, to a man, agreed that God or a Creator or Supreme Being is the source of unalienable rights that men would not be able to set aside for any reason.
And they did absolutely use Christian principles to forge the country that they gave us:
"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this - that it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." - John Quincy Adams
*****************************
"The Bible is the cornerstone of liberty. A student's perusal of the sacred volume will make him a better citizen, a better father, a better husband." - Thomas Jefferson
*****************************
"The Bible is the rock on which our Republic rests." - Andrew Jackson
*****************************
"In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed." - Noah Webster
*****************************
"We have staked the future of American civilization upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." - James Madison
*****************************
"He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world." - Benjamin Franklin
*****************************
"It can not be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions but on the gospel of Jesus Christ." - Patrick Henry
*****************************
"The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles...to this we owe our free constitutions of government." - Noah Webster
*****************************
"Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed the conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?" - Thomas Jefferson
*****************************
"Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly implore His protection and favor." - George Washington
*****************************
"Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited.... What a utopia, what a paradise would this region be." - John Adams
*****************************
"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
(I have furnished sources for all these in earlier posts in this thread so did not do that again here.)
So which is a better indicator of what a politician believes:
What is the best evidence:
Their words or their actions?
What holds more water and credibility in the world? Words spoken or legislation passed and supported?
Which is it? Which is more important for the people? Which protects the people and governs the people?
Words or legislation? Which is a better indicator of where a politician really stands?
You keep referring to actions. Could you please what specific 'actions' that you are saying back up your argument? You have been given specific quotes directly from the people who founded this country and what their ideas and thoughts were. So, I think it's time for you to pony up and show which 'actions' negated their words.
So which is a better indicator of what a politician believes:
What is the best evidence:
Their words or their actions?
What holds more water and credibility in the world? Words spoken or legislation passed and supported?
Which is it? Which is more important for the people? Which protects the people and governs the people?
Words or legislation? Which is a better indicator of where a politician really stands?
You keep referring to actions. Could you please what specific 'actions' that you are saying back up your argument? You have been given specific quotes directly from the people who founded this country and what their ideas and thoughts were. So, I think it's time for you to pony up and show which 'actions' negated their words.
I figured someone was smart enough and had the balls to ask and that would be you:
"As the government of The United States, is not, in any way founded on the Christian religion". This is a treaty, AN ACTION of the Founders.
Treaties ratified by The United States Senate would be ACTIONS by our politicians.
ACTIONS ALWAYS carry more weight, have more power, stand for what a nation is and was founded on.
This action, this treaty was passed UANANIMOUSLY with many of the Founders voting IN FAVOR OF IT.
Case closed. Thanks for asking. Actions, NOT RANK HEARSAY, is what nations are founded on. The protections we as citizens are guaranteed UNDER THE LAW is what nations are founded on, not political spittle from the mouths of politicians.
I really think that, unfortunately, like the other nitwit on here, you don't have the intellectual capacity to even have this conversation. All you and the other one know how to do is repeat the same thing over and over again like it means something. Neither of you are worth the wasted effort. Or as your partner in crime is so fond of,
Hello again.
How odd that you would say that considering that we are the ones willing to continue this conversation while you are the one disengaging, with a few parting personal shots about US rather than the topic.
You're not 'engaging' in anything but your immature, perceived 'put downs'. All you've done here is repeat the same damn thing throughout this entire thread. You've not discussed anything that anyone has said in return, you just repeat yourself over and over. You do it not only here, but pretty much every thread I've ever seen you post in. You have no desire to hear anyone else's point of view or to even think about what they say, or take them seriously. You're only here to negate everything they say and to put them down, you've already made up your mind and it's not going to change regardless of what anyone else might say or bring up. And not only that, you feel that you are superior to them in some warped way because you think you have the superior belief system, whatever that may be. You have a serious chip on your shoulder regarding religion, I can only assume because you're gay and you take offense to their thoughts on your lifestyle. And you put down anything to do with it as a knee jerk reaction, I don't think you even give it a thought, it's ingrained in your psyche by this point. I don't think there's really any hope of you maturing and getting to the point where you can be critical about yourself and your own though processes and realize what you are doing. I mean, facts stare you right in the face and you still refute them. I'm guessing if we could somehow conjure up the founding fathers and have them tell you directly what their intentions were, you'd call them liars and not believe them. It's just a complete waste of time to even engage you in any discussion about it, because really there just isn't a 'discussion', there's only missles thrown back and forth like we're in a grade school play ground or something.
How odd that you would say that considering that we are the ones willing to continue this conversation while you are the one disengaging, with a few parting personal shots about US rather than the topic.
You're not 'engaging' in anything but your immature, perceived 'put downs'. All you've done here is repeat the same damn thing throughout this entire thread. You've not discussed anything that anyone has said in return, you just repeat yourself over and over. You do it not only here, but pretty much every thread I've ever seen you post in. You have no desire to hear anyone else's point of view or to even think about what they say, or take them seriously. You're only here to negate everything they say and to put them down, you've already made up your mind and it's not going to change regardless of what anyone else might say or bring up. And not only that, you feel that you are superior to them in some warped way because you think you have the superior belief system, whatever that may be. You have a serious chip on your shoulder regarding religion, I can only assume because you're gay and you take offense to their thoughts on your lifestyle. And you put down anything to do with it as a knee jerk reaction, I don't think you even give it a thought, it's ingrained in your psyche by this point. I don't think there's really any hope of you maturing and getting to the point where you can be critical about yourself and your own though processes and realize what you are doing. I mean, facts stare you right in the face and you still refute them. I'm guessing if we could somehow conjure up the founding fathers and have them tell you directly what their intentions were, you'd call them liars and not believe them. It's just a complete waste of time to even engage you in any discussion about it, because really there just isn't a 'discussion', there's only missles thrown back and forth like we're in a grade school play ground or something.
Bingo.
And we have provided the words of the founding fathers over and over and over. It doesn't matter. Ineducable is the word.
You keep referring to actions. Could you please what specific 'actions' that you are saying back up your argument? You have been given specific quotes directly from the people who founded this country and what their ideas and thoughts were. So, I think it's time for you to pony up and show which 'actions' negated their words.
I figured someone was smart enough and had the balls to ask and that would be you:
"As the government of The United States, is not, in any way founded on the Christian religion". This is a treaty, AN ACTION of the Founders.
Treaties ratified by The United States Senate would be ACTIONS by our politicians.
ACTIONS ALWAYS carry more weight, have more power, stand for what a nation is and was founded on.
This action, this treaty was passed UANANIMOUSLY with many of the Founders voting IN FAVOR OF IT.
Case closed. Thanks for asking. Actions, NOT RANK HEARSAY, is what nations are founded on. The protections we as citizens are guaranteed UNDER THE LAW is what nations are founded on, not political spittle from the mouths of politicians.
What treaty and who wrote it?
But before we go, the Treaty doesn't trump the Declaration,
and the clause in question has already been debunked as it existed only in one copy of the treaty, and not in the one we have.
Loon.
I figured someone was smart enough and had the balls to ask and that would be you:
"As the government of The United States, is not, in any way founded on the Christian religion". This is a treaty, AN ACTION of the Founders.
Treaties ratified by The United States Senate would be ACTIONS by our politicians.
ACTIONS ALWAYS carry more weight, have more power, stand for what a nation is and was founded on.
This action, this treaty was passed UANANIMOUSLY with many of the Founders voting IN FAVOR OF IT.
Case closed. Thanks for asking. Actions, NOT RANK HEARSAY, is what nations are founded on. The protections we as citizens are guaranteed UNDER THE LAW is what nations are founded on, not political spittle from the mouths of politicians.
What treaty and who wrote it?
The Treaty of Tripoli...written by representatives of the U.S. government...unanimously approved by the U.S. Senate and signed by President John Adams.
But before we go, the Treaty doesn't trump the Declaration, and the clause in question has already been debunked as it existed only in one copy of the treaty, and not in the one we have.
Loon.
What treaty and who wrote it?
The Treaty of Tripoli...written by representatives of the U.S. government...unanimously approved by the U.S. Senate and signed by President John Adams.
So? It's a treaty with people of a different religion who also lived under a theocrasy, it was saying that religion was not a motivating factor for the need for the treaty nor would it preclude them from having a treaty. No one has ever tried to say that the founders intended on creating a christian theocrasy. The fact that they're stating that the United States is not a christian theocrasy is somehow evidence to you against the actual statements made by the founding fathers themselves that the foundation and principles of a free country were not based on christian principles. Christian principles and christian theocrasy are two very different things. The founders were christian men, so their morals and principles that stemmed from their beliefs played a part in the documents that were created from the ideas they had about how a country should operate whether you like it or not. You can not like christianity, and no one gives a damn whether you do or not, but you can't change the history of the people who founded this country, they were mostly christians. Not only were they christians, but a great majority of them had seminary degrees.
But before we go, the Treaty doesn't trump the Declaration, and the clause in question has already been debunked as it existed only in one copy of the treaty, and not in the one we have.
Loon.
I wonder if the original signed document is in the archives?
I don't think so.But before we go, the Treaty doesn't trump the Declaration, and the clause in question has already been debunked as it existed only in one copy of the treaty, and not in the one we have.
Loon.
I wonder if the original signed document is in the archives?
The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, specifically article XI, is commonly misused in editorial columns, articles, as well as in other areas of the media, both Christian and secular. We have received numerous questions from people who have been misled by the claims that are being made, namely, that America was not founded as a Christian nation. Advocates of this idea use the Treaty of Tripoli as the foundation of their entire argument, and we believe you deserve to know the truth regarding this often misused document.
The following is an excerpt from David Barton's book Original Intent:
To determine whether the "Founding Fathers" were generally atheists, agnostics, and deists, one must first define those terms. An "atheist" is one who professes to believe that there is no God; 1 an "agnostic" is one who professes that nothing can be known beyond what is visible and tangible; 2 and a "deist" is one who believes in an impersonal God who is no longer involved with mankind. (In other words, a "deist" embraces the "clockmaker theory" 3 that there was a God who made the universe and wound it up like a clock; however, it now runs of its own volition; the clockmaker is gone and therefore does not respond to man.) Today the terms "atheist," "agnostic," and "deist" have been used together so often that their meanings have almost become synonymous. In fact, many dictionaries list these words as synonym. 4
Those who advance the notion that this was the belief system of the Founders often publish information attempting to prove that the Founders were irreligious. 5 One of the quotes they set forth is the following:
The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion. GEORGE WASHINGTON
The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli is the source of Washington's supposed statement. Is this statement accurate? Did this prominent Founder truly repudiate religion? An answer will be found by an examination of its source. That treaty, one of several with Tripoli, was negotiated during the "Barbary Powers Conflict," which began shortly after the Revolutionary War and continued through the Presidencies of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. 6 The Muslim Barbary Powers (Tunis, Morocco, Algiers, and Tripoli) were warring against what they claimed to be the "Christian" nations (England, France, Spain, Denmark, and the United States). In 1801, Tripoli even declared war against the United States, 7 thus constituting America's first official war as an established independent nation.
Throughout this long conflict, the four Barbary Powers regularly attacked undefended American merchant ships. Not only were their cargoes easy prey but the Barbary Powers were also capturing and enslaving "Christian" seamen 8 in retaliation for what had been done to them by the "Christians" of previous centuries (e.g., the Crusades and Ferdinand and Isabella's expulsion of Muslims from Granada 9). In an attempt to secure a release of captured seamen and a guarantee of unmolested shipping in the Mediterranean, President Washington dispatched envoys to negotiate treaties with the Barbary nations. 10 (Concurrently, he encouraged the construction of American naval warships 11 to defend the shipping and confront the Barbary "pirates" – a plan not seriously pursued until President John Adams created a separate Department of the Navy in 1798.)
The American envoys negotiated numerous treaties of "Peace and Amity" 12 with the Muslim Barbary nations to ensure "protection" of American commercial ships sailing in the Mediterranean. 13 However, the terms of the treaty frequently were unfavorable to America, either requiring her to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars of "tribute" (i.e., official extortion) to each country to receive a "guarantee" of safety or to offer other "considerations" (e.g., providing a warship as a "gift" to Tripoli, 14 a "gift" frigate to Algiers, 15 paying $525,000 to ransom captured American seamen from Algiers, 16 etc. 17). The 1797 treaty with Tripoli was one of the many treaties in which each country officially recognized the religion of the other in an attempt to prevent further escalation of a "Holy War" between Christians and Muslims. 18 Consequently, Article XI of that treaty stated:
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. 19
This article may be read in two manners. It may, as its critics do, be concluded after the clause "Christian religion"; or it may be read in its entirety and concluded when the punctuation so indicates. But even if shortened and cut abruptly ("the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion"), this is not an untrue statement since it is referring to the federal government.
Recall that while the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation (demonstrated in chapter 2 of Original Intent), they did include a constitutional prohibition against a federal establishment; religion was a matter left solely to the individual States. Therefore, if the article is read as a declaration that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, such a statement is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation.
Reading the clause of the treaty in its entirety also fails to weaken this fact. Article XI simply distinguished America from those historical strains of European Christianity which held an inherent hatred of Muslims; it simply assured the Muslims that the United States was not a Christian nation like those of previous centuries (with whose practices the Muslims were very familiar) and thus would not undertake a religious holy war against them.
This latter reading is, in fact, supported by the attitude prevalent among numerous American leaders. The Christianity practiced in America was described by John Jay as "wise and virtuous," 20 by John Quincy Adams as "civilized," 21 and by John Adams as "rational." 22 A clear distinction was drawn between American Christianity and that of Europe in earlier centuries. As Noah Webster explained:
The ecclesiastical establishments of Europe which serve to support tyrannical governments are not the Christian religion but abuses and corruptions of it. 23
Daniel Webster similarly explained that American Christianity was:
Christianity to which the sword and the fagot [burning stake or hot branding iron] are unknown – general tolerant Christianity is the law of the land! 24
Those who attribute the Treaty of Tripoli quote to George Washington make two mistakes. The first is that no statement in it can be attributed to Washington (the treaty did not arrive in America until months after he left office); Washington never saw the treaty; it was not his work; no statement in it can be ascribed to him. The second mistake is to divorce a single clause of the treaty from the remainder which provides its context. It would also be absurd to suggest that President Adams (under whom the treaty was ratified in 1797) would have endorsed or assented to any provision which repudiated Christianity.
In fact, while discussing the Barbary conflict with Jefferson, Adams declared:
The policy of Christendom has made cowards of all their sailors before the standard of Mahomet. It would be heroical and glorious in us to restore courage to ours. 25
Furthermore, it was Adams who declared:
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature. 26
Adams' own words confirm that he rejected any notion that America was less than a Christian nation.
