The Founding Fathers Were Not Christians

[Kassiana]

David Barton's not a credible source, actually. He was caught making up quotes from the Founders to make them sound more religious than they were.

We evil heathen Pagans will not convert! We're busy worshipping multiple Gods and having tons of sex.

Okay, fine. We're busy worshipping multiple Gods. I still haven't found the Pagans who have tons of sex, and I've been involved with the Pagan community since 1992.

Maybe I'm just not special enough to get into those kinds of Pagan groups.

 

[Belegon]

slightly off-topic but brought to the forefront of my mind by parts of this discussion....

what always bugs me is the way many(not all) members of the "fundamentalist movement" are so quick to use the words of Paul or dip into the Old Testament while conviently ignoring the apparent disdain the founder of the religion had for the already institutionalized worship of the same diety that was in existence at the time. Remember that Paul was educated by and a tool of the same forces that fought to put Jesus to death prior to Paul's "event" on the road to Damascus. And the OT was "replaced" by Jesus' sacrifice.

 

[FinePhilly]

David Barton's not a credible source, actually. He was caught making up quotes from the Founders to make them sound more religious than they were.

Got any proof (links, etc) of that or am I just supposed to take a pagan's word for it?

 

[cantdog]

David Barton's not a credible source, actually. He was caught making up quotes from the Founders to make them sound more religious than they were.

He's not on THIS list, though.

 

[shereads]

Got any proof (links, etc) of that or am I just supposed to take a pagan's word for it?

Is this one sufficient, FineP? If you want to look for more, it took 12 seconds to Google this one up. I used "David Barton" as the keyword search and clicked on the first link I saw that wasn't offering Barton's books/tapes for sale.

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/boston1.htm

The article on Barton's background at this link has some disturbing allegations about racist and anti-semitic connections including links between Barton's "Christian Identity" and "Wallbuilders" organizations and Pete Peters' Colorado church, which distributes a pamphlet entitled "Death to Homosexuals." If the allegations about Barton aren't true, it would be interesting to see some links that disprove them.

<excerpts>

Who is David Barton?...In his 1988 book "America: To Pray Or Not To Pray?" Barton explains what got him started: "In July 1987, God impressed me to do two things. First, I was to search the library and find the date that prayer had been prohibited in public schools. Second, I was to obtain a record of national SAT scores..."

..Barton believes God is angry at the country [because of the 1962 and '63 Supreme Court rulings banning school-sponsored religious exercises in public schools] and has retaliated by lowering SAT scores, raising the crime rate and even increasing alcohol consumption per capita.

Beyond that, details about Barton's background are hard to find. His books and videos list no academic credentials and give no basic biographical information...
Wallbuilders' bio of Barton does not name the school he attended, saying only, "Although he entered college in Oklahoma on a science scholarship, he graduated with a Bachelor's degree in Religious Education." The bio asserts that Barton taught math and science before forming Wallbuilders, though it does not say where.

...According to Steven K. Green, legal counsel for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the type of bad history promoted by Barton and others is increasingly common in Religious Right circles [and is] an extension of activity begun by conservative religious figures during the 19th century.

"During the post-Revolutionary period, orthodox ministers criticized the Constitution as being unChristian and attacked many of the founders--especially Jefferson--for their non-traditional religious views," Green said. "These ministers advocated the continuation of state churches and saw the First Amendment as a threat to their privileged positions. But it wasn't until the mid 19th century that evangelicals began rewriting the history of the founding period to fit their perspective of America as a 'Christian nation."'

Continued Green, "This type of revisionism is dangerous because it distorts the historical record by removing certain statements and events from their historical context. A distorted fact is always more persuasive than an outright lie."

DAVID BARTON'S BAD HISTORY

When A Myth Is As Good As A Mile

David Barton makes a number of inaccurate statements in his anti-separationist book the Myth of Separation and its accompanying videos. Barton also relies heavily on half truths, often failing to tell the whole story behind selected historical incidents.

Two versions of Barton's hour-long video "America's Godly Heritage" are in circulation. Although the newer edition (1992) omits some of the more egregious errors of the earlier tape, both are similar overall and contain the same information. (A condensed, 12-minute version of the tape titled "Foundations of American Government" is also in circulation.)

Since Barton's materials are being used increasingly by the Religious Right in their war against church-state separation, Church & State examined the book and videos carefully and prepared the following analysis of some of Barton's key points.

Barton: The Supreme Court in 1947 lifted the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" from a speech Thomas Jefferson made in 1801.Later in the speech, Jefferson went on to say, "That wall is a one directional wall. It keeps the government from running the church but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government."

Response: This inaccurate claim about Jefferson is undoubtedly Barton's biggest mistake, and he omitted it in the updated version of his tape. But earlier copies remain in wide circulation, and the charge is being recycled repeatedly by the Religious Right.

Barton is wrong on three counts. In truth, Jefferson first used the "wall" metaphor in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. The letter says nothing about the wall being "one directional" and certainly does not assert that it was intended to keep Christian principles in government.

Barton: Fifty-two out of 55 of the founding fathers were "orthodox, evangelical Christians."

Response: This is a good example of the half truths common in Barton's materials. Most of the founders were members of the Church of England, which can hardly be described as an evangelical body. While it is true that many of the framers were devout Christians, that does not make them theological compatriots of today's Religious Right. (Barton must have again realized his mistake. In the updated version of the tape, he says 52 of the framers were simply "orthodox" Christians and adds, "Many of them were evangelicals.")

Richard V. Pierard, history professor at Indiana State University, calls Barton's claim "ridiculous." According to Pierard, the term "evangelical" did not come into wide use in America until the late 19th century and cannot properly be applied to any religious movement of the colonial period. "To try to take a later definition and impose it on these people is a historical anachronism," Pierard said.

Barton: Early versions of the First Amendment considered by the Congress prove that all the framers meant to do was prohibit the establishment of a national church.

Response: This charge is an ironic one, because early versions of the First Amendment prove exactly the opposite. Before the language of the First Amendment we know today was settled on, drafts were submitted to Congress explicitly forbidding only the establishment of a national church or one denomination in preference to any other. These were all rejected. If Barton were correct, and all the framers wanted to do was bar an official Church of the United Slates, one of these early versions would have sufficed.

Barton: In 1844 the Supreme Court ruled that public schools must include Christian worship.

Response: This is an oversimplified interpretation of a complex Supreme Court decision in a case known as Vidal v. Girard's Executors. The controversy centered around the request of Stephen Girard, a wealthy Pennsylvanian whose will instructed that his money be used to set up a school for orphans. Girard, a native of France who was wary of clericalism, stipulated in the will that no members of the clergy could hold office in the school or even visit the campus.

Girard's heirs challenged the bequest, but the Supreme Court, In a unanimous opinion, refused to nullify the stipulation. The will, the justices noted, had barred only clergy, not religious instruction entirely. The court also noted that the religious freedom provisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution were broad enough to provide "complete protection of every variety of religious opinion...and must have been intended to extend equally to all sects, whether they were Jews or infidels."

Barton: In 1854 a small religious group asked Congress to officially establish a system of separation of church and state in the United States, but Congress refused.

Response: This is an example of Barton taking an obscure incident from U.S. history and, through distortion, giving it an exaggerated sense of importance. What actually happened is quite different from what Barton describes. A religious group did not ask Congress to establish church-state separation. Rather, a Baptist association from North Carolina and several citizens from Kentucky presented Congress with "memorials" (petitions) asking them to abolish congressional and military chaplains. In 1854 the House and Senate Judiciary Committees issued reports denying the petitions.

While there is language in the reports referring to the United States as a "Christian" nation, it is clear from the context that the committees saw the country as "Christian" only in a social sense, not a legal one.

Far from rejecting church-stale separation, the Senate committee report specifically affirms the doctrine by stating that the First Amendment prohibits the government from giving any denomination financial "endowment at the public expense, peculiar privileges to its members or disadvantages or penalties upon those who should reject its doctrines or belong to other communions..."

Elsewhere the Senate document reads, "We are Christians, not because the law demands it nor to gain exclusive benefits, or to avoid legal disabilities, but from choice and education...." (Not surprisingly, Barton never mentions that congressional committees in the latter half of the 19th century twice rejected proposed constitutional amendments that would have had the United States officially recognize the authority of Jesus and forthrightly state that America is a Christian nation.)

Barton: In the late 19th century "Christian principles in government" were challenged at the Supreme Court, but the justices upheld them and pointed out that Thomas Jefferson supported mixing Christianity and government.

Response: This is an extremely bad interpretation of 1878's Reynolds v. United Slates decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that Mormons do not have a religious freedom right to practice plural marriage. Reynolds was a free exercise case; it had nothing to do with a Challenge to "Christian principles in government." Furthermore, while the justices do quote from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists that contains the "wall of separation between church and state" metaphor, they say nothing about Jefferson favoring Christian principles in government..

Clearly the justices could make no such assertion about Jefferson, as he never said anything even remotely akin to what Barton alleges. In reality, Jefferson specifically denied that Christianity is the basis of the common law and regarded efforts to declare it so as anti-separationist propaganda. In an 1824 letter to John Cartwright, Jefferson observed, "The proof...is incontrovertible, to wit, that the common law existed while the Angle- Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never heard the name Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character existed. What a conspiracy this, between Church and State!"

Barton: Everson v. Board of Education, a 1947 Supreme Court parochial school aid case, was the first court ruling upholding church-state separation.

Response: Barton's assertion is incorrect. The U.S. Supreme Court had dealt with the church-state issue several times before Everson was decided. Many of these decisions upheld the separation concept.

For example, by 1947 the high court had already ruled that Jehovah's Witnesses could not be compelled to salute the flag in public schools. In the early 1900s the high court decided a series of cases giving members of some religious groups the right to refuse the military draft in wartime, granting them conscientious objector status on the basis of religious belief. In 1925, the court ruled unanimously that states could not force children to attend public schools if their parents would rather send them to religious institutions. In addition, numerous state courts and lower federal courts had grappled with the church-state issue prior to 1947.

Barton: The Supreme Court's decision in the 1962 case Engel v. Vitale, which banned government-sponsored prayer in public schools, cited no historical or legal precedents and relies on a legal theory that the justices made up out of whole cloth.

Response: Even a brief perusal of the Engel opinion shows that Barton is again wrong. In fact, Justice Hugo Black's majority opinion in Engel cites the history of the First Amendment and the early colonial experience with state-established religion. The concurring opinion by Justice William Douglas cites several previous church-state cases.

Barton: Religious practices in public schools had never been challenged in the courts prior to 1962.

Response: 1962's Engel case was the first time the U.S. Supreme Court took up school prayer, but several state supreme courts had ruled on the issue prior to that. For example, the Wisconsin Supreme Court struck down government-sponsored Prayer in schools in 1892; the Nebraska Supreme Court followed suit in 1902, and the Illinois Supreme Court removed mandatory worship from public schools in 1910.

These are just a few examples. A 1960 survey by Americans United found that only five states had laws on the books requiring daily Bible reading in public schools. Twenty-four slates allowed "optional" Bible reading. Eleven states had banned the practice as unconstitutional. (The remaining states had no laws on the subject.)

Aside from these specific distortions, Barton relies on a variety of semantic tricks to mislead the viewers of his video. For example, the Texas activist uses the terms "Supreme Court" and "court" interchangeably throughout, which could lead an uninformed listener to believe that several low-level court decisions at odds with separation of church and state are actually Supreme Court rulings.

One such case is 1958's Baer v. Kolmorgen, which Barton cites as an example of how "the court" backed Christianity in public schools prior to Engel. In reality, the case, which was decided by a New York state appellate court, not the U.S. Supreme Court, was only tangentially related to the religion in schools issue. The ruling upheld the display of a Nativity scene at a public school during Christmas break. The crèche was permissible, said the court, because the students were not attending the institution at the time. This hardly amounts to a Supreme Court blessing of Christian Instruction in public schools.

Barton also relies on sweeping generalizations that overlook the facts. For instance, he claims that by 1963 the Supreme Court had "completely removed religion from public schools." Barton ignores 1952's Zorach v. Clauson decision, in which the high court upheld religion classes during the school day off school property, because the ruling clashes with his ideological agenda. He also ignores Justice Tom Clark 's comment in 1963's Abington School District v. Schempp case, which banned state-mandated Bible reading in public schools."It certainly may be said," Clark observed, "that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment."

Finally, some of the arguments Barton makes are simply so convoluted or bizarre that they can be dismissed out of hand. For example, he claims that the doctrine of separation of powers--the constitutional principle that provides for "checks and balances" among the three branches of the federal government, springs from the biblical book of Jeremiah 17:19. This is, to say the least, a creative interpretation of the passage, which reads, "Thus said the Lord unto me: Go and stand in the gate of the children of the people, whereby the kings of Judah come in, and by which they go out, and in all the gates of Jerusalem."

(Likewise, Barton asserts that our country's three branches of government were inspired by Isaiah 33:22. The passage reads, "For the lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he will save us.")

But Barton's most twisted argument centers on religion in public schools. Atheism, he argues, is actually a religion that holds that there should be no worship. Therefore, he insists, the absence of government-backed religious exercises in public schools is actually a violation of separation of church and state!

Barton also touts what he calls the "three percent" majority. His argument rests on public opinion polls indicating only 3 percent of the U.S. population identifies itself as atheist or agnostic. Therefore, Barton asserts, removing state-sponsored prayer from schools imposes the will of that 3 percent on the other 97 percent.

Barton conveniently ignores the fact that opposition to government-sponsored religious exercises in public schools is not limited to unbelievers. In fact, over the years the devoutly religious have been major opponents of government-mandated worship in schools. Clergy have filed and supported some of the most important religion-in-schools cases in the courts. Today many denominations maintain official policies opposing government prayer in schools.

It is true that some public opinion polls have shown support for "prayer in schools" reaching as high as 80 percent. These numbers usually result from poorly worded questions that fail to make it clear that "prayer in schools'' as the phrase is used by the Religious Right equals government-sponsored prayer.

Support drops sharply when the proper distinctions are made. For example, a 1989 survey by Parents magazine found 68 percent of respondents agreeing with the statement, "Although no prayer should be said aloud, there should be a minute of silence each day so that students could pray silently, meditate, or do nothing if they prefer." Only 17 percent favored the statement, "A prayer should be said aloud once a day in public schools and students should be required to participate," which reflects the pre-1962 situation that Barton backs.

 

[FinePhilly]

Shereads,

I read the article, but it seem to me to be simply an attempt to take pieces of information that he has gathered and try (not very successfully in my opinion) to twist the context and meaning of them.

I have personally heard him speak and found him to be very credible and down to earth.

I realize not many people share my opinions on politics and religion, but I think you could find something on the net to "discredit" every Christian if you wanted to...even Billy Graham himself. That doesn't make it true.

I can respect your opinion. What I posted was simply a reflection of my own differing opinion on the original topic. Hopefully you can respect my opinion as well.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Shereads,

I read the article, but it seem to me to be simply an attempt to take pieces of information that he has gathered and try (not very successfully in my opinion) to twist the context and meaning of them.

I have personally heard him speak and found him to be very credible and down to earth.

I realize not many people share my opinions on politics and religion, but I think you could find something on the net to "discredit" every Christian if you wanted to...even Billy Graham himself. That doesn't make it true.

I can respect your opinion. What I posted was simply a reflection of my own differing opinion on the original topic. Hopefully you can respect my opinion as well.

???????????
I don't understand how you could come to that conclusion.

I think that obviously, the best thing to do would be to obtain copies of the original documents and sourses for these claims.

I can't speak for shereads, but for myself:

Personally, I can respect differing oppinions but not the blind faith of 'you have you're sourses, I have mine' I'm not trying to be rude, but I don't 'get' this reply.

 

[Couture]

I can't speak for shereads, but for myself:

Personally, I can respect differing oppinions but not the blind faith of 'you have you're sourses, I have mine' I'm not trying to be rude, but I don't 'get' this reply.

Ya gotta have faith, baby!

 

[cantdog]

Also, sweet, the lie has to serve if the truth does not. It's a tactical decision, to lie knowingly.

Not a position to fill anyone with respect.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

. . . It's a tactical decision, to lie knowingly. Not a position to fill anyone with respect.

But a procedure being resorted to frequently of late, by several of the most respectable of authorities.

 

[shereads]

Shereads,

I read the article, but it seem to me to be simply an attempt to take pieces of information that he has gathered and try (not very successfully in my opinion) to twist the context and meaning of them.

I have personally heard him speak and found him to be very credible and down to earth.

I realize not many people share my opinions on politics and religion, but I think you could find something on the net to "discredit" every Christian if you wanted to...even Billy Graham himself. That doesn't make it true.

I can respect your opinion. What I posted was simply a reflection of my own differing opinion on the original topic. Hopefully you can respect my opinion as well.

Thank you for respecting my opinion. I assume that means you do not and will not support the anti-separationist movement. As a proponent of anti-separationism, Mr. Barton does not seek to strengthen my right to express unChristian opinions. Nor does he seek to protect the right of Jews, agnostics, athiests, Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus to raise their children free of Christian teachings.

I respect your right to express a defense of Barton, although I can't see how you've done so here. (When you critique the posted link for taking information out of context, you apply a standard that you do not apply to Barton's own article). Freedom of speech is meaningless if we fail to defend speech that frightens us, and I'm not ashamed to admit that anti-separationists scare the daylights out of me.

So yes, I respect your right and Barton's to an opinion, but it would be disingenuous of me to say I respect the opinion itself. With so many opportunities to practice and promote one's religion in church, at home, and in any number of contexts that don't force non-Christians to participate, even passively, I can't help wondering if the ultimate goal isn't to force more active participation. The Taliban began harmlessly enough. By the time they were writing into law the amount of ankle that a girl could reveal, and imposing public stoning as a penalty, it was too late for anyone to object.

 

[shereads]

If the Taliban comparison with Christian fundamentalism seems a little harsh, here are some reminders that Allah isn't the only god whose word isn't all that holy when taken literally:


Peter:

"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel. "

Genesis:

"Then Judah said to Onan, 'Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother.' But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the Lord's sight; so he put him to death also."

Exodus:

"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do."

"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."

Deuteronomy:

"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.' Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid."

Leviticus:

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Deuteronomy:

If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.

Numbers:

Moses asked them, "Have you allowed all the women to live? They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

Deuteronomy:

If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death - the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife.

Matthew:

For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage or have made themselves eunuchs because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.

This last one could work as a negotiating tool between us heathens and the anti-separationists. If Barton will agree to make himself a eunuch, using the same means that were available when this verse was written, I'll be happy to concede that he's not just a danger to others. ~ SR

 

[Kassiana]

Got any proof (links, etc) of that or am I just supposed to take a pagan's word for it?

Why not, if she's a truthful person, as I am? Does the fact that I'm a Pagan "prove" anything about my trustworthiness? How about the facts that I'm a wife and mother, was a fundie Christian for over thirteen years, owned birds since I was eight, write erotic and non-erotic X-men fanfiction, have fantasies about being screwed by multiple male partners, and have never had actual sex with anyone but my husband?

Being Pagan only means that I'm Pagan, not that I'm going to believe anything told to me that's anti-conservative Christian, thank you very much.

And here's the evidence you asked for. Yes, it comes from positiveatheism.org, but it references Barton and other sources you can look up, so I'm not asking you to "just believe atheists." Besides, since what they're saying is the truth, it doesn't matter if atheists, politicians, or McDonald's employees are saying it.

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

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

So said James Madison, architect of the Constitution, defender of religious freedom and fourth president of the United States, according to the Religious Right.

But to church-state separationists and historians of the post-colonial period, something about this Madison quote has never felt quite right. It seemed unlikely that the same Madison who advocated "total separation of the church from the state" and battled to disestablish the Anglican Church in Virginia would say it. The sentiment appeared to clash with his well-known advocacy of a healthy distance between religion and government.

A few years ago, with the quote popping up increasingly in the mass media (including Rush Limbaugh's daily radio show), Robert S. Alley, professor emeritus at the University of Richmond and author of James Madison on Religious Liberty, undertook a dogged effort to track it down. Enlisting the help of the editors of The Papers of James Madison at the University of Virginia, Alley scoured reams of documents, books and writings. After coming up empty-handed, the Madison scholar concluded that the quote was probably fictional.

Now the major purveyor of the quote, Texas-based Religious Right propagandist David Barton, has admitted it's bogus. Last year Barton's group, WallBuilders' issued a one-page document titled "Questionable Quotes," a list of 12 statements allegedly uttered by Founding Fathers and other prominent historical figures, that are now considered to be suspect or outright false. Madison's alleged comment about the Ten Commandments is number four on the list and is flatly declared by Barton to be "false." -- Source: http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/founding.htm
***************************************************

 

[Pure]

Seattle Zack

Let pure show you how to google barely relevant articles to support your argument

Thanks, pal.

Anywhere. Any topic.

As far as the founding fathers, I think the original posting was pretty accurate, if a little onesided. Many of the founders were intellectuals and scholars, and most were non-orthodox, i.e., deist or unitarian (Jesus as human, but a great moral teacher.)
IIRC, Jefferson, Allen, and Paine are at one extreme, and George W was at the other, a semi-orthodox Anglican.

As far as church state separation, note that the first Amendment specifies 'congress'. I.e., we're talking about a federally established church. *There was no ban on an 'established church' within a given state,* and I believe both Connecticutt and Massachusetts had established churches.

So as with protections of free speech, I think the ban on 'established religion' took shape over time, and I believe the attention to the states' behavior in these matters came after the 14th amendment, and Supreme Ct. decisions (re 'incorporation') over the last 150 years.

In any case, the religious right make too much of the founders' intentions. The founders did not intend to abolish slavery or make it disappear. Supreme court decisions evolve, as on the slavery issue. 'Original intent' is a very murky doctrine, and the right usually invokes it on an entirely opportunistic basis.

 

[shereads]

In any case, the religious right make too much of the founders' intentions. The founders did not intend to abolish slavery or make it disappear. Supreme court decisions evolve, as on the slavery issue. 'Original intent' is a very murky doctrine, and the right usually invokes it on an entirely opportunistic basis.

Also, they rarely mention that the founding fathers were gay, to a man. Except for Ethan Allen, who was thought to be gay because he was an interior designer, but was actually a woman.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I rather do wonder, because it seems likely to be, if one can find a pro-Christian (in practice, form, or intention) quote from the founding fathers. I think that'd be easy.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I rather do wonder, because it seems likely to be, if one can find a pro-Christian (in practice, form, or intention) quote from the founding fathers. I think that'd be easy.

I would bloody well hope so. Despite being direct products of the Enlightenment in France and secular philosophers, they were still morally Christian men. The fact that they were deists and rejected Christ's divinity does not disband their belief in God. One camp is right when they say that the founding fathers wouldn't support merging church and state. The other is right when they say they were religious Christian men.

These aren't mutually exclusive.

P.S. Not intended against you Joe, but rather the pointless debate. You're cool here.

 

[Pure]

Luc: morally Christian men. IOW slaveholders.

The fact that they were deists and rejected Christ's divinity does not disband their belief in God.

There are at least two meanings to the term 'deist,' and the one particularly applicable here--e.g. Tom Jeffereson-- is of a person who believes God/a god set the Universe in motion, to follow natural laws, *and did not (and does not) intervene thereafter.

You can see that that attenuates the notion of God to an ineffective (since that day) wisp. I.e. no miracles; no interventions, no efficacy of prayer, no sending the Spirit to prophets, no sending Son, of course; no 'push' or 'help' ever given to the 'good.'

{This of course implies larges tracts of the scripture are myths, self deception, lies, forgeries, or some combination thereof.)

Probably it also denies a final judgment, and God's hand in winding things down.

All of this has often raised the issue, Isn't 'deist' (in this sense) a cover-up term (preventing prosecution), for a de facto atheist.
'Atheist' was a term, that when used, was decidedly bad for one's health.

 

[cantdog]

A Creator who just built a subdivision with the 6-day Worldmaker and then moved on to the next job is hardly a comfort to the dying and a compassionate lord. It does indeed make all the midrash look silly.

But in your writings, you get to say "the mind of the Creator" and things like that, so that other scientists get to read you without worrying about the thought police.

cantdog

 

[shereads]

Deist, schmeist. The essential question is, what is the end-goal of anti-separationism? A Christian theocracy? Better funding for the annual nativity scene on the town square? Or something in between?

I suspect their defenders will answer that it's the latter, because that seems harmless on its surface (as does the Bush administration's ingenious, utterly mild-sounding marketing term, "faith-based.") "We just want more leeway to uphold God's will for America," they'll say. Only a Jesus-hating heathen could object to the Ten Commandments on the Courthouse Square, right? No way. History holds so many examples of disastrous state/church partnerships. I can see nothing positive to look foward to in a world where religion - any religion - seeks to influence the lives of us non-practitioners with the help of the state.

How would Barton feel, I wonder, if his Christian son or grandson came home from school one day and said, "Today the girls had to leave the room while the boys prayed to Mecca. It was cool."

Or suppose that Luc and I start the Church of Nudism and demand the right to display a Nude Nativity on the courthouse square in celebration of Arbor Day? "Not a chance," Barton sniffs, confident that there aren't enough Nudists in town to support our case. Are you sure, Barton? Once the townspeople have seen the bazoongas on our Nude Madonna Triplets - only one of whom, by the way, is a virgin! - and the package on their Nude Consort, "Saint Sven," support for the Nudists will stiffen. If he's lucky, Barton won't be rousted out of bed on Arbor Day Eve and forced to help erect our display.

Separation of church and state will be a fond memory for him then.

Can't he see that separationism is the best way to protect us from each other?

 

[Pure]

Sher: The essential question is, what is the end-goal of anti-separationism? A Christian theocracy? Better funding for the annual nativity scene on the town square? Or something in between?

Calvin's Geneva, with a thriving underground in pornography and prostitution.

Read up on the former, if you haven't.

Look on the bright side: Instead of your porn authorings being worth not a cent because of the glut and the internet, they'll likely fetch a decent price!

 

[shereads]

Sher: The essential question is, what is the end-goal of anti-separationism? A Christian theocracy? Better funding for the annual nativity scene on the town square? Or something in between?

Calvin's Geneva, with a thriving underground in pornography and prostitution.

Read up on the former, if you haven't.

Look on the bright side: Instead of your porn authorings being worth not a cent because of the glut and the internet, they'll likely fetch a decent price!

I don't write, J. I read.

For free.

Do you suppose Barton reads porn? I'll best Ashcroft does, but only when he's dressed in his wife's flannel nightie and is transformed into his alter-ego, "Anastasia."

 

[Pure]

Sounds right to me. I'll bet his resignation is just before the photos are posted on the 'net.

As to reading:

I don't write, J. I read.

For free.


OK, it may cost you. Or you'll be in the porn samizdat.

BUT you won't have to look through 5,000 pieces of hack porn crap that's the result of 'freedom of speech' on the net.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

See, that's the thing: separation of church and state doesn't impinge on anyone's rights, it just keeps you from forcing your views on me. You still have the right to pray to your heart's content or do whatever you want, you just can't compel me to participate.

That's why whatever the founding fathers thought or were is entirely beside the point. The question is, can you force me to particpiate in your religion?

Barton says yes.

I say fuck him.

---dr.M.

 

[Pure]

I don't see the goal as 'forced participation,' but rather a return to the good old 50s, when the students who didn't want to pray could go out into the hall. In a word, Christians (and conservative Jews, perhaps) running the show; the rest of youse (the non-first-class citizens) receiving concessions out of 'charity' (i.e., not because the Supreme Ct. decreed it so).