The Treaty of Tripoli

[ObjectivistGuy]

Treaty of Tripoli (http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/june_july97/tripoli.html)

Article XI
[ QUOTE ]
"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 against the laws, religion or tranquillity of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohammedan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever interrupt the harmony existing between the two countries."

[/ QUOTE ]

Signed by John Adams and the entire senate without one single objection.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Post deleted by Paul

[MaximumSam]

The U.S. was founded on classical liberalism and federalism. Federalism is not, and never has been, a "Judeo-Christian value."

[Timberwolf]

Ya beat me to the punch, Paul...leftists and atheists can't get it through their heads that there is a world of difference between "being founded upon Christian principles" and "being founded upon the Christian religion".

[ObjectivistGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
The US was obviously not founded on the "Christian religion". Both liberals and conservatives know this. It was founded on Judeo-christian principles even though today those principles are being discarded at a rapid rate. Secularism and liberalism are fast destroying this nation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Paul from Alabama'stan'.

I say socialism and mysticism enforced by the government (aka degradation of separation of church and state) is to blame.

So it's the degradation of the seperation of economy from state. And from another front, mystical beliefs where people still try to rid their kids of demons in the 21st century in America! And that's just one example.

How can a nation be founded on Christian principles when most of the founding fathers were deist?

And exactly what "principles" are you talking about?
It seems to me that Christians today insist that their god be given a welfare check.Why does a supposed omnipotent being need government assistance? This nation during the industrial revolution rose to the top and past every other nation in the world up in wealth and productivity. People prayed or not as they saw fit. There was no "in god we trust". It was 'e pluribus unum '. There was no pledge with 'god' being repeated through out the nation. What scares the conservatives so much about this?


[ QUOTE ]
It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a religious establishment; and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by the legal provision for its clergy. The experience of Virginia conspiciously corroboates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Government, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the TOTAL SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE. [James Madison, as quoted in Robert L. Maddox: Separation of Church and State; Guarantor of Religious Freeedom]

[/ QUOTE ]

[Wyatt_Junker]

[ QUOTE ]
How can a nation be founded on Christian principles when most of the founding fathers were deist?

[/ QUOTE ]

And deism came from???

[DesertFox]

<font size=7>* S i g h *</font>



<font size=1>Another Objectivist</font>

[FluffyDoomBunny]

[ QUOTE ]
ObjectivistGuy said:
Treaty of Tripoli (http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/june_july97/tripoli.html)

Article XI
[ QUOTE ]
"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 against the laws, religion or tranquillity of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohammedan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever interrupt the harmony existing between the two countries."

[/ QUOTE ]

Signed by John Adams and the entire senate without one single objection.

[/ QUOTE ]

The FINAL treaty which superceeded this treaty and placed into law can be found here

Treaty of Peace and Amity, Signed at Tripoli (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1805t.htm)

It contains no such wording and thus Article XI of the original treaty does not officially exist as law.

In 1822 the United States, Great Britain and Ireland made a ratified treaty with Russia (the "Convention for Indemnity Under Award of Emperor of Russia as to the True Construction of the First Article of the Treaty of December 24, 1814.") which explicitly begins with the words "In the name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity.".

Well, golly gee. Look what we have there. We have the United States signing a treaty professing in the power of God! And it comes after the original Treaty of Tripoli which "supposidly" removes Christianity from American politics. Well, well, well. Quiet the problem we have here isn't it for all you people that want to plaster the Treaty of Tripoli up as the end all and be all of this debate. As usual, you just want to look at what proves your own point and not everything together and come to the RIGHT conclusion.

[DesertFox]

Game, set and match: Fluffy

[ObjectivistGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
In 1822 the United States, Great Britain and Ireland made a ratified treaty with Russia (the "Convention for Indemnity Under Award of Emperor of Russia as to the True Construction of the First Article of the Treaty of December 24, 1814.") which explicitly begins with the words "In the name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity.".

[/ QUOTE ]

Source please?


[ QUOTE ]
It contains no such wording and thus Article XI of the original treaty does not officially exist as law.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this information is in the link I provided that you obviously did not read. The fact is that article XI was in place when signed and ratified. No one ever made any argument that this a legal binding document today. What it does is prove the mind set of the people who signed it.

[ObjectivistGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
And deism came from???

[/ QUOTE ]

What is you contention here? This is obviously a question from ignorance.

[Wyatt_Junker]

[ QUOTE ]
ObjectivistGuy said:
[ QUOTE ]
And deism came from???

[/ QUOTE ]

What is you contention here? This is obviously a question from ignorance.




[/ QUOTE ]

Not ignorance. Just chumming the waters to see if yer ig'nant.

Where'd it come from?

[DesertFox]

He musta been a frienda Rebam's, out to avenge her. Took off and prolly won't be back.

*Sob*

[Timberwolf]

[ QUOTE ]
Timberwolf said:
Leftists and atheists can't get it through their heads that there is a world of difference between "being founded upon Christian principles" and "being founded upon the Christian religion".

[/ QUOTE ]
So, y'all an idjit or do you just not enjoy responding to stuff that shows you for the fool you are??

The gulf that separates the Christian religion from the Christian principles upon which this country was founded is quite wide.

Here's a quote from one of your buds - John Adams: Found HERE... (http://members.aol.com/TestOath/deism.htm)

[ QUOTE ]
John Adams certainly spoke harshly of such anti-Christian propaganda:<ul type="square">The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue equity and humanity, let the Blackguard [scoundrel, rogue] Paine say what he will.[4][/list]Far from opposing "the God of the Old and New Testaments," Adams defended the Bible as the basis for government in a Christian nation:<ul type="square">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! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God.... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be." [5][/list]

[/ QUOTE ]
Doesn't sound to me as if former PRESIDENT Adams had a problem with Christian principles, now did it?

Some advice...quit while you're behind.

[Daskid]

In order to be truly "objective" Ann Rand would have had to have died.

Ayn Rand did indeed die, but I don't yet see how that
makes her objective.

http://www.clipart.co.uk/clipart/dingbats2/small/green/smilies/12.gif

[ObjectivistGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
The gulf that separates the Christian religion from the Christian principles upon which this country was founded is quite wide.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you hesitant to list them because you know they can't stand up to rebutal or what? What Christain principles for the last time? Not killing? No theft? Those are not original christain principles my friend.

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a quote from one of your buds - John Adams:

[/ QUOTE ]

Great source! Hey I hear that the geo cities sites are never wrong so try there! Or maybe anglefire!

Quotes or no quotes actions speak louder than words. He signed the TOT with article 11 in it. It passed the senate with article 11. If they were so hard core about making this a Christain nation why did it pass with no argument from even one person?

[ QUOTE ]
"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" - John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" - John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson

[/ QUOTE ]

[Wyatt_Junker]

[ QUOTE ]
Daskid said:
In order to be truly "objective" Ann Rand would have had to have died.

Ayn Rand did indeed die, but I don't yet see how that
makes her objective.

http://www.clipart.co.uk/clipart/dingbats2/small/green/smilies/12.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

"Objectivity" is a fool's game. No human is. 'Cept the dead ones. And anyone who stakes that claim isn't just ig'nant, they're arrogant to assume they are.

The human animal is, by nature, calibrated at a certain bend. All humans. The closer you approach someone who claims "objectivity", the more one should be wary of a heady creature, full of their own dogma and foul shit. They know not of what they speak.

[PeteS_in_CA]

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

[ QUOTE ]
Article. VII.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

GO WASHINGTON--Presidt. and deputy from Virginia ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to identify the "Lord" the signers of the US Constitution identified as their Lord, OG?

[PeteS_in_CA]

From http://www.colonialhall.com/sherman/sherman.asp , regarding Roger Sherman, signer of the US Constitution:

[ QUOTE ]
To the above excellent traits in the character of Mr. Sherman, it may be added, that he was eminently a pious man. He was long a professor of religion, and one of its brightest ornaments. Nor was his religion that which appeared only on occasions. It was with him a principle and a habit. It appeared in the closet, in the family, on the bench, and in senate house. Few men had a higher reverence for the Bible; few men studied it with deeper attention; few were more intimately acquainted with the doctrines of the gospel, and the metaphysical controversies of the day. On these subjects, he maintained an extended correspondence with some of the most distinguished divines of that period, among whom were Dr. Edwards, Dr. Hopkins, Dr. Trumbull, President Dickenson, and President Witherspoon, all of whom had a high opinion of him as a theologian, and derived much instruction from their correspondence with him.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
We have room only to add the inscription, which is recorded upon the tablet which covers the tomb of this truly excellent man:

In memory of
THE HON. ROGER SHERMAN, ESQ,
Mayor of the city of New-Haven,
and Senator of the United States.
He was born at Newton, in Massachusetts,
April 19th, 1721,
And died in -New-Haven, July 23d, A, D. 1793,
aged LXXII.
...
He was a man of approved integrity;
a cool, discerning Judge;
a prudent, sagacious Politician;
a true, faithful, and firm Patriot.
He ever adorned
the profession of Christianity
which he made in youth;
and distinguished through life
for public usefulness,
died in the prospect of a blessed immortality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some Deist!

[PeteS_in_CA]

From http://www.colonialhall.com/hamilton/hamilton.asp , regarding Alexander Hamilton, signer of the US Constitution:

[ QUOTE ]
In June, 1804, Colonel Burr, vice-president of the United States, addressed a letter to General Hamilton, requiring his acknowledgment or denial of the use of any expression derogatory to the honor of the former. This demand was deemed inadmissible, and a duel was the consequence. After the close of the circuit court, the parties met at Hoboken on the morning of Wednesday, July 11, and Hamilton fell on the same spot where his son a few years before had fallen, in obedience to the same principle of honor, and in the same violation of the laws of God and of man. He was carried into the city, and being desirous of receiving the sacrament of the Lord's supper, he immediately sent for the Rev. Dr. Mason. As the principles of his church prohibited him from administering the ordinance in private, this minister of the gospel informed General Hamilton that the sacrament was an exhibition and pledge of the mercies which the Son of God has purchased, and that the absence of the sign did not exclude from the mercies signified, which were accessible to him by faith in their gracious Author. He replied, "I am aware of that. It is only as a sign that I wanted it." In the conversation which ensued, he disavowed all intention of taking the life of Colonel Burr, and declared his abhorrence of the whole transaction. When the sin of which he had been guilty was intimated to him, he assented with strong emotion; and when the infinite merit of the Redeemer, as the propitiation for sin, the sole' ground of our acceptance with God, was suggested, he said with emphasis "I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ." The Rev. Bishop Moore was afterward sent for, and after making suitable inquiries of the penitence and faith of General Hamilton, and receiving his assurance that he would never again, if restored to health, be engaged in a similar transaction, but would employ all his influence in society to discountenance the barbarous custom, administered to him the communion. After this his mind was composed. He expired about two o'clock on Thursday July 12, 1804, aged about forty-seven years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some Deist, OG! Thank you, though, for the opportunity to drive some stakes in the heart of the Founding-Fathers-were-Deists myth.

[PeteS_in_CA]

From http://www.colonialhall.com/livingstonw/livingstonw.asp , regarding William Livingston:

[ QUOTE ]
Governor Livingston was remarkably plain and simple in his dress and manners. He was convivial, easy, mild, witty, and fond of anecdote. Fixed and unshaken in Christian principles, his life presented an example of incorruptible integrity, strict honor, and warm benevolence. His writings evince a vigorous mind and a refined taste. Intimately acquainted with ancient and modern literature, he acquired an elegance of style which placed him among the first writers of his time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is going to be fun, unless you hold to the Founding-Fathers-were-Deists myth. After the signers of the US Constitution, I'll look at signers of the D of I.

[PeteS_in_CA]

From http://www.colonialhall.com/brearley/brearley.asp , regarding David Brearly, signer of the US Constitution:

[ QUOTE ]
David Brearley. was born in New Jersey, about the year 1763, and at the age of eighteen he received the honors of Princeton College. On leaving that celebrated seminary, he commenced the study of the law, and in a few years stood foremost at the bar of his native State.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ObjectivistGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Care to identify the "Lord" the signers of the US Constitution identified as their Lord, OG?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure no problem.

In the year of our lord is Anno domini in Latin, abbriviated AD. In other words, it's just our dating system. So realy if you want to push the point our country is actually based on the Norse religion because of the days of the weeks (Monday, Tuesday, et cetera.)

Is there anything else you woukd like to know?

Now tell me why "Lord" is mentioned only as a date reference and nowhere else in the document, and why the only specific references to religion in the Constitution is to keep it out of government activities?

[ObjectivistGuy]

As far as the other guys you named who were signers of the constitution ,minus Hamilton, were all pee ons .And I never said 'all' the founding fathers by the way.

Let's see what Jefferson the AUTHOR of the constitution has to say about religion.

[ QUOTE ]
"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." - Thomas Jefferson, from "Notes on Virginia"

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose." - Thomas Jefferson, to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose." - Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind." - Thomas Jefferson to Carey, 1816

[/ QUOTE ]

What did Jefferson think about JC? That he was a regular guy that did not posses any special powers and was not a god. The following quotes support that contention.

[ QUOTE ]
"But the greatest of all reformers of the depraved religion of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separable from that as the diamond from the dunghill, we have the outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man. The establishment of the innocent and genuine character of this benevolent morality, and the rescuing it from the imputation of imposture, which has resulted fro artificial systems, invented by ultra-Christian sects (The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of the Hierarchy, etc.) is a most desirable object." - Thomas Jefferson to W. Short, Oct. 31, 1819

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"It is not to be understood that I am with him (Jesus Christ) in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentence toward forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it.
Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore him to the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, the roguery of others of his disciples. Of this band of dupes and imposters, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and the first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus." - Thomas Jefferson to W. Short, 1820

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"The office of reformer of the superstitions of a nation, is ever more dangerous. Jesus had to work on the perilous confines of reason and religion; and a step to the right or left might place him within the grasp of the priests of the superstition, a bloodthirsty race, as cruel and remorseless as the being whom they represented as the family God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, and the local God of Israel. That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself in that lore." - Thomas Jefferson to Story, Aug. 4, 1820

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man. But compare with these the demoralizing dogmas of Calvin.
1. That there are three Gods.
2. That good works, or the love of our neighbor, is nothing.
3. That faith is every thing, and the more incomprehensible the proposition, the more merit the faith.
4. That reason in religion is of unlawful use.
5. That God, from the beginning, elected certain individuals to be saved, and certain others to be damned; and that no crimes of the former can damn them; no virtues of the latter save." - Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waterhouse, Jun. 26, 1822

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"Creeds have been the bane of the Christian church ... made of Christendom a slaughter-house." - Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waterhouse, Jun. 26, 1822

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"The truth is, that the greatest enemies of the doctrine of Jesus are those, calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them to the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." - Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, Apr. 11, 1823

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"The metaphysical insanities of Athanasius, of Loyola, and of Calvin, are, to my understanding, mere lapses into polytheism, differing from paganism only by being more unintelligible." - Thomas Jefferson to Jared Sparks, 1820

[/ QUOTE ]

[PeteS_in_CA]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as the other guys you named who were signers of the constitution ,minus Hamilton, were all pee ons .And I never said 'all' the founding fathers by the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you said was:

[ QUOTE ]
How can a nation be founded on Christian principles when most of the founding fathers were deist?

[/ QUOTE ]

While you didn't say "all of the founding fathers were deist" you nevertheless made a quantitative claim. And I've started pointing out evidence that contradicts your claim. Better hold on to your objectivist /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tinhat.gif , because there's a lot more to come, and I will be ignoring your ignorant, fallacious (you are playing games with the definition of the term "founding fathers", which is the fallacy of equivocation) denigration of many of the men who founded this country. Your being unaware of their names is a reflection of the state of your knowledge, not of their significance, and your arrogant assertion of their insignificance is more entertaining than informative.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's see what Jefferson the AUTHOR of the constitution has to say about religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Check your "facts" OG : http://www.monticello.org/jefferson/timeline.html . TJ wasn't even in North America when the Constitution was written.

[ QUOTE ]
In the year of our lord is Anno domini in Latin, abbriviated AD. In other words, it's just our dating system. So realy if you want to push the point our country is actually based on the Norse religion because of the days of the weeks (Monday, Tuesday, et cetera.)

Is there anything else you woukd like to know?

Now tell me why "Lord" is mentioned only as a date reference and nowhere else in the document, and why the only specific references to religion in the Constitution is to keep it out of government activities?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your intellectual ignorance and/or dishonesty amazes me. The "Lord" of "year of our Lord", the "Domini", Latin for "Lord", is the Lord Jesus. What you pretend to be a stylistic formality was avoidable, making it an avowal, in the US Constitution, of the Lordship of Jesus (though not all signers understood that Lordship in the same way). The days of the week whose names come from Norse Gods are not the two you specifically mentioned, but rather are Wednesday (Woden), Thursday (Thor), and Friday (Frigga). However, these are not in the US Constitution, except possibly as days on which certain actions are to be taken, i.e. usage of the only day-of-the-week names available in the English language. As noted, the last sentence in the quote is factually false. However more than passing mention of religion would be out of place in a document organizing a national government, unless that nation had a state religion, which the US doesn't have.

Before discussing TJ (and a couple of others) I need you to define "Deist", especially in contrast to 18th century Unitarianism or a "Theist". This is to avoid confusion and equivocation.

[PeteS_in_CA]

From http://www.colonialhall.com/clymer/clymer.asp , regarding David Brearly, signer of the US Constitution:

“Mr. Clymer was again elected to congress in 1780; from which time, for nearly two years, he was absent from his seat but a few weeks, so faithfully and indefatigably attentive was he to the public service. In the latter part of 1782, he removed with his family to Princeton, in New-Jersey, for the purpose of giving to his children the advantages of a collegiate education, in the seminary in that place.”

From http://www.colonialhall.com/williamson/williamson.asp , regarding Hugh Williamson, signer of the US Constitution:

“At the age of sixteen, he entered the first class in the College of Philadelphia, and at the first commence-merit held in that college he received the degree of bachelor of arts. tie afterward commenced the study of divinity with Dr. Samuel Finley, and prosecuted it with such success that in 1759 he was licensed to preach.”

From http://www.colonialhall.com/pinckneycc/pinckneycc.asp , regarding Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, signer of the US Constitution:

“His literary attainments were extensive, especially his classical knowledge; and no one was a more zealous friend to the advancement of learning. For more than fifteen years before his death, he acted as president of the ;Bible Society of Charleston--an office to which he was named with unanimity by the Christians of almost every sect.”

Another seminarian, a licensed preacher, and a Bible society president - some Deists!

[ObjectivistGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
While you didn't say "all of the founding fathers were deist" you nevertheless made a quantitative claim. And I've started pointing out evidence that contradicts your claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I must have missed it. Unless your 'proof' is the four or five people you listed. My contention was that most were NOT christians. You listed five that were. Now I seriously doubt that five people constitute more than half of the founding fathers. And the ones who were Christian had no intention of fusing that within the government.

[ QUOTE ]
you are playing games with the definition of the term "founding fathers

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm playing games with the term 'founding fathers'? Your listing the local dog catcher as a founding father just because you found proof that he was a christian.

[ QUOTE ]
Your intellectual ignorance and/or dishonesty amazes me. The "Lord" of "year of our Lord", the "Domini", Latin for "Lord", is the Lord Jesus

[/ QUOTE ]

Duh.
At the time, that was the only way accepted in their culture to express the date. They were not interested in the compelte overthrow of their own culture, as some of the French Revolutionaries were. Do you reguard the date stamp as having the same significance of the document itself?

[ QUOTE ]
As noted, the last sentence in the quote is factually false.

[/ QUOTE ]

And your just going to make a baseles assertion and not back it with anything?

[ QUOTE ]
However more than passing mention of religion would be out of place in a document organizing a national government, unless that nation had a state religion, which the US doesn't have.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the last part of your quote there. However. The conservative assertion that is used by pretty boy sean hannity and gimme some drugs limbaugh, that the framers use of the word 'religion' was to mean specific religion such as catholic, baptist, et,c etc. There is nothing that backs this assertion. The definition of the word 'religion'(according to every dictionary I have looked at) is, 'the belief of a god or the supernatual.' So any mention of a god, any god, by the government is a violation of the constitution. If you want to argue this point I am ready to provide quotes of the founding fathers using the word religion in the context of god and the supernatural.

[ QUOTE ]
George Washington, the first president of the United States, never declared himself a Christian according to contemporary reports or in any of his voluminous correspondence. Washington Championed the cause of freedom from religious intolerance and compulsion. When John Murray (a universalist who denied the existence of hell) was invited to become an army chaplain, the other chaplains petitioned Washington for his dismissal. Instead, Washington gave him the appointment. On his deathbed, Washinton uttered no words of a religious nature and did not call for a clergyman to be in attendance.
From:
George Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller Jr., pp. 16, 87, 88, 108, 113, 121, 127 (1963, Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, TX)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
John Adams, the country's second president, was drawn to the study of law but faced pressure from his father to become a clergyman. He wrote that he found among the lawyers 'noble and gallant achievments" but among the clergy, the "pretended sanctity of some absolute dunces". Late in life he wrote: "Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!"

It was during Adam's administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."
From:
The Character of John Adams by Peter Shaw, pp. 17 (1976, North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC) Quoting a letter by JA to Charles Cushing Oct 19, 1756, and John Adams, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by James Peabody, p. 403 (1973, Newsweek, New York NY) Quoting letter by JA to Jefferson April 19, 1817, and in reference to the treaty, Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 311 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, June, 1814.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Thomas Jefferson, third president and author of the Declaration of Independence, said:"I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian." He referred to the Revelation of St. John as "the ravings of a maniac" and wrote:
The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained."
From:
Thomas Jefferson, an Intimate History by Fawn M. Brodie, p. 453 (1974, W.W) Norton and Co. Inc. New York, NY) Quoting a letter by TJ to Alexander Smyth Jan 17, 1825, and Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 246 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to John Adams, July 5, 1814.

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -- Thomas Jefferson (letter to J. Adams April 11,1823)[/b/

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
James Madison, fourth president and father of the Constitution, was not religious in any conventional sense. "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
[b]"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
From:
The Madisons by Virginia Moore, P. 43 (1979, McGraw-Hill Co. New York, NY) quoting a letter by JM to William Bradford April 1, 1774, and James Madison, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Joseph Gardner, p. 93, (1974, Newsweek, New York, NY) Quoting Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments by JM, June 1785.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Ethan Allen, whose capture of Fort Ticonderoga while commanding the Green Mountain Boys helped inspire Congress and the country to pursue the War of Independence, said, "That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words." In the same book, Allen noted that he was generally "denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian." When Allen married Fanny Buchanan, he stopped his own wedding ceremony when the judge asked him if he promised "to live with Fanny Buchanan agreeable to the laws of God." Allen refused to answer until the judge agreed that the God referred to was the God of Nature, and the laws those "written in the great book of nature."
From:
Religion of the American Enlightenment by G. Adolph Koch, p. 40 (1968, Thomas Crowell Co., New York, NY.) quoting preface and p. 352 of Reason, the Only Oracle of Man and A Sense of History compiled by American Heritage Press Inc., p. 103 (1985, American Heritage Press, Inc., New York, NY.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I bet you if I had walked into any christain church here in America and quoted some of these quotes that that founding fathers had said if any of them in there would call me a christain?

[Chris]

[ QUOTE ]
ObjectivistGuy said:
The conservative assertion that is used by pretty boy sean hannity and gimme some drugs limbaugh, that the framers use of the word 'religion' was to mean specific religion such as catholic, baptist, et,c etc. There is nothing that backs this assertion.

[/ QUOTE ]

"The real object of the 1st Amendment was not to countenance, much less advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects." - Justice Story, appointed to the SCOTUS by James Madison.

[PeteS_in_CA]

[ QUOTE ]
Well I must have missed it. Unless your 'proof' is the four or five people you listed. My contention was that most were NOT christians. You listed five that were. Now I seriously doubt that five people constitute more than half of the founding fathers. And the ones who were Christian had no intention of fusing that within the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've barely started, OG. BTW, Roger Sherman, Alexander Hamilton, William Livingston, David Brearly, George Clymer, Hugh Williamson, and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney amount to seven, not four or five. The site I've been using also gives bios for the signers of the D of I, and there is another, different site that similarly gives bios of some founding fathers. So there will be much more to come. BTW, are you seriously trying to imply that other founding fathers I haven't mentioned are ipso facto Deists? I'm sure you know that an "argument from silence" is fallacious as well as vulnerable to further discovery of facts.

[PeteS_in_CA]

One of Georgia's conventioneers:

http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/constitution_founding_fathers_georgia.html#Few

Few's career continued to blossom. He served 4 years in the legislature (1802-5) and then as inspector of prisons (1802-10), alderman (1813-14), and U.S. commissioner of loans (1804). From 1804 to 1814 he held a directorship at the Manhattan Bank and later the presidency of City Bank. A devout Methodist, he also donated generously to philanthropic causes.

[PeteS_in_CA]

Also from Georgia:

http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/constitution_founding_fathers_georgia.html#Baldwin

After attending a local village school, Abraham matriculated at Yale, in nearby New Haven. He graduated in 1772. Three years later, he became a minister and tutor at the college. He held that position until 1779, when he served as a chaplain in the Continental Army. Two years later, he declined an offer from his alma mater of a professorship of divinity. Instead of resuming his ministerial or educational duties after the war, he turned to the study of law and in 1783 gained admittance to the bar at Fairfield, CT.

[Timberwolf]

[ QUOTE ]
The conservative assertion that is used by pretty boy sean hannity and gimme some drugs limbaugh, that the framers use of the word 'religion' was to mean specific religion such as catholic, baptist, et,c etc. There is nothing that backs this assertion.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh REALLY?? Let us READ what Jefferson actually wrote that you brain dead liberals cite as the source for the "separation clause" shall we??<ul type="square">Gentlemen:

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Thomas Jefferson[/list]Now then...shall we read the letter to which the above is a response? Yes, let us...<ul type="square">The address of the Danbury Baptists Association in the state of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801. To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America.

Sir,

Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that none are more sincere.

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the association,

Nehemiah Dodge
Ephraim Robbins
Stephen S. Nelson[/list]Gee, looks to me that the letter explicitly states that there were those who were granting favor through legislation to those of the same religious beliefs and that the Danbury Baptists were being persecuted as a result. Oh, and the following:<ul type="square">The Fallacy of Seperation Of Church And State In The U.S. (http://www.geocities.com/dexlox/SC.html)[/list] is also quite enlightening. Get a clue, Sparky.

[ QUOTE ]
The definition of the word 'religion'(according to every dictionary I have looked at) is, 'the belief of a god or the supernatual.' So any mention of a god, any god, by the government is a violation of the constitution. If you want to argue this point I am ready to provide quotes of the founding fathers using the word religion in the context of god and the supernatural.

[/ QUOTE ]
And, of course, you are wrong yet AGAIN...shall we READ what the dictionary REALLY says about the definition of religion?? Yes, let us...<ul type="square">Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&amp;n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective [/list]Gosh, I guess belief in God, a god, or a supernatural being ISN'T necessarily the ONLY definition of 'religion', now is it? In fact, you atheism is a religion. Secular Humanism is a religion. Druidism, Buddhism, etal are religions.

[DoctorDoom]

Brer Pete, you're wasting your efforts with this heathen. He's another troll from Infidels who is not here to debate, but to instigate and infuriate. Your excellent arguments are falling on totally deaf ears connected to a totally indoctrinated "brain". However, thanks for that site. I've bookmarked it and will be referring to it regularly.

[DoctorDoom]

[ QUOTE ]
"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 against the laws, religion or tranquillity of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohammedan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever interrupt the harmony existing between the two countries."

[/ QUOTE ]
Is the government of the United States the definition of the United States? What the GOVERNMENT was founded upon is a far cry from the founding principles of the NATION.

BTW, the Constitution was drafted to define and limit the power of the federal government, not of the people or the churches.

[ QUOTE ]
How can a nation be founded on Christian principles when most of the founding fathers were deist?

[/ QUOTE ]
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
-- Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945

[ QUOTE ]
Great source! Hey I hear that the geo cities sites are never wrong so try there! Or maybe anglefire!

[/ QUOTE ]
So because the quotes were from an AOL site, John Adams never said them. If AOL, GeoCities and "anglefire" (what kind of angle - acute, right, or in your case, obtuse?) are unreliable, what then shall we say about Infidels, the reeking pseudointellectual cesspool of the Internet?

[ QUOTE ]
The conservative assertion that is used by pretty boy sean hannity and gimme some drugs limbaugh...

[/ QUOTE ]
Another typical "argument" by a chronic loser trying desperately to stay afloat in a raging sea of his own ignorance.

[ObjectivistGuy]

Oh yea Pete the head of the prisons was a christian. YOU GOT ME!<--sarcasm)


[ QUOTE ]
Oh REALLY?? Let us READ what Jefferson actually wrote that you brain dead liberals cite as the source for the "separation clause" shall we??

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Now then...shall we read the letter to which the above is a response? Yes, let us...

[/ QUOTE ]

So what that's what they resonded? They were baptist!

Now lets see where the exact words 'seperation of church and state' were used by the founding fathers.

From James Madison,
[ QUOTE ]
The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by thetotal separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and &amp; Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself (Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).

[/ QUOTE ]

OH yea you like that? HUH? HUH? Take it!


[ QUOTE ]
Gosh, I guess belief in God, a god, or a supernatural being ISN'T necessarily the ONLY definition of 'religion', now is it? In fact, you atheism is a religion. Secular Humanism is a religion. Druidism, Buddhism, etal are religions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whats the first definition huh?
And if you say that atheism and secular humanism is a religion but christianity is not? God is not?

[ QUOTE ]
Is the government of the United States the definition of the United States? What the GOVERNMENT was founded upon is a far cry from the founding principles of the NATION.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK....for the 5789345782457 time. List to me the 'founding principles' of this nation.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, the Constitution was drafted to define and limit the power of the federal government, not of the people or the churches.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's correct, but how exactly does this fit into your argument?

[DoctorDoom]

[ QUOTE ]
OK....for the 5789345782457 time. List to me the 'founding principles' of this nation.

[/ QUOTE ]
If we were to list them for you 10^10,000 times more, they would be ignored 10^10,000 times more.

I have far more rewarding things to do than playing games with contentious children. My sock drawer needs rearranging.

[ObjectivistGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
"The real object of the 1st Amendment was not to countenance, much less advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects." - Justice Story, appointed to the SCOTUS by James Madison.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK Chris let me see if I understand you conservatives right. When ever a Judge interprets the constitution that suits your favors it is automatically the right judgement. However when a judge interprets the constitution in a way that doesn't suit the conservative fancy it is automatically some kind of liberal (which I'm not a liberal or a conservative by the way) conspiracy?

[ QUOTE ]
If we were to list them for you 1010,000 times more, they would be ignored 1010,000 times more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea they were listed guy... suuuuuuuuuure <--sarcasm)

[Westbrook]

Original Intent.

Is that Objective enough for you?

Probably not, since Objectivism appears to me to be just Relativism frozen in a snapshot. Eventually, the Objectivists will take another snapshot and move on.

[Chris]

[ QUOTE ]
ObjectivistGuy said:
[ QUOTE ]
"The real object of the 1st Amendment was not to countenance, much less advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects." - Justice Story, appointed to the SCOTUS by James Madison.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK Chris let me see if I understand you conservatives right. When ever a Judge interprets the constitution that suits your favors it is automatically the right judgement. However when a judge interprets the constitution in a way that doesn't suit the conservative fancy it is automatically some kind of liberal (which I'm not a liberal or a conservative by the way) conspiracy?


[/ QUOTE ]

So, the Father of American Jurisprudence isn't good enough for you. Ok, here's more.

"All men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others." - George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights

"Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement. . . . The very existence of the republics . . . depend much upon the public institutions of religion." - John Hancock

"As to the subject of religion. . . . no power is given to the general government to interfere with it at all. . . . No sect is preferred to another. Every man has a right to worship the Supreme Being in the manner he thinks proper." - Richard Dobbs Spaight, signer of the Constitution

"The clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly." - Thomas Jefferson

[PeteS_in_CA]

[ QUOTE ]
Brer Pete, you're wasting your efforts with this heathen. He's another troll from Infidels who is not here to debate, but to instigate and infuriate. Your excellent arguments are falling on totally deaf ears connected to a totally indoctrinated "brain". However, thanks for that site. I've bookmarked it and will be referring to it regularly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't worry, DD. I'm not just responding to OG. I'm keeping it all in a file, something I should have done long ago, for the next founding-fathers-were-Deists parroter-of-myths, and the next, and the next ...

****

[ QUOTE ]
I'm playing games with the term 'founding fathers'? Your listing the local dog catcher as a founding father just because you found proof that he was a christian.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh yea Pete the head of the prisons was a christian.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you denigrate men who were signers of the Constitution who were legislators, governors, Congressmen, generals, etc. as insignificant, you only expose your ignorance and self-willed blindness and refute the case your are trying to advocate.

[PeteS_in_CA]

From http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/constitution_founding_fathers_connecticut.html#Joh nson regarding Willim Samuel Johnson, signer of the US Constitution (from CT):

“he had a strong association with the Anglican Church;”

From http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/constitution_founding_fathers_delaware.html#Basset t regarding Richard Bassett, signer of the US Constitution (from DE):

He was a devout Methodist, held religious meetings at Bohemia Manor(his home), and supported the church financially.

From http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/constitution_founding_fathers_delaware.html#Broom regarding Jacob Broom, signer of the US Constitution (from DE):

Broom also found time for philanthropic and religious activities. He served on the board of trustees of the College of Wilmington and as a lay leader at Old Swedes Church.

From http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/constitution_founding_fathers_maryland.html#McHenr y regarding Richard Bassett, signer of the US Constitution (from MD):

He also held the office of president of a Bible society.

From http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/constitution_founding_fathers_maryland.html#Carrol l regardingDaniel Carroll, signer of the US Constitution (from MD):

Daniel's older brother was John Carroll, the first Roman Catholic bishop in the United States.
Daniel was born in 1730 at Upper Marlboro, MD. Befitting the son of a wealthy Roman Catholic family, he studied for 6 years (1742-48) under the Jesuits at St. Omer's in Flanders.

[PeteS_in_CA]

[ QUOTE ]
How can a nation be founded on Christian principles when most of the founding fathers were deist?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
My contention was that most were NOT christians.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is it, OG? The two statements mean two different things. Are you trying to change the subject? Or do you simply not know that the two statements are different?

[Timberwolf]

Boyo...you certainly ARE dense, aren't you? I've seen data on neutron stars that were less so than you.

I more time for the neuron-challenged troll. Religion does NOT equal God. No one here is saying that we want a theocracy, that would be an extremely BAAAAAD thing. Our FF were Christian men, they founded this country upon the principles of the Christian religion, they did NOT intertwine the Christian RELIGION into our government and for good reason...Catholics worship differently than Lutherans who worship differently than Methodists who worship differently than Baptists, who worship differently than....ad infinitum. Thus, the Danbury Baptist's letter to Thomas Jefferson and his response to them.

The Founders KNEW the importance of God but recognized the inherent propensity for some to perpetuate very bad things in the name of RELIGION.

Ya know, for someone claiming to be so intellectually superior (or at least acting so with your...what was the phrase DF used? Oh, yeah....snotty condescension, you certainly are lacking in rational thought. FCOL, you can't even get it through your thick head that religion and God are two completely different things.

[Machfour]

Liberal judges, ACLU lawyers, and liberal law professors have stolen the heritage of this nation. They have taken a clearly worded provision of the Constitution and twisted it to rob of us of the very underpinnings of our government and our society. They didn't do it through legislative acts, adopted by the duly elected representatives of the people. In fact, no words have changed in the First Amendment. The original words have been given radically different nonsensical meanings. Liberal judges have taken prayer out of our schools and manger scenes out of our town squares by blatant dishonesty. They have taken a constitutional provision that clearly limits Congress and only Congress and applied it to states, cities, counties.

This a quote from Bill Sizemore.

The framers of the 1st Amendment goal was simple. No specific Christian denomination would gain control of the Federal Gov. The left has taken this simple idea and given the amendment a completely new one.

Note also, only two of the Fifty signers were deist.

Machfour

[Timberwolf]

Short. Sweet. To the point.

Good post and welcome, Machfour. Interesting how 2 of 50 becomes "most" as in "most of the Founders were deists".

[ObjectivistGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Of the eleven states that ratified the 1st Amendment, nine (counting Maryland) adhered to the viewpoint that support of religion and churches should be voluntary, that any government financial assistance to religion constituted an establishment of religion.

Source of Information:

The First Freedoms, Church and State in America to the Passage of the First Amendment, by Thomas Curry, page 220.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"the establishment of chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of constitutional principles. . . If religion consists in equal voluntary acts of individual singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents should discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expense." James Madison

[/ QUOTE ]

Establishment bill Madison vetoed because it violated the establishment clause.

The first was called.."An act incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia,"

Here is madisons response to the bill.

[ QUOTE ]
Because the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which governments are limited, by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions, and violates, in particular, the article of the Constitution of the United States, which declares, that " Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment." The bill affects into, and establishes by law, sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the organization and polity of the church incorporated, and comprehending even the election and removal of the Minister of the same; so that no change could be made therein by the particular society, or by the general church of which it is a member, and whose support it recognizes. This particular church therefore, would be so far be a religious establishment by law; a legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its Constitution and administrations. Nor can it be considered, that the articles thus established are to be taken as descriptive criteria only of the corporate identity of the society, inasmuch as this identity must depend on other characteristics: as the regulations established are generally unessential, and alterable according to the principles and canons by which churches of that denomination govern themselves; and as the injunction is a prohibitions contained in the regulations, would be enforced by the penal consequences applicable to all violation of them according to local law:

Because the bill vests and said incorporated church an also authority to provide for the support of the poor, and the education of poor children of the same; an authority which being altogether superfluous, if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious societies, as such, a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty.

JAMES MADISON

Feb. 21, 1811

[/ QUOTE ]

Boy good thing we don't have presidents giving money to churches today'!


Madison admits to congresional chaplins a mistake!


As president, however, Madison had proclaimed several days for fast and thanksgiving, but he found extenuating circumstances in the fact that he was chief executive during the time a war was fought on national soil. And as he pointed out in his letter of 1822 to Livingston, although he "found it necessary" to deviate from "strict principle" by his Proclamations, he "was always careful to make the Proclamation absolutely indiscriminate, and merely recommendatory; or, rather mere designations of a day on which all who thought proper might unite in consecrating it to religious purposes, according to their own faith and forms." Nevertheless, Madison could have followed the example of Jefferson, who, as president refused Congress's requests to declare days of fasting and thanksgiving. Moreover, as president, Madison approved of chaplains for the armed forces, an action that he later thought unconstitutional.17

In Madison's "Detached Memoranda," written after he retired from the presidency in 1817, he expressed concern that the "danger of silent accumulations &amp; encroachments by Ecclesiastical Bodies have not sufficiently engaged attention in the U.S.18 He asked, "Is the appointment of chaplain's to the two houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?" By way of answer he replied:

in strictest the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United states forbid anything like establishment of a NATIONAL religion. The law appointing chaplains establishes a religious worship for the NATIONAL representatives, to be performed by ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the NATIONAL taxes. Does this not involve a principle of a NATIONAL Establishment, a applicable to provision for a religious worship for the constituent as well as the representative body, approved by the majority, and conducted by ministers of religion paid by the entire nation? [EMPHASIS ADDED]

Madison continued: "the establishment of chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as a of constitutional principles. . . If religion consists in equal voluntary acts of individual singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents should discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expense."

Thus the proposition that Madison meant merely a national church or no preference in the support of religion is groundless, . . . to Madison "a NATIONAL religion" broadly covered as much as even the most trifling matters. Chief Justice Rehnquist built most of his opinion favoring the constitutionality of non preferential government aid to religion on the baseless reading he gave to " national religion," without considering or knowing that Madison believed that military chaplains or fast day constituted a national religion. Rehnquist merely read his own values into " National religion" (as did Madison). The views that Madison expressed in 1789 on establishment of religion conform generally to his views, whether a thought in terms of the general assessment, a religious establishment, or a national religion. In each instance he wanted "perfect separation" between government and religion.

[ QUOTE ]

In the "Detached Memoranda" Madison also stated that "Religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts are shoots from the same root with the legislative acts reviewed [the chaplaincies],"28 Madison made this remarkable judgment about so innocuous an act as a presidential recommendation for a day of thanksgiving, another extreme example of nonpreference on a matter respecting religion. He regarded such recommendations as violating
the First Amendment: "They seem to imply and certainly nourish the erroneous idea of a national religion."

28. Fleet, ed., "Madison's `Detached Memoranda,"' p. 560

[/ QUOTE ]



So just to recap. Madison vetoed three bills that he claimed were seperation violations. One of which I posted above. The others I can't find right now.

He admitted that he made a mistake when appointing congressional chaplins.

9 of the 11 states that ratified the first amendment stated that that any government financial assistance to religion constituted an establishment of religion.

NOTICE THE CONTEXT OF THE WORD RELIGION THERE CHRIS.

And what did madison say about the context of the word religion in the establisment clause Chris? Well lets see shall we?

: "They seem to imply and certainly nourish the erroneous idea of a national religion."

I got more if you want it.

[Timberwolf]

You're grasping at straws...what you've just posted in no way invalidates anything we've (well, anything I'VE) been saying.

Can you say "desperation"??

Gooooood...I knew ya could.

[ObjectivistGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
You're grasping at straws...what you've just posted in no way invalidates anything we've (well, anything I'VE) been saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

My post was a rebutal to Chrises contention that religion ONLY means specific religion. While he is correct he is not telling the entire story. Religion ALSO means christianity, or any combination of multiple religions. That is what the quotes from madson clearly show.

Here's another one from Madison for you pleasure.

[ QUOTE ]
Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).

[/ QUOTE ]

[ObjectivistGuy]

As far as responding to you specifically TW I have successfully rebutted you a long time ago. There are about 50 quotes of yours I rebutted and you did not respond back to. Why? Did you forget? Perhaps you were wrong? I eagerly await your excuse.

[Timberwolf]

[ QUOTE ]
ObjectivistGuy said:
As far as responding to you specifically TW I have successfully rebutted you a long time ago. There are about 50 quotes of yours I rebutted and you did not respond back to. Why? Did you forget? Perhaps you were wrong? I eagerly await your excuse.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because you didn't rebut anything. You've given a lot of your opinion, as far as I can tell. For all I know, you're making all this stuff up because you're not linking to your sources. I don't waste my time on those that state they argue fact when all they do is offer their opinion.

[ObjectivistGuy]

No matter what site I link to unless its the 'christian bible thumping assosiation', you will claim it irrelevant. Go educate yourself and you will know what I say is true. You have been rebutted and you can't contend. Good day.

[Timberwolf]

[ QUOTE ]
ObjectivistGuy said:
No matter what site I link to unless its the 'christian bible thumping assosiation', you will claim it irrelevant. Go educate yourself and you will know what I say is true. You have been rebutted and you can't contend. Good day.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nice try...now, try again...with links to your sources. Otherwise SDASTFU. You rebut exactly squat with your lame opinions. Cite your sources or go home to idiot infidels.

[DoctorDoom]

What is the monomaniacal obsession with the merest mention of God in the public sector? These trolls from Internet Idiots have been fixated on it for several hundred posts.

FC is a conservative BB that even the slightest amount of lurking would show to be composed largely of Christians. One would think that the clueless heathen asshats would realize that they are invading hostile turf. Yet they come here, attack everything that we hold sacred, and then cry like mewling, puking infants with loaded diapers when we don't fall at their feet and call them "MASTER!"

I've had it up to my eyebrows with these snivelling, self-important zit-poppers with delusions of being grownups. They are utterly unacquainted with being challenged, because Internet Idiots is like a redneck family outing. They're a bunch of pseudointellectual inbreds who tolerate no argument and who treat any incautious Christian who wallows in their cesspool with a level of hatred and venom that would not be tolerated at FC. There is no dissent there. It's the atheistic equivalent of DUh.

Yet they come here, drop their troll turds all over the board, and then wail like spanked toddlers when their verbal diarrhea is not treated like Holy Writ.

In the manner of South Park, it's time to play "Kick The Baby".

[Chris]

[ QUOTE ]
ObjectivistGuy said:
So just to recap. Madison vetoed three bills that he claimed were seperation violations. One of which I posted above. The others I can't find right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, so? If they favored one sect, then they are violations of the establishment clause.


[ QUOTE ]
He admitted that he made a mistake when appointing congressional chaplins.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, so? Exactly what does Madison’s 180 in later life have to do with what the framers (plural, as in - more than one) meant by religion when they framed the Constitution?


[ QUOTE ]
9 of the 11 states that ratified the first amendment stated that that any government financial assistance to religion constituted an establishment of religion.

NOTICE THE CONTEXT OF THE WORD RELIGION THERE CHRIS.

[/ QUOTE ]

See my first reply above.


[ QUOTE ]
And what did madison say about the context of the word religion in the establisment clause Chris? Well lets see shall we?

: "They seem to imply and certainly nourish the erroneous idea of a national religion."

[/ QUOTE ]

And yet, Madison issued Presidential proclamations for national days of prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving. So, once again, what’s his 180 in later life have to do with what the framers meant by religion?


[ QUOTE ]
Here's another one from Madison for you pleasure.

Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it’s certainly not for your pleasure Sparky. It proves what I said. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yeahthat.gif

[ObjectivistGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice try...now, try again...with links to your sources. Otherwise SDASTFU. You rebut exactly squat with your lame opinions. Cite your sources or go home to idiot infidels.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strange your nto holdign any of you conserva-nazi buddies on here ot the same standar. but hey why stop havign double standards now. Its the republican norm.

Throw the drug users in jail!!

and then


Leave Rush a alone it happens to everybody.!!


Hypocrites!

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, so? If they favored one sect, then they are violations of the establishment clause.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's correct but you are conviently leavign out the other half from which I have proven already.

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, so? Exactly what does Madison’s 180 in later life have to do with what the framers (plural, as in - more than one) meant by religion when they framed the Constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess you want more?

Just wait till dad gets home from work this afternoon son!

[DoctorDoom]

No, we don't "want more". We want you and your ilk to STFU about this, inasmuch as you've done it to death and you've only impressed yourselves and each other. Go back to Internet Idiots and enjoy the freedom from thinking that characterizes "freethinkers". We are growing weary of you children.

[Machfour]

A couple of points about "separation of church and state".

When the writers debated the wording of the first amendment, the phrase was never mentioned. This fact alone speaks volumes. Could it be the amendment was interpreted differently generations later? I think so.

Jefferson seems to be the authority when the issue of the first amendment is debated. The fact is Jefferson's Danbury letter was written over a decade after the first amendment was written. Also Jefferson was in France at the time of the first amendment writting and is given too much credit for it's proper interpretation.

Machfour

[PeteS_in_CA]

[ QUOTE ]
For all I know, you're making all this stuff up because you're not linking to your sources.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? You've never heard of the "Missing Link"? I also noticed that problem and actually anticipated it in my posts with quotes from bio's, where I provide links. I'm slightly less worried about fabrication than I am about whether the quotes given are being used contrary to their context - "A text without context is a pretext." Post your source(s), OG, so we can read things in context. Or are you just posting talking points from atheist sites, hoping we won't figure that out?

[ QUOTE ]
No matter what site I link to unless its the 'christian bible thumping assosiation', you will claim it irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon133.gif Curious, I didn't know the US National Archives' site I've been linking is a site for the 'christian bible thumping assosiation'. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon133.gif Methinks OG is getting hot under the collar. I linked non-religious sites in my posts in anticipation of your argument quoted above, but I didn't expect you would be silly enough to try it anyway. IIRC, this fallacy you're trying to pawn off on us is a version of what is called "poisoning the wells" - a priori rejection as being unreliable of any source one's opponent uses.

[ QUOTE ]
Strange your nto holdign any of you conserva-nazi buddies on here ot the same standar. but hey why stop havign double standards now. Its the republican norm.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, there's steam coming from OG's ears, he's getting hasty.

[DoctorDoom]

Hasty and frustrated. He's from I.I. (or whatever they call themselves these days), ergo he is unaccustomed to being amongst people who don't cater to him and who can blast his immature ramblings to tiny fragments with the facts.

FYI:

[ QUOTE ]
Description of Poisoning the Well

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fallacy: Poisoning the Well (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html)

BTW, for a full list of the logical fallacies, go here: Fallacies (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html)

[Timberwolf]

[ QUOTE ]
ObjectivistGuy said:
[ QUOTE ]
Nice try...now, try again...with links to your sources. Otherwise SDASTFU. You rebut exactly squat with your lame opinions. Cite your sources or go home to idiot infidels.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strange your nto holdign any of you conserva-nazi buddies on here ot the same standar. but hey why stop havign double standards now. Its the republican norm.

[/ QUOTE ]
To whom do you refer? Pete? He's been linking. Chris? I know her info to be accurate, as this is probably the 10th time we've gone over this stuff. But, I don't HAVE to ask them for links because I BELIEVE them. If YOU want their sources, YOU ask them for them. As you will notice, I'VE been freely giving my sources to you. I only ask that you return the courtesy so that I can read you "quotes" in the context they were offered by the one quoted.

[ QUOTE ]
Throw the drug users in jail!!

and then


Leave Rush a alone it happens to everybody.!!


Hypocrites!

[/ QUOTE ]
Now, you're just plain losing your mind. What the [censored] does this have to do with anything?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, so? If they favored one sect, then they are violations of the establishment clause.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's correct but you are conviently leavign out the other half from which I have proven already.

[/ QUOTE ]
You've not proven a thing...you've only been giving your opinion, which counts for exactly squat.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, so? Exactly what does Madison’s 180 in later life have to do with what the framers (plural, as in - more than one) meant by religion when they framed the Constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess you want more?

Just wait till dad gets home from work this afternoon son!

[/ QUOTE ]
Look at the avatar in Chris's posts...now tell me, does she look like someone's son? Good Lord, little boy, try using some deductive logic...oooooh, THAT'S the problem, you haven't any. So sorry, my mistake.

Listen up, sonny...establishment of religion is what they had in England and what our Founding Fathers fled...the Church of England was entertwined with the government of England. Do you get it NOW??

I didn't think so. A mind as dense as yours is impenetrable and immune to logic and truth.

[Chris]

[ QUOTE ]
ObjectivistGuy said:
Strange your nto holdign any of you conserva-nazi buddies on here ot the same standar. but hey why stop havign double standards now. Its the republican norm.

Throw the drug users in jail!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Or, at least keep them off the internet. Exaclty waht hvae yuo ben smoknig junoir??? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tinhat.gif


[ QUOTE ]
That's correct but you are conviently leavign out the other half from which I have proven already.

[/ QUOTE ]

Put down the bong and try to follow the discussion. You and I are discussing what the founders meant by religion during the framing of the 1st amendment. Also, try a little proof-reading.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, so? Exactly what does Madison’s 180 in later life have to do with what the framers (plural, as in - more than one) meant by religion when they framed the Constitution?

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess you want more?

[/ QUOTE ]

What I want is for you to answer the question. Posting more won't do you any good, because you obviously don't understand the meaning of anything you are quoting.


[ QUOTE ]
Just wait till dad gets home from work this afternoon son!

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong again Sparky. I'm a daddy's girl. And, always will be.

[ObjectivistGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Jefferson seems to be the authority when the issue of the first amendment is debated. The fact is Jefferson's Danbury letter was written over a decade after the first amendment was written. Also Jefferson was in France at the time of the first amendment writting and is given too much credit for it's proper interpretation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi match four.

Here are other quotes from James Madison on the seperation issue.

[ QUOTE ]
The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

[/ QUOTE ]

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qmadison.htm


[ QUOTE ]

And yet, Madison issued Presidential proclamations for national days of prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving. So, once again, what’s his 180 in later life have to do with what the framers meant by religion?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's correct. So what does that prove? That madison was a spiritual man? perhaps. That America uses the KJV 1611 as its source of law and governing? Absolutely not.


I posted this quote from madison completely verifing that the word "religion' was to be used in all spiritual contexts.


[ QUOTE ]
"They seem to imply and certainly nourish the erroneous idea of a national religion."

[/ QUOTE ]

To which you replied...

[ QUOTE ]
And yet, Madison issued Presidential proclamations for national days of prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving. So, once again, what’s his 180 in later life have to do with what the framers meant by religion?

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all you argument does not even address the madison quote. You errected a strawman.

Secondly,

[ QUOTE ]
As president, however, Madison had proclaimed several days for fast and thanksgiving, but he found extenuating circumstances in the fact that he was chief executive during the time a war was fought on national soil. And as he pointed out in his letter of 1822 to Livingston, although he "found it necessary" to deviate from "strict principle" by his Proclamations, he "was always careful to make the Proclamation absolutely indiscriminate, and merely recommendatory; or, rather mere designations of a day on which all who thought proper might unite in consecrating it to religious purposes, according to their own faith and forms." Nevertheless, Madison could have followed the example of Jefferson, who, as president refused Congress's requests to declare days of fasting and thanksgiving. Moreover, as president, Madison approved of chaplains for the armed forces, an action that he later thought unconstitutional.17

[/ QUOTE ]

You can find the Madison quote and the above here.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madnational.htm


I had previously posted.

[ QUOTE ]
Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).

[/ QUOTE ]

To which you replied.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, it’s certainly not for your pleasure Sparky. It proves what I said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at the words in bold more carefully. I guess your contention is that since christianity is more that two different kinds of religions that it doesn't apply? Laughable.

Here madison refers to christianity specificly.

[ QUOTE ]
Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. [James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785]

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a quote that backs up both out points. Yours about the sects and mine about religion in general.

[ QUOTE ]
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?

[/ QUOTE ]

And I saved the best for last.

[ QUOTE ]
It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a religious establishment; and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by the legal provision for its clergy. The experience of Virginia conspiciously corroboates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Government, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the TOTAL SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE. [James Madison, as quoted in Robert L. Maddox: Separation of Church and State; Guarantor of Religious Freeedom]


[/ QUOTE ]

The quote is from a Baptist ministers book!

Ohh oh what is that in bold? What kind of religion does it say? Oh yes a CHRISTIAN RELIGION!

Here is the link.

http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_JMadison.htm

[Chris]

[ QUOTE ]
That's correct. So what does that prove? That madison was a spiritual man? perhaps. That America uses the KJV 1611 as its source of law and governing? Absolutely not.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, once again, what’s his 180 in later life have to do with what the framers meant by religion?


[ QUOTE ]
First of all you argument does not even address the madison quote. You errected a strawman.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a discussion about what the <font size=4>FRAMERS</font> meant by religion, it is not erecting a strawman to ask you what Madison’s 180 in later life, that you keep quoting, has to do with it. Why do you keep avoiding the question? http://www.discodelic.netfirms.com/sarcastic-hairball.gif


[ QUOTE ]
Look at the words in bold more carefully. I guess your contention is that since christianity is more that two different kinds of religions that it doesn't apply? Laughable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Guess again Sparky. I’ll give you a hint. It has to do with WHAT THE FRAMERS MEANT BY RELIGION! http://www.discodelic.netfirms.com/sarcastic-neckgrab.gif


[ QUOTE ]
The quote is from a Baptist ministers book!

Ohh oh what is that in bold? What kind of religion does it say? Oh yes a CHRISTIAN RELIGION!

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh golly, gee, look at that. http://www.discodelic.netfirms.com/sarcastic-looky.gif When Madison talked about religion he meant Christianity too, JUST LIKE THE OTHER FRAMERS!


[ QUOTE ]
Here is the link.

http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_JMadison.htm


[/ QUOTE ]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/sailor.gif Oh looky there’s more there -

“...Freedom arises from the multiplicity of sects, which prevades America and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest.” [James Madison, spoken at the Virginia convention on ratifying the Constitution, June 1778]


Notice the date.



Tell you what Sparky. You keep doing this http://www.discodelic.netfirms.com/sarcastic-beatingadeadhorse.gif and I'll go watch a movie. K? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[ObjectivistGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh golly, gee, look at that. When Madison talked about religion he meant Christianity too, JUST LIKE THE OTHER FRAMERS!

[/ QUOTE ]


THANK YOU!!!

And that's my point sparkette! ! Christianity is a religion!
Gosh!

[Timberwolf]

Neutron stars are less dense than you, ObsequeousGuy. Dim bulb doesn't do justice to how intellectually challenged you really are.

[DoctorDoom]

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~rmacarth/molehill.jpg (http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~rmacarth/generalbiol.html)<center><font size="6" color="brown">


This is a
molehill.</font></center><br clear="all">

<a href="" target="_blank">http://www.editorialjuventud.es/everest.jpg<center>
<font size="6" color="0D6924">

This is a
liberal's
molehill.</font></center><br clear="all">

<center><font size="6" color="324685">Any questions?</font></center>

[Chris]

[ QUOTE ]
ObjectivistGuy said:
And that's my point sparkette! ! Christianity is a religion!
Gosh!

[/ QUOTE ]

No $hit Sherlock! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/duh.gif I'm really glad you figured that out.

Now, how's that prove what you've asserted about what the framers meant by religion? http://www.discodelic.netfirms.com/sarcastic-waiting1.gif

[ObjectivistGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
No $hit Sherlock! I'm really glad you figured that out.

Now, how's that prove what you've asserted about what the framers meant by religion?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you admit that christianity is a religion?

[Timberwolf]

What IS your point? Are you claiming that our government is run BY a religion? You must be because that is what would have to be happening for the "establishment" clause to be violated.

Last time I checked, Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, Rex Humbard, Billy Graham, Robert Schuler, Joyce Meyers, John Hagee and a whole host of other Christian leaders had no say in making, executing and/or judging our laws in a way that was binding upon the people. Therefore, no establishment.

Furthermore, no law is historically or presently on the books that requires YOU to believe in God, a god or no god at all.

You babbling drone, there is NO establishment. Period.

[Chris]

[ QUOTE ]
ObjectivistGuy said:

So you admit that christianity is a religion?

[/ QUOTE ]

HELLOOOoooo! Anybody home??? http://www.discodelic.netfirms.com/angry-bangonhead2.gif

[ObjectivistGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
You babbling drone, there is NO establishment. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have laws that keep you from buying alcohol on Sundays in some places.

There are some state constitutions that say unless you believe in god you can't hold office.

I could have sworn my tax dollars were going to christain churches for them to supposedly to help the needy. T o be honest with you all the church soup kitchens I have seen are filled with people that are using the free meals so the can spend their own cash on 40's and rims that keep spinning when you stop driving.


[ QUOTE ]
HELLOOOoooo! Anybody home???

[/ QUOTE ]

No I've been gone all day.

If your contention is that the framers did not use religion in the context to mean christianity in general then you have already been proven wrong.

[Chris]

[ QUOTE ]
ObjectivistGuy said:
If your contention is that the framers did not use religion in the context to mean christianity in general then you have already been proven wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not from anything you posted, and I'm not wrong. True, they used it in that context TOO, but the purpose of the 1st amendment was to prevent the favoring of any one sect, or a combination of two (in an effort to dominate), to keep them from eventually becoming a national religion as the Church of England had. Do you get it now??? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tinhat.gif

[Timberwolf]

[ QUOTE ]
ObjectivistGuy said:
[ QUOTE ]
You babbling drone, there is NO establishment. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have laws that keep you from buying alcohol on Sundays in some places.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your point??

[ QUOTE ]
There are some state constitutions that say unless you believe in god you can't hold office.

[/ QUOTE ]
I, for one, would like to see some PROOF of this one. I've never heard of such a thing. Especially when Article VI
Clause 3 of our Constituiton states the following::<ul type="square">The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.[/list]...unless, of course, this particular passage only limits the FEDERAL government. I always took it to mean ANY government office. I could be wrong about that, though.

[ QUOTE ]
I could have sworn my tax dollars were going to christain churches for them to supposedly to help the needy.

[/ QUOTE ]
So now you have a problem with helping the needy. Fine, upstanding citizen YOU are. Gimme a break you whining, intellectually challenged, effeminate pansy. Guess what?? I have a problem with my tax dollars going to Planned Parenthood for the sole purpose of supplying abortion on demand. Which of us has more noble intentions for his tax dollar?? Hmmmm....you don't want to help the needy....I want to prevent the most innocent among us from being murdered.

[ QUOTE ]
T o be honest with you all the church soup kitchens I have seen are filled with people that are using the free meals so the can spend their own cash on 40's and rims that keep spinning when you stop driving.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you can't be honest with yourself, why do you expect us to think you CAN be honest with us?? Besides, half of that one is incoherent....could you please speak English? Thanks...appreciate it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
HELLOOOoooo! Anybody home???

[/ QUOTE ]

No I've been gone all day.

[/ QUOTE ]
You've been "gone" a lot longer than one day...trust me.

[ QUOTE ]
If your contention is that the framers did not use religion in the context to mean christianity in general then you have already been proven wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've been claiming for a couple days now that you're more dense than a neutron star...you are proving me correct with each response you post.

[ObjectivistGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Not from anything you posted, and I'm not wrong. True, they used it in that context TOO, but the purpose of the 1st amendment was to prevent the favoring of any one sect, or a combination of two (in an effort to dominate), to keep them from eventually becoming a national religion as the Church of England had. Do you get it now???

[/ QUOTE ]

Not according to madison. Do you get that? Show me the quotes from the arguments from the other framers that specificly challanged madison on his use of the word religion.

[ QUOTE ]
I, for one, would like to see some PROOF of this one. I've never heard of such a thing. Especially when Article VI
Clause 3 of our Constituiton states the following::

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=2477

[ QUOTE ]
So now you have a problem with helping the needy. Fine, upstanding citizen YOU are. Gimme a break you whining, intellectually challenged, effeminate pansy. Guess what?? I have a problem with my tax dollars going to Planned Parenthood for the sole purpose of supplying abortion on demand. Which of us has more noble intentions for his tax dollar?? Hmmmm....you don't want to help the needy....I want to prevent the most innocent among us from being murdered.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want tax dollars going to that either. It is not the governments job to fund such things.


[ QUOTE ]
I've been claiming for a couple days now that you're more dense than a neutron star...you are proving me correct with each response you post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Still cling to ad hominem attacks I see.

[Chris]

[ QUOTE ]
Not according to madison.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, according to Madison too.


[ QUOTE ]
Do you get that? Show me the quotes from the arguments from the other framers that specificly challanged madison on his use of the word religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did show quotes about what the framers said. They were in my original posts on this topic. All you have done since is try to distance yourself from them, spin Madison's words to fit your agenda, and pass off his later 180 on some things, as somehow proof of what he and the others meant at the time of the framing.

And no one “specificly challanged madison" on his use of the word religion, because he used it the same way they did.

It is very obvious that it’s not that you can’t see the truth, it’s that you don’t want to see the truth because it does not fit your agenda. Therefore there is nothing more to be said to you in this topic. History is what it is, and all your verbal gymnastics will not change it one iota.

[ObjectivistGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
I did show quotes about what the framers said. They were in my original posts on this topic. All you have done since is try to distance yourself from them, spin Madison's words to fit your agenda, and pass off his later 180 on some things, as somehow proof of what he and the others meant at the time of the framing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't 'spun' anything. Madison knew what he meant at the time of framing. he sai d so himself. Unless you are calling him a big fat liar.

Couple that with the words of atricle 11 of TTOT. Where it says "christain religion". and then couple that with the words here..

[ QUOTE ]
It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a religious establishment; and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by the legal provision for its clergy.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions,

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes they used religion in the context of christianity all the time EXCEPT in the constitution! Riiiiiiiiiight!

There is not one quote that you provided the goes against any of that. Not one.

[Machfour]

This quote by David Barton exposes the motive of the left. It's clear why they like to quote Madison rather than the many founders that would disprove their claims.


The failure to rely on Founders other than Madison seems to imply that no other Founders were qualified to address First Amendment issues or that there exists no pertinent recorded statements from the other Founders. Both implications are wrong: numerous Founders played pivotal roles; and thousands of their writings do exist.

However, if critics of public religious expression believe that only a Virginian may speak for the nation on the issue of religion (they usually cite either Madison or Jefferson), then why not George Mason, the "Father of the Bill of Rights"? Or Richard Henry Lee who not only framed Virginia's proposals but who also was a Member of the first federal Congress where he helped frame the Bill of Rights? Or why not George Washington? Perhaps the reason that these other Virginians are ignored (as are most of the other Framers) is because both their words and actions unequivocally contradict the image portrayed by the one-sided picture of Madison given by those who cite only his 'Detached Memoranda.'

Machfour

[Timberwolf]

[ QUOTE ]
ObjectivistGuy said:
[ QUOTE ]
Not from anything you posted, and I'm not wrong. True, they used it in that context TOO, but the purpose of the 1st amendment was to prevent the favoring of any one sect, or a combination of two (in an effort to dominate), to keep them from eventually becoming a national religion as the Church of England had. Do you get it now???

[/ QUOTE ]

Not according to madison. Do you get that? Show me the quotes from the arguments from the other framers that specificly challanged madison on his use of the word religion.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you a parrot or what?? Awwk!! Polly wanna cracker! Awwk!! Polly wanna cracker! So WHAT about Madison? So one of the Founding Fathers, out of...what?...50? 60?, has questionably, and most certainly after the fact, a contrary viewpoint. What about Ben Franklin? What about John Hancock? What about George freakin' Washington? You may have heard of him. What about Charles Pinckney or George Clymer or any of the others?

Why do you choose to ignore what THEY say on the subject? I'll tell you why. It's because you are an ideologue, blindly driven by your hatred and intolerance and fear.

I ask you, how many atheists have been persecuted in this country for their beliefs (or lack of them) in the past 50 years? In the past 100? The past 150? Since the inception of the country? The short answer? Not many, IF any.

Now, let me ask you another question. How many CHRISTIANS have been persecuted for THEIR beliefs in the last TEN years? I'll let you answer that one...please attempt to answer honestly.

Now, tell me that removing God from society is a good thing and I'll call you an empty, uncaring, selfish shell of a man to whom no rational human being should pay one iota of credence.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I, for one, would like to see some PROOF of this one. I've never heard of such a thing. Especially when Article VI
Clause 3 of our Constituiton states the following::

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=2477

[/ QUOTE ]
Like I said, I've always believed the Constitution places limits upon the FEDERAL government, unless the states or the people are expressly denied some certain power. For your perusal, I give you the 10th amendment to the Constitution, and I quote:<ul type="square">"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ".[/list]You DO remember the Bill of Rights, do you not?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So now you have a problem with helping the needy. Fine, upstanding citizen YOU are. Gimme a break you whining, intellectually challenged, effeminate pansy. Guess what?? I have a problem with my tax dollars going to Planned Parenthood for the sole purpose of supplying abortion on demand. Which of us has more noble intentions for his tax dollar?? Hmmmm....you don't want to help the needy....I want to prevent the most innocent among us from being murdered.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't want tax dollars going to that either. It is not the governments job to fund such things.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well then, why waste your efforts on something so trivial as who believes in who/what? Why not focus your efforts upon something to which you might add a POSITIVE influence - i.e. de-funding federally subsidized abortion on demand?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've been claiming for a couple days now that you're more dense than a neutron star...you are proving me correct with each response you post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Still cling to ad hominem attacks I see.

[/ QUOT