Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Shea Tisdale" <shea AT sheatisdale.com>]

Forgive me for I am top posting…

 

The original point of this was that many of our original laws and the very founding of the country were based to a large degree on Christian principles.

 

> > John Adams:  In a letter to Jefferson wrote, "The general principles on

> > which the Fathers achieved independence, were . . . the general

> principles

> > of Christianity."

>

> The ellipses are relevant. The whole passage is here:

>

>  http://members.aol.com/TestOath/27consensus.htm

 

As you noted, the ellipses were relevant.  Here is the whole:

"The Paragraph is "Science and Morals are the great Pillars on which this Country has been raised to its present population, Oppulence and prosperity, and these alone, can advance, support and preserve it."

"Without wishing to damp the Ardor of curiosity, or influence the freedom of inquiry, I will hazard a prediction, that after the most industrious and impartial Researches, the longest liver of you all, will find no Principles, Institutions, or Systems of Education, more fit, IN GENERAL to be transmitted to your Posterity, than those you have received from you[r] Ancestors."
    Now, compare the paragraph in the Answer, with the paragraph in the Address, as both are quoted above: and see if We can find the Extent and the limits of the meaning of both.
    Who composed that Army of fine young Fellows that was then before my Eyes? There were among them, Roman Catholicks, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anababtists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists; and "Protestans qui ne croyent rien ["Protestants who believe nothing"]." Very few however of several of these Species. Nevertheless all Educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty.
    Could my Answer be understood, by any candid Reader or Hearer, to recommend, to all the others, the general Principles, Institutions or Systems of Education of the Roman Catholicks? Or those of the Quakers? Or those of the Presbyterians? Or those of the Menonists? Or those of the Methodists? or those of the Moravians? Or those of the Universalists? or those of the Philosophers? No.
    The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were united: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.
    Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System. I could therefore safely say, consistently with all my then and present Information, that I believed they would never make Discoveries in contradiction to these general Principles. In favour of these general Principles in Phylosophy, Religion and Government, I could fill Sheets of quotations from Frederick of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Reausseau and Voltaire, as well as Neuton and Locke: not to mention thousands of Divines and Philosophers of inferiour Fame." [emphasis in the original]

 

Source: John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 28th, 1813, from Quincy. The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams, edited by Lester J. Cappon, 1988, the University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC, the letter is reproduced on pp. 338-340.

 

On its own this makes the entire case that the general principles upon our government was founded were “the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects were united…in Marjorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence”

 

And kudos to UNC Press for publishing such a work.

 

I’ve also made comments below.

 

Steven Champeon wrote:

> > > on Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 11:27:14AM -0500, Shea Tisdale wrote:

> > > > Just some questions and thoughts on this.  Your statement seems

> awfully

> > > > broad.  Is it equally appalling to you that the country was founded

> > > under

> > > > the Christian belief that all men are created equal with Creator

> endowed

> > > > rights?

> > >

> > > Um, that's not a Christian belief. That's Deist, if anything (the

> belief

> > > in a Creator) and the idea of human equality is certainly not unique

> to

> > > Christianity (Islam actually comes closer to this democratic equality

> than

> > > Christianity, and the various Eastern religions, Buddhism, Taoism,

> etc. do

> > > an even better job of it).

> >

> > It may be a deist belief or the belief of other religions, but it

> doesn't

> > exclude it from also being a Christian belief.

>

> True, but your statement made what appeared to be a claim of

> exclusivity; my apologies if I misconstrued you. I merely pointed out

> that equality and natural law aren't solely the property of Christian

> theology. One might argue the exact opposite, in fact, but given that I

> don't know your definition of "Christian" I won't engage in that debate

> here.

>

> > I didn't say that the founding fathers were perfect. But at the time

> > they wrote the Declaration and Constitution, the rights of the people

> > and the limitations of the government expressed their in were a

> > drastic improvement compared to any other place on Earth.

>

> Agreed. (Well, except maybe Switzerland, who had been independent since

> 1291, had judicial review, no monarch, etc. - but they invoke God in the

> Confederation Charter, so what the heck, let's give the US the honor).

 

Yeah, the first line is “In the name of God Almighty!”  J

 

But to examine it, even the current Swiss constitution lacks what our Constitution set forth.  Specifically, that the people are sovereign and government derives it’s power from the people.  The Swiss constitution enumerates the rights granted to the people.  Whereas our constitution enumerates the rights we as the people grant to government and specifically limits government by reserving all other powers to people.   

 

> And it was due to the efforts of relatively antagonistic folk like Locke

> and others, who opposed the monarchy (sanctioned by claim to "divine

> right") and hence questioned the veracity of the Christian religion of

> the time, which ISTR buttressed the ideas of royalty, of class, of race,

> et cetera, through references to hierarchies of angels and other such

> nonsense. He also opposed the idea of state sanctioned religion, of

> mandatory attendance in church, etc. Nobody is sure what religion (if

> any) he professed, but it's clear that he believed it was a matter of

> personal conscience and that what Christianity got right in terms of

> principles were obvious rational principles regardless of their rooting

> in some text or another.

>

>   "A sweet religion, indeed, that obliges men to dissemble, and tell

>    lies to both God and man, for the salvation of their souls! If the

>    magistrate thinks to save men thus, he seems to understand little of

>    the way of salvation; and if he does it not in order to save them,

>    why is he so solitious of the articles of faith as to enact them by a

>    law."

>

> He held to a skeptical view of the possibility of ever proving the truth

> of "religious knowledge" and so sought to dissociate the good of religion

> from the irrational bases others claimed for it.

 

No one will argue that Locke has not been influential on the concept of government.  At least I hope no one will.

 

However his personal view of religion isn’t what we are debating here.  He wasn’t involved in the framing of the Constitution.  Influential on those who did?  Yes, but not involved.  So, he can believe the moon is made of cheese for all I care.

 

>

> > > Sorry, it just irks me when people ignore that this country was

> founded

> > > by a group of highly educated men who, for the most part, were either

> > > Deist, atheist, or otherwise rightly considered religion a scourge and

> > > men's willingness to do battle over it a sad reflection of the

> ignorance

> > > of the common. Read some Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson sometime.

> >

> > So in 1777 when the First Continental Congress called the Bible "the

> great

> > political textbook of the patriots" and appropriated funds to import

> 20,000

> > Bibles for the people, they were thinking of some Diest or atheist

> version I

> > haven't heard of?

>

> No, they were presumably acting on their belief in God /and/ attempting

> to curry favor with the clerics who were largely Tory in sympathies (and

> who had pulpits to preach from); with the more radical but relatively

> unimportant Protestant groups who opposed any sort of hierarchy within

> the church, but who largely tended to be the poor and landless and

> indentured, being an exception, whereas the landed and powerful tended

> towards religions which affirmed their right to lord it over everybody

> else just like in the Mother Country and Europe.

 

Further proving the Christian influences on the founders.

 

> > And before they signed the Declaration of Independence when the

> Continental

> > Congress called for "a day of fasting and prayer within the colonies,

> > beseeching God to give guidance and direction as to whether they should

> > secede from England, which Eastern religion were they thinking of?

>

> Well, given that they were mostly Masons, they were likely thinking of

> the great monotheistic religions of the Levant, Christianity, Judaism,

> and even Islam (which share a common history, writings, and ancestry,

> as well as a large subset of common beliefs), which the masons taught

> should all be respected because they all revered one God, no matter who

> they preferred as a prophet (the Jews preferring to wait on Elijah,

> but treating Jesus as one of many prophets; the Moslems obviously with

> Mohammed, and you know the rest.)

 

As most were masons, you have a very valid point as Masonry is very unspecific about God – simply requiring a belief in “a God”. 

 

> Funny how they didn't call for a day of observance and prayer to Jesus.

 

Although, if they are Christian, it would be interchangeable. 

 

> > And as far as the founding fathers go, I think they were very

> intelligent

> > individuals of conscience who, like many, wrote many things which can be

> > construed any number of ways that someone might desire.  So I'll offer

> some

> > of their writings for consideration.

>

> Well, with a start like that, who could argue?  :)

>

> > Patrick Henry: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that

> this

> > great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on

> > religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason

> peoples

> > of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of

> > worship here."

>

> He's wrong, on all counts. (Ask the Quakers why they had to leave

> Massachussetts, for example, and why they could be put to death if they

> returned after being banished, or why non-Christians couldn't even vote

> in New Hampshire until 1877). But anyway.

 

I’d argue he was right and that those are exceptions.  But anyway.

 

This still is proving the argument that the founding of the country was based on Christianity…even if it was some flawed, bigoted version in New Hampshire.

 

> His role in the founding of the country, thankfully, was limited to a

> few bon mots and service to Virginia; he obviously had no problem with

> monarchy - except when it was a bad monarch. He opposed the 1787

> constitution and would have been just as happy with titles and gentry.

>

> > John Adams:  In a letter to Jefferson wrote, "The general principles on

> > which the Fathers achieved independence, were . . . the general

> principles

> > of Christianity."

>

> The ellipses are relevant. The whole passage is here:

>

>  http://members.aol.com/TestOath/27consensus.htm

 

I’ve dealt with that with my top posting.

 

>

> But you're right - Adams was a Christian, and believed that certain

> principles he held dear were derived from Christianity. Of course, as he

> was obviously ignorant of other religions (the study of religion being

> something that would largely come only in the mid-1800s and after,

> through the philological studies of the Grimms and a proto-nationalist

> effort by Germany to "prove", linguistically, that they had to weld its

> principalities into a single, German-speaking, nation, who derived their

> history from the Greeks, rather than the Romans, etc. in contrast to the

> other, earlier, nation-states like France and Italy.) It's not

> surprising that he'd think that.

 

John Adams - Harvard educated lawyer.  Delegate to the first and second continental congresses.  Negotiated a treaty of peace with France and Holland.  Minister to the court of St. James’s. Two term vice president.  President.

 

I guess he was just ignorant…

 

> The Savages from whom many of these ideas of adequate and elected

> representation, common suffrage, of women having rights under the law,

> and so forth (read up on the League of the Iroquois some time) would be

> surprised, I think. Ben Franklin was inspired by the League and

> suggested in 1754 that the colonies should ally themselves to a common

> cause like the League had;

 

True.  An amazing document the Iroquois Constitution was. 

>

> > George Washington said, "It is impossible to rightly govern the world

> > without God and the Bible."

>

> Actually, no. He didn't. Or at least, nobody can find the quote in his

> writings, anyway.

>

>  http://freedomflyer.org/ezine_quote.htm

 

p. 660 of "America's God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations"

http://www.family.org/resources/itempg.cfm?itemid=1489

In 1752, George Washington created a personal prayer book,

consisting of 24 pages in his field notebook, in his own handwriting:

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."

"It is impossible to account for the creation of the universe, without the

agency of a Supreme Being. It is impossible to govern the universe without the aid

of a Supreme Being. It is impossible to reason without arriving at a Supreme

Being."

"Religion is as necessary to reason, as reason is to religion. The one

cannot exist without the other. A reasoning being would lose his reason, in

attempting to account for the great phenomena of nature, had he not a Supreme Being to refer to."

 

And also in James K. Paulding, A Life of Washington, 1836, Vol. II, p. 208.

 

 

>

> > Thomas Jefferson: "The reason that Christianity is the best friend of

> > government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the

> > heart."

>

> Perhaps not.

>

>  http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=5857

 

Hmm a letter to the editor to the Phoenix Valley news…hardly convincing proof.

 

But if you need more Jefferson:

 

The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, but that wall is a one directional wall; it keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government.
Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States, January 1, 1802, in an address to the Danbury Baptists

 

"Of all systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to be so pure as that of Jesus." Thomas Jefferson, To William Canby, 1813

 

"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever." President Thomas Jefferson

 

Correspondence from Jefferson:

http://lonestar.texas.net/~mseifert/rush.html

 

>

> > Jefferson is even quoted as having said, "I am a Christian, that is to

> say,

> > a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."

> >

> > Jefferson was also uncomfortable with the concept of miracles and

> believed

> > them to be made up, so he created his own version of the Bible where he

> > excised all references to them.  This book is known as The Jefferson

> Bible,

> > The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.

>

> Excellent. I wonder what the fundies would think of that, given their

> insistence on the literal truth of the Bible?

> Anyway, I think I found the site you got these from:

>

>  http://www.americanliberty.info/foundersbeliefs/

>

> If so, it's suspect - one of its claims is that the "In God We Trust" on

> our coinage is proof of the Christianity of the founders; that phrase

> didn't show up on money until 1864 or so.

>

> http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html

>

> The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by a Christian Socialist

> named Francis Bellamy. The original version did not say "under God" -

> that was also added in the 1950s, as a result of a crusade by the

> Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternity, who were offended by the

> officially godless Soviet Communists. Ironic that reactionary Cold

> Warriors and a Socialist were both involved in the mottoing of the

> country. The pastor who inspired Eisenhower and the others, in his own

> words:

>

>   "I came to a strange conclusion," he told them. The pledge lacked "the

>    characteristic and definitive factor in the American way of life," the

>    "fundamental concept" of the Founding Fathers that the country exists

>    because of God and through God.

>

>   "Indeed, apart from the mention of the phrase, 'the United States of

>    America,' this could be a pledge of any republic," he preached. "In

>    fact, I could hear little Muscovites repeat a similar pledge to their

>    hammer-and-sickle flag in Moscow with equal solemnity."

>

> *laugh* Well, I'm sure that probably won us the Cold War, Pastor. Thanks.

>

> This is a great story - there was a minister in PA who considered the

> Civil War:

>

>  'a consequence of "our national shame in disowning God" by failing to

>   recognize Him on our coinage.'

>

> *chortle*

>

>  http://www.pennswoods.net/~hpc/motto.htm

>

> > > And that's true regardless of how many times you read that nonsense

> that

> > > Ashcroft spouts about how the Founders "had no King but Jesus". Bleah.

> > > Wishful thinking is lovely, but let's not confuse it with the facts.

> >

> > Well since you mentioned the demon Ashcroft, I'll just quote the Bible

> > itself.  "You say you believe in God.  Good.  The demons also believe

> and

> > tremble."

>

> James 2:19?

>

>  "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also

>   believe, and tremble."

>

> That's also worth reading in its context, which is arguing that faith

> without good works is not sufficient to please God.

>

>  "18: But say may some one, Thou hast faith, and I have works, shew me

>   thy faith out of thy works, and I will shew thee out of my works my

>   faith:

>

>  "19: thou -- thou dost believe that God is one; thou dost well, and the

>   demons believe, and they shudder!"

>

> Excepting Ashcroft, I don't put much stock in demons.

 

I’ll just close this with a Jefferson quote that sums up with my thoughts on Ashcroft, the patriot act, and the current administration in general.

 

When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.

 

So which is it today?

 

Shea.