Skip to comments.
Faith of Our Fathers: Liberal Lies About Founders' Beliefs
CBN ^
| October 13, 2003
| Dale Hurd
Posted on 10/13/2003 10:45:51 AM PDT by Between the Lines
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-33 next last
To: Between the Lines
I avoid Jefferson. He writes one thing and a few days later, writes an explanation of what he wrote a few days before which interprets the matter differently than one might think. He appears to be constantly in conflict with himself.
Read Madison!!
2
posted on
10/13/2003 10:51:57 AM PDT
by
Sacajaweau
(God Bless Our Troops!!)
To: All
I would like to take a moment to ask for donations.
It should be clear to all conservatives by now that the left intends to demonize us. They don't just disagree with us, they hate us. And worse, they want to get other people to hate us.
Places like Free Republic drive the left batty.
Please donate. Thanks for your consideration.
3
posted on
10/13/2003 10:52:22 AM PDT
by
Support Free Republic
(Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
To: Sacajaweau
I completely agree with you. The only problem with Madison is that his English is a challenge to untangle. His thinking was waaaaay too nuanced to be practicable by mere mortals. But his ideas are all laid and and amazingly consistent all the way into the Nullification crisis.
I am dubious of anyone peppering an article with teensy little Jefferson quotes. Real understanding takes much more time and effort than that.
4
posted on
10/13/2003 10:55:21 AM PDT
by
Huck
To: Between the Lines
To: Between the Lines
I've read that Columbus was an outstanding businessman, who assembled the financial, political and technical resources to go someplace new.
It is speculated he assembled alternative route information, including the Nordic explorers, that got to North America, who left maps.
To: CobaltBlue
David Barton has on occasion resorted to shoddy scholarship. He's had to retract several spurious quotations (under intense pressure) that he claimed came from the FF. He's just as agenda driven as the anti-religion crowd.
7
posted on
10/13/2003 11:28:42 AM PDT
by
jess35
To: CobaltBlue
David Barton holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Oral Roberts University....I read the link. He sounds like a good guy to me. What is your point?
8
posted on
10/13/2003 11:31:19 AM PDT
by
Between the Lines
("What Goes Into the Mind Comes Out in a Life")
To: Between the Lines
"When we did separate from Great Britain in 1776, more than half the states abolished slavery --New York, Vermont, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania. Not every state did, you had four in the south that kept it. But you have a huge majority of Founding Fathers that were anti-slavery. Never owned slaves."I don't understand this quote. Did Barton mean the importation of slaves? There were certainly more than four states in the South that allowed slavery after 1776, and in the year that Washington died, 1799, there were slaves in New York.
To: Between the Lines
To: CobaltBlue
Are you French ?
fC ...
When are evolutionists -- liberals - atheist - wiccans ... going to find their own country --- lesser aclu america !
rm7 ...
To: Hermann the Cherusker
**Your claiming of those Deists as Protestants proves my point that Protestantism doesn't really care what a man believes, and certainly not if he believes in Christ or not, so long as it is not Catholicism. **
Thank you for the opportunity to post this. Note only one Catholic..
Denominational Affiliations of the Framers of the Constitution
Dr. Miles Bradford of the University of Dallas did a study on the denominational classifications that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention accepted for themselves. Contrary to myth, the following list, published by Bradford, indicates that only 3 out of 55 of the framers classified themselves as Deists.
Note: only those Denominations whose Confessions of Faith were expressly Calvinistic at this time have been identified as "Calvinist" denominations. While many "Old-School" Lutherans and "Whitfield" Methodists at this time would have identified themselves with a Calvinistic view of Predestination, their affiliation has for the sake of charity been assumed to be non-Calvinist.
New Hampshire
* John Langdon, CONGREGATIONALIST -- Calvinist
* Nicholas Gilman, CONGREGATIONALIST -- Calvinist
Massachusetts
* Elbridge Gerry, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Rufus King, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Caleb Strong, CONGREGATIONALIST -- Calvinist
* Nathaniel Gorham, CONGREGATIONALIST -- Calvinist Connecticut
* Roger Sherman, CONGREGATIONALIST -- Calvinist
* William Johnson, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Oliver Ellsworth, CONGREGATIONALIST -- Calvinist
New York
* Alexander Hamilton, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* John Lansing, DUTCH REFORMED -- Calvinist
* Robert Yates, DUTCH REFORMED -- Calvinist
New Jersey
* William Patterson, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
* William Livingston, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
* Jonathan Dayton, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* David Brearly, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* William Churchill Houston, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
Pennsylvania
* Benjamin Franklin, DEIST
* Robert Morris, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* James Wilson, DEIST
* Gouverneur Morris, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Thomas Mifflin, QUAKER
* George Clymer, QUAKER
* Thomas FitzSimmons, ROMAN CATHOLIC
* Jared Ingersoll, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
Delaware
* John Dickinson, QUAKER
* George Read, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Richard Bassett, METHODIST
* Gunning Beford, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
* Jacod Broom, LUTHERAN
Maryland
* Luther Martin, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Daniel Carroll, ROMAN CATHOLIC
* John Mercer, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* James McHenry, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
* Daniel Jennifer, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
Virginia
* George Washington, EPISCOPALIAN (Non-Communicant)
* James Madison, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* George Mason, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Edmund Randolph, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* James Blair, Jr., EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* James McClung, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
* George Wythe, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
North Carolina
* William Davie, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
* Hugh Williamson, DEIST
* William Blount, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
* Alexander Martin, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
* Richard Spaight, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
South Carolina
* John Rutledge, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Charles Pinckney, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Pierce Butler, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Charles Pinckney, III, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
Georgia
* Abraham Baldwin, CONGREGATIONALIST -- Calvinist
* William Leigh Pierce, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* William Houstoun, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* William Few, METHODIST
327 posted on 09/30/2003 9:47 PM PDT by RnMomof7
fC ...
The definition of an anti christ is pretty much someone who uses the power of the state to force their beliefs ... specious - esoteric - sectarian --- upon others !
Pretty much atheist - statist totalitarians ... power mongerers --- controllers - social engineers (( aclu - evo whacks )) !
Good Christians are being banned on the FR by the ..
ANOTHER - ' living ' science - gospel evolution FR cult ---
some kind of FR - pc ROYALTY - gods ... latter day SPECIAL saints!
10
posted on
10/13/2003 11:42:47 AM PDT
by
f.Christian
(evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
To: Sacajaweau
I avoid Jefferson. He writes one thing and a few days later, writes an explanation of what he wrote a few days before which interprets the matter differently than one might think. He appears to be constantly in conflict with himself.
Amen! And preach on.
11
posted on
10/13/2003 11:44:39 AM PDT
by
yankeedame
("Calm down, will you? I was just emphasizing a point.")
To: yankeedame
I wish I could clarify this further. In many cases, Jefferson was trying to be polite, always seeking "peace" when he got caught in the middle. (Sometimes, he drives me crazy).
I prefer Madison because he is direct and does not waiver and consider Madison the "Constitutional Dictionary".
That old "Define your words so I know of what you speak" comes to mind and he was the Master.
12
posted on
10/13/2003 12:03:35 PM PDT
by
Sacajaweau
(God Bless Our Troops!!)
To: jess35
David Barton has on occasion resorted to shoddy scholarship. He's had to retract several spurious quotations (under intense pressure) that he claimed came from the FF.The only places on the net that question Barton are all athiest or seperation of church and state sites. And even they do not claim that he has made any retractions.
He's just as agenda driven as the anti-religion crowd.
Of course he is. Did you even see where this article came from? The Christian Broadcasting Network News.
13
posted on
10/13/2003 12:05:07 PM PDT
by
Between the Lines
("What Goes Into the Mind Comes Out in a Life")
To: Cincinatus' Wife
To: HenryLeeII
"""""When we did separate from Great Britain in 1776, more than half the states abolished slavery --New York, Vermont, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania. Not every state did, you had four in the south that kept it. But you have a huge majority of Founding Fathers that were anti-slavery. Never owned slaves."
I don't understand this quote. Did Barton mean the importation of slaves? There were certainly more than four states in the South that allowed slavery after 1776, and in the year that Washington died, 1799, there were slaves in New York. """""
Barton is talking about the make-up of the U. States in 1776, there were only 4 "southern states" (Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia) and in reality there were only 3 (in 1780's America, Virginia was not considered a "southern" state, it was part of the mid-Atlantic region along with New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland).
In the east today, we use the Mason-Dixon line(Pennsylvania/Maryland boundary) as our arbitrary boundary between North and South. Historically however, Virginia and Maryland were not considered "southern states" but "mid Atlantic states". Up until the Civil War, economically and socially, Maryland & Virginia were more tied to their northern neighbors (Pennsylvania, New Jersey & Delaware) than they were to the Carolina's. For a good part of the early 19th century, one of the colleges of choice for young Southern gentlemen was Princeton University in Princeton, New Jersey.
As for slavery in New York, I believe they adopted the same system that eventually was used in New Jersey. Slavery was abolished by law but existing slaves could be kept for a certain number of years after abolition according to certain legal qualifications.
15
posted on
10/13/2003 12:34:09 PM PDT
by
XRdsRev
To: jess35
David Barton has on occasion resorted to shoddy scholarship. Here's an example from this piece:
"Barton said, "The Founding Fathers were overwhelmingly Christian
I love to spend time on the least religious founders. You have Franklin, as governor installs the Bible and Christianity in the public schools of Pennsylvania. Franklin was the man who made sure we had prayer at every session of Congress and that we had paid chaplains to do so.""
Clearly Barton implies Benjamin Franklin ("The Founding Fathers . . . ", of which Benjamin is clearly one) did this "as governor." Unless I'm horribly mistaken, Benjamin Franklin never the governor of any state or province. His son, William, of course, was the last royal governor of New Jersey. He was also a die-hard Loyalist---and had a massive falling-out with his father over it---so he was hardly a Founding Father.
Whoops . . .
To: Hemingway's Ghost
The founding father's via the reformation established the ' secular ' state ... liberals via atheism - evolution --- has destroyed it !
I could say exactly the same for the FR ... it's happening !
17
posted on
10/13/2003 1:13:15 PM PDT
by
f.Christian
(evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
To: f.Christian
Thanks for your input.
To: Hemingway's Ghost
Your statement of facts with respect to Benjamin Franklin are correct. It's a ridiculous claim that should embarrass a high school student.
To: CobaltBlue
I thought it sounded a little bit suspect . . .
Whoever wrote this thing, and whoever edited it, well, they're both not very careful at all. Hopefully it was just an innocent mistake, but to me it smelled like an attempt to bend history in order to make a particular point.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-33 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson