Was the United States founded on Judeo-Christian principles?

She is a Hillary judge....if not for all those border jumper maids and au pairs, we might have ended up with a more moderate judge in her place.

How can you equate Judeo and Christian values? The only common denominator is the Old Testament. You can on this basis include the Muslims as well as the Jews. All three religions received the same commandments when Moses came down from the Mount. The divergence since Christ is where the differences lie. The Ten Commandments still outline the preferred human behavior. When it is deviated from, problems arise.

I really don't want to be in the position to defend Islam, so let me say this:

Christianity had many of these same problems but also had the benefit of a Reformation and reality check. While I am not an expert on the Bible, I've seen others take quotes from certain versus and interpret them to fit their own political agendas. Chistianity had its own version of Sharia, were the Church was as much a part of governance as anything...and used that influence over soverign nations.

That's not to mitigate what Islam is or has done, it is however to show how Man can pervert anything for his own political purposes. The persecutions of heretics, the Enquisitions and killing of Jews or he burning of Witches was no better than what Islam believes, now. If it was a threat to those in power...be it the Pope or the Iman, these people used that religion to justify their violence on others. It is still Man that has used that Faith for his own ends.

Judaism and Christianity have been far more successful and harmonius in the US than they ever were in the Old World.

Far more good for God than evil against Him.

ping

By the way...you make my point with this comment:

"In stark contrast the Christian Bible teaches The Ten Commandments and love and forgiveness!!!"

So who was it that perverted these concepts when people were being burned at the stakes? Perhaps Man?

America was founded on the Biblical "WORLDVIEW".

Just laws are derived from the broad Christian PRINCIPLES / biblical ethic that are a part of that worldview.

Bottom line: Some interesting parallels between the biblical account of spiritual freedom and political- economic freedom should be noted. For one thing, freedom always has God as its ultimate ground. For another, freedom must always exist in relationship to law. The moral law of God identifies definite limits beyond which human freedom under God should not pass. Liberty should never be turned into license.

Capitalism is the most JUST, moral economic system ever devised.

If you want to know more, read on to see why:

Socialism, Capitalism, and the Bible - Dr. Ronald H. Nash
http://www.summit.org/resources/socialism.htm

Excerpts:

Creator and Freedom; Morality and Sin
Relevant aspects of the biblical world-view:

(1) Certainly the biblical world-view implies that since God is the creator of all that exists, He ultimately is the rightful owner of all that exists. Whatever possessions a human being may acquire, he holds them temporarily as a steward of God and is ultimately accountable to God for how he uses them. However omnipresent greed and avarice may be in the human race, they are clearly incompatible with the moral demands of the biblical world-view.

(2) The biblical world-view also contains important claims about human rights and liberties. All human beings have certain natural rights inherent in their created nature and have certain moral obligations to respect the rights of others. The possibility of human freedom is not a gift of government but a gift from God

The Old Testament tended to focus on the economic and social dimensions of freedom. But gradually, as one moves into the New Testament, a more spiritual dimension of freedom assumes dominance. Freedom in the New Testament is deliverance from bondage to sin and is available only to those who come to know God's truth through Christ and enter into a saving relationship with Christ.

Some interesting parallels between the biblical account of spiritual freedom and political- economic freedom should be noted. For one thing, freedom always has God as it s ultimate ground. For another, freedom must always exist in relationship to law. The moral law of God identifies definite limits beyond which human freedom under God should not pass. Liberty should never be turned into license.

(3) The moral system of the Bible is another key element of the Christian world-view.

While the Ten Commandments do not constitute the entire biblical ethic, they are a good place to begin. But it is important to notice other dimensions of the biblical ethic that have relevance for our subject.

For example, Christians on the Left insist that the biblical ethic condemns individual actions and social structures that oppress people, harm people and favor some at the expense of others. I agree. Where I disagree, however, is with the next step taken by the Leftists.

They claim that capitalism inevitably and necessarily encourages individual actions and produces social structures that oppress and harm people. On this point, they are dead wrong.

Fortunately, the question as to which system actually harms or helps different classes of people is an empirical and not a normative matter. The Leftists simply have their facts wrong.

(4) One final aspect of the Christian world-view must be mentioned: the inescapable fact of human sin and depravity. No economic or political system that assumes the essential goodness of human nature or holds out the dream of a perfect earthly society can possibly be consistent with the biblical world-view.

Peaceful or Violent Exchange?

Now we must examine the three major economic systems that compete for attention: capitalism, socialism and somewhere between, the hybrid known as interventionism or the mixed economy.

One dominant feature of capitalism is economic freedom, the right of people to exchange things voluntarily, free from force, fraud, and theft.

Socialism, on the other hand, seeks to replace the freedom of the market with a group of central planners who exercise control over essential market functions.

There are degrees of socialism as there are degrees of capitalism in the real world.

But basic to any form of socialism is distrust of or contempt for the market process and the desire to replace the freedom of the market with some form of centralized control.

Generally speaking, as one moves along the continuum of socialism to capitalism, one finds the following: the more freedom a socialist allows, the closer his position is to interventionism; the more freedom an interventionist allows, the closer his position is to capitalism.

The crux is the extent to which human beings will be permitted to exercise their own choices in the economic sphere of life.

I will say nothing more about that deplorable economic system known as interventionism, a hopeless attempt to stop on a slippery slope where no stop is possible.

The only way the half- hearted controls of the interventionist can work is if they become the total controls of the socialist. Anything less will result in the kind of troubled and self-damaging economy we have had for the past several decades in the United States.

I shall attempt to get a clearer fix on the real essence both of capitalism and socialism and then see which is more compatible with the biblical world-view.

The best starting point for this comparison is a distinction made most recently by the American economist, Walter Williams.

According to Williams, there are two and only two ways in which something may be exchanged. He called them the peaceful means of exchange and the violent means of exchange.

The peaceful means of exchange may be summed up in the phrase, "If you do something good for me, then I'll do something good for you." When capitalism is understood correctly, it epitomizes the peaceful means of exchange.

The reason people exchange in a real market is because they believe the exchange is good for them. They take advantage of an opportunity to obtain something they want more in exchange for something they desire less.

Capitalism then should be understood as a voluntary system of relationships that utilizes the peaceful means of exchange.

But exchange can also take place by means of force and violence.

In this violent means of exchange, the basic rule of thumb is: "Unless you do something good for me, I'll do something bad to you."

This turns out to be the controlling principle of socialism.

Socialism means far more than centralized control of the economic process. It entails the introduction of coercion into economic exchange in order to facilitate the attainment of the goals of the elite who function as the central planners.

One of the great ironies of Christian socialism is that its proponents in effect demand that the State get out its weapons and force people to fulfill the demands of Christian love.

Even if we fail to notice any other contrast between capitalism and socialism, we already have a major difference to relate to the biblical ethic.

One system stresses voluntary and peaceful exchange while the other depends on coercion and violence.

Some Christian socialists object to the way I have set this up.

They profess contempt for the more coercive forms of state-socialism on exhibit in communist countries. They would like us to believe that a more humane, non-coercive kind of socialism is possible.

They would like us to believe that there is a form of socialism, not yet tried anywhere on earth, where the central ideas are cooperation and community and where coercion and dictatorship are precluded.

But they provide very little information about the workings of this more utopian kind of socialism, and they ignore the fact that however humane and voluntary their socialism is supposed to become after it has been put into effect, it will take massive amounts of coercion and theft to get things started.

Socialist Falsehood, Capitalist Facts

To that paradox, add one more: the fact that socialists need capitalism in order to survive.

Unless socialists make allowance for some free markets which provide the pricing information that alone makes rational economic activity possible, socialist economies would have even more problems than those for which they are already notorious.

Consequently, socialism is a gigantic fraud which attacks the market at the same time it is forced to utilize the market process.

But critics of the market try to shift attention away from their own embarrassing problems to claims that capitalism must be abolished or restricted because it is unjust or because it restricts important human freedoms.

Capitalism is supposed to be unchristian because it allegedly gives a predominant place to greed and other unchristian values.

It is alleged to increase poverty and the misery of the poor while, at the same time, it makes a few rich at the expense of the many.

Socialism, on the other hand, is portrayed as the economic system of people who really care for the less fortunate members of society.

Socialism is represented as the economics of compassion. Socialism is also recommended on the ground that it encourages other basic Christian values such as community.

If these claims were true, they would constitute a serious problem for anyone anxious to show that capitalism is compatible with the biblical ethic.

But, of course, the claims are not true. People who make such charges have their facts wrong or are aiming at the wrong target.

The "capitalism" they accuse of being inhumane is a caricature. The system that in fact produces the consequences they deplore turns out to be not capitalism, but interventionism.

Capitalism is not economic anarchy. It recognizes several necessary conditions for the kinds of voluntary relationships it recommends.

One of these presuppositions is the existence of inherent human rights, such as the right to make decisions, the right to be free, the right to hold property, and the right to exchange what one owns for something else.

Capitalism also presupposes a system of morality.

Capitalism should be thought of as a system of voluntary relationships within a framework of laws which protect peoples' rights against force, fraud, theft, and violations of contracts.

"Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not lie" are part of the underlying moral constraints of the system. Economic exchanges can hardly be voluntary if one participant is coerced, deceived, defrauded, or robbed.

Allowing for Human Weakness

Once we grant that consistency with the biblical doctrine of sin is a legitimate test of political and economic systems, it is relatively easy to see how well democratic capitalism scores in this regard.

The limited government willed to Americans by the Founding Fathers was influenced in large measure by biblical considerations about human sin.

If one of the more effective ways of mitigating the effects of human sin in society is dispersing and decentralizing power, the conservative view of government is on the right track.

So too is the conservative vision of economics.

The free market is consistent with the biblical view of human nature in another way.

It recognizes the weaknesses of human nature and the limitations of human knowledge. No one can possibly know enough to manage a complex economy.

No one should ever be trusted with this power.

However, in order for socialism to work, socialism requires a class of omniscient planners to forecast the future, to set prices and to control production.

In the free market system, decisions are not made by an omniscient bureaucratic elite but made across the entire economic system by countless economic agents.

At this point, of course, collectivists will raise another set of objections.

Capitalism, they will counter, may make it difficult for economic power to be consolidated in the hands of the state; but it only makes it easier for vast concentrations of wealth and power to be vested in the hands of private individuals and companies.

But the truth turns out to be something quite different from this widely accepted myth.

It is not the free market that produces monopolies; rather it is governmental intervention with the market that creates the conditions that encourage monopoly.

As for another old charge, that capitalism encourages greed, the truth is just the reverse.

The mechanism of the market neutralizes greed as selfish individuals are forced to find ways of servicing the needs of those with whom they wish to exchange.

As we know, various people often approach economic exchanges with motives and objectives that fall short of the biblical ideal.

But no matter how base or selfish a person's motives may be, so long as the rights of the other parties are protected, the greed of the first individual cannot harm them.

As long as greedy individuals are prohibited from introducing force, fraud, and theft into the exchange process, their greed mush be channeled into the discovery of products or services for which people are willing to exchange their holdings.

Every person in a market economy has to be other-directed.

New Religion of the Left

Finally, some examples of the way in which attempts to ground American liberalism and interventionism or Latin American liberationism on the Bible involve serious distortions of the biblical message.

For instance, consider how radical American evangelicals on the Left abuse the biblical notion of justice.

The basic idea in the Old Testament notion of justice is righteousness and fairness.

But it is essential to the Leftist's cause that he read into biblical pronouncements about justice, contemporary notions of distributive justice.

When the Bible says that Noah was a just man, it does not mean that he would have voted the straight Democratic ticket.

It means simply that he was a righteous man.

Likewise, many Christians on the Left seek to reinterpret Jesus' earthly mission in exclusively economic and political terms.

In their view, Jesus came primarily to deliver those who were poor and oppressed in a material sense. But every member of the human race is poor in the sense of being spiritually bankrupt. Jesus came to end our spiritual poverty by making available the righteousness that God demands and that only God can provide.

It is heresy to state that God's love for people varies in proportion to their wealth and social class.

It is nonsense to suggest that all the poor are good and all the rich are evil.

Once we eliminate the semantic game-playing by which some refer to a non-coercive voluntary utopian type of socialism, it becomes clear that socialism is incompatible with a truly free society. Edmund Opitz has seen this clearly;

As History's vice-regent, the Planner is forced to view men as mass; which is to deny their full stature as persons with rights endowed by the Creator, gifted with free will, possessing the capacity to order their own lives in terms of their convictions.

The man who has the authority and the power to put the masses through their paces, and to punish nonconformists, must be ruthless enough to sacrifice a person to a principle...a commissar who believes that each person is a child of God will eventually yield to a commissar whose ideology is consonant with the demands of his job.

And so, Opitz concludes, "Socialism needs a secular religion to sanction its authoritarian politics, and it replaces the traditional moral order by a code which subordinates the individual to the collective." All of this is justified in the cause of improving economic well-being and in the name of compassion.

The Choice I Make

I think I have said enough to allow me, at least, to make a reasoned choice between capitalism and socialism on the basis of each system's compatibility to the biblical world-view.

The alternative to free exchange is violence.

Capitalism is a mechanism that allows natural human desires to be satisfied in a nonviolent way.

Little can be done to prevent human beings from wanting to be rich. But what capitalism does is channel that desire into peaceful means that benefit many besides those who wish to improve their own situation.

Which choice then should I, as a Christian, make in the selection between capitalism and socialism?

Capitalism is quite simply the most moral system, the most effective system, and the most equitable system of economic exchange.

When capitalism, the system of free economic exchange, is described fairly, there can be no question that it, rather than socialism or interventionism, comes closer to matching the demands of the biblical ethic.

This essay appeared in Imprimis, Volume 14, No. 7, July, 1985. It is used by permission

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/984368/posts?page=43#43

Emory Report November 29, 1999 Volume 52, No. 13
http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_REPORT/erarchive/1999/November/ernovember.29/11_29_99hamilton.html

Marci Hamilton ... [is] a nationally recognized expert on constitutional and copyright law from Yeshiva University's Cardozo School of Law ... . ...

Her forthcoming book, Copyright and the Constitution, examines the historical and philosophical underpinnings of copyright law and asserts that the American "copyright regime" is grounded in Calvinism, resulting in a philosophy that favors the product over the producer.

Calvinism? Hamilton's interest in the intersection of Calvinist theology and political philosophy emerged early in her career when she began reading the work of leading constitutional law scholars.

She was puzzled by their "theme of a system of self-rule." "They talked about it as if it were in existence," she said. "My gut reaction was that direct democracy and self-rule are a myth that doesn't really exist."

What Hamilton found was that a "deep and abiding distrust of human motives that permeates Calvinist theology also permeates the Constitution." Her investigation of that issue has led to another forthcoming book, tentatively titled The Reformed Constitution: What the Framers Meant by Representation.

That our country's form of government is a republic instead of a pure democracy is no accident, according to Hamilton. The constitutional framers "expressly rejected direct democracy. Instead, the Constitution constructs a representative system of government that places all ruling power in the hands of elected officials."

And the people? Their power is limited to the voting booth and communication with their elected representatives, she said. "The Constitution is not built on faith in the people, but rather on distrust of all social entities, including the people."

Hamilton found that some form of Calvinism played a role in the lives of at least 23 of the 55 constitutional framers, and that six were Presbyterian (the reform movement founded by John Calvin). Two of the most important framers, James Wilson and James Madison, were steeped in Presbyterian precepts.

It is Calvinism, Hamilton argued, that "more than any other Protestant theology, brings together the seeming paradox that man's will is corrupt by nature but also capable of doing good." In other words, Calvinism holds that "we can hope for the best but expect the worst from each other and from the social institutions humans devise."

"Neither Calvin nor the framers stop at distrust, however," Hamilton said. "They also embrace an extraordinary theology of hope. The framers, like Calvin, were reformers."

I took nothing out of context.

Fair enough..let's see.

You made a declarative statement that stood on its own.

Yes I did but the statement included the following:
"Now, if you want to talk of belief in God or the teachings of the Bible, that's a different story."
Do you really think, Stalin et al would be supportive of the Bible? I don't think so.

I think your statement was foolish.

You're entitled to that opinion.

Religion is no more evil than Government, it is the men or women who occupy them that make it evil.

Religion is government and evil is your word but you're probably right on that one. Just as an example of pure evil, just think of all the murder, mahem and misery that has resulted over a little speck of dirt...all in the name of my religion versus yours.

"Yes Jefferson was a deist at one time in his life and yes he rewrote the Bible to accord with his belief system at that time.".

Actually, I've heard that it's a myth that Jefferson rewrote the bible according to his beliefs. What Jefferson did, was to compile an abridgement of the bible, for use in converting the Indians. Hardly a rewrite.

Was the United States founded on Judeo-Christian principles?

Judeo-Christian is meaningless term in this context. None of the Founding Fathers were jewish. If the question is "Was the U.S. founded on Christian principles?" then that is a question that can be answered.

I would answer 'no.' The nation was founded on republican principles. There is nothing in the Consitution or Declaration of Independence about loving your neighbor, turning the other cheek, charity, or other core Christian beliefs.

"Was the U.S. founded on Christian principles?" ...I would answer 'no.' The nation was founded on republican principles. There is nothing in the Consitution or Declaration of Independence about ..core Christian beliefs." ~ Looking for Diogenes

I would encourage you to *carefully* read my posts here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1003936/posts?page=47#47

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1003936/posts?page=48#48

And you may find this of interest, too:

The SAR Magazine, Winter 2002 Vol. XCIVI, No. 3.
http://www.sar.org/sarmag/RF3.html

THE RELIGIOUS FAITH OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS

A Series By Jack J. Early, Ed.D., D.D., Chaplain General

James Madison, fourth President of the United States, was born into a devout home where his parents were members of the Episcopal Church in Port Conway, Virginia. He was baptized on the twentyfirst day of his life.

Madison was home schooled by his godly mother and grandmother, and a tutor who was an Episcopalian minister. His studies included Latin, Greek, arithmetic, literature and Spanish. Also, a broad and diverse reading schedule was established.

His parents were concerned about reports of the teachings at various institutions of higher learning, and they sent him to the College of New Jersey, later known as Princeton University.

While a student at Princeton, he studied for the ministry.

Here he was influenced greatly by Reverend John Witherspoon, one of the nation's leading theologians and legal scholars.

This helped to establish a theological base for Madison's thinking. During his stay at Princeton, a great revival took place, and it is believed that he partook its spirit. On his return home, it is reported that he conducted worship in his father's house.

When Madison returned to Virginia, he and his father were walking one day near a jail in the village of Orange and listened to several Baptists preach from the window of their cell. They had been confined because of their religious opinions. His heart was stirred that day, and Madison became a champion of religious freedom.

This experience moved him to go into law and politics. He became a major defender of religious liberty. Through his influence and efforts, freedom guarantees were approved in the Virginia Constitution. Later, as a member of the first Congress, Madison made religious freedom the first item in the Bill of Rights. He placed it first because he considered it of primary importance. He believed that when citizens lose their religious freedoms, all other freedoms are in jeopardy.

Madison's belief in eternal life and salvation are expressed in a personal letter to his college friend, William Bradford. Writing on November 9, 1772, Madison said: "A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves test while we are building ideal monuments of Renown and Bliss here we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven ......

Years later, Madison wrote Memorial and Remonstrance, in which he said:

"Whilst we assert for ourselves a fireedom to embrace, to profess and to observe Religion which we believe to be
of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet ' yielded to the evidence
which has convinced us. If this fireedom be abused, it is an offense against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered."

One writer summed up his comments on Madison's religious life as follows: "If Madison ever rejected the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, he never said so in writing ... he remained friendly and respectful toward Christianity and toward the Church."

Madison, who has been called "The Father of the Constitution," was clearly influenced by the Christian religion and particularly Reverend John Witherspoon's Calvinism. His views on law and government reflect his theological insights on Church and state.

As Compatriots of the National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution, we support the United States Constitution. The challenge for us in the 21st Century is to recognize that the freedoms we enjoy include religious freedom which James Madison considered of primary importance!

"In some he sounds like an athiest, believing religion has NO place in Government and in other writings he makes it plain that any Government that is not supported by people with a belief in a higher power cannot long exist."

There's absolutely no discord between those two ideas.

So who was it that perverted these concepts when people were being burned at the stakes? Perhaps Man?

No bouta doubtit !!! ;-))

.

You heard wrong Danny. Jefferson left out any mention of the annunciation, the virgin birth, the appearance of angels to the shepherds and the resurrection. He did that for a reason.

He saw Jesus of Nazareth as philosopher of note and an enlightened man, like himself. At the time he was not of the opinion that Jesus was Lord. There is evidence that he changed his mind on that later in life.

The information collected by David Barton at Wallbuilders (Aledo, TX) proves beyond a doubt that our great country was founded on Biblical principles.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/index.htm

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.

I've spent the last half hour searching for "Dr. Miles Bradford" on the internet. Aside from repeated quotes of this list (mostly on Free Republic), he doens't seem to exist. Can you provide a citation?

Novak is at The American Enterprise Institute...and I think that he is a Messianic Jew

I think you may have in mind ROBERT Novak, a Jew converted in the last couple of years. Michael Novak has been Catholic for several years (15-20 at least?), and is a convert. He may have been Jewish too, but I have never heard it.

I do not think the republic was founded on religious values.

With all due respect, I believe you are confusing legal principles with religious values.