Evolution Critics Are Under Fire For Flaws in 'Intelligent Design'

Even before Darwin, critics attacked the idea of biological evolution with one or another version of, "Evolve this!"

Whether they invoked a human, an eye, or the whip-like flagella that propel bacteria and sperm, the contention that natural processes of mutation and natural selection cannot explain the complexity of living things has been alive and well for 200 years.

Cute. But I can't blame you for pushing Justice Story aside as quickly as possible. He proves you are either a babbling idiot, or a blatant liar, when it comes to our Christian Heritage

Not at all. I used opinions from more Supreme Court Justices with longer and more respectable careers and you denied their expertise on the basis that they were judges. Then you find one judge that agrees with your opinion and he becomes absolute. That's not exactly honest thinking.

Prove it

The Constitution requires that faith not be an issue in government officers.
Any mention of Christianity is omitted from the Constitution. The Preamble invokes the People, not God.
The Constitutional Convention refused to have prayers open sessions. (1787: The Grand Convention, Clinton Rossiter)
The Federalist Papers do not site any Biblical basis for our government - Greece and Rome are used. The only religious references are "Nature's God" (not Christian), "Almighty," and "Heaven." (#'s 20, 38, 40)
Likewise, the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson as primary author, used "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." No "Christian" terms were used.
Christian preachers attacked the Constitution during ratification because it wasn't a Christian document.
Kramick, Moore, The Godless Constitution quote articles from ratification saying the lack of religious tests would allow, "1st. Quakers, who will make the blacks saucy, and at the same time deprive us of the means of defence - 2dly. Mahometans, who ridicule the Trinity - 3dly. Deists, abominable wretches - 4thly. Negroes, the seed of Cain - 5thly. Beggars, who when set on horseback will ride to the devil - 6thly. Jews etc. etc."
Another contemporary account of the Founders said, " Constitution is de[i]stical in principle, and in all probability the composers had no thought of God in all their conclusions."(Kramick)
The sources of the Founding Fathers in the enlightenment were not only homegrown varieties like Paine, a deist like Jefferson, but also Locke, Rousseau, and Voltaire, all humanists. No 'divine' sources.

Words from the Founding Fathers:

John Adams wrote in "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America," 1787:

The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."

Of course, many use the example from the Treaty of Tripoli that Adams signed as President, ratified by the Senate containing Founders, and part of the laws of the land as described by the Constitution, wherein Article 11 begins:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion;

James Madison, "Father of the Constitution," wrote, as used in the Remonstrance,

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

In his letter to Livingston, 1822:

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

Ben Franklin wrote in essays a distrust of the power of Christianity such as from "Toleration":

If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution.

Thomas Paine, in the Age of Reason, a primary influence on the Founding Fathers:

"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity."

Thomas Jefferson created the phrase Separation of Church and State, Danbury letter, and in response to the Virgnia Act:

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."

During the Trinity case, Brewer wrote the quote you used in dicta.

Later Brewer felt obliged to explain himself: "But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all." Judge Brewer, Christian Nation, 1905

Would the daily congressional prayers count as non-religious behavior?

There is no such thing as "daily congressional prayers." There are prayers at the opening of sessions of Congress. This a prayer by a group of individuals - not against the Constitution. A legislative requirement for prayer - against the Constitution. Do you see the difference? Members of government at any level can pray or use religious language, if the voters don't like it - they not reelect him. If a member of a government at any level requires a religious belief or behavior as part of law, the voters are screwed.

The conclusion is that the American experiment in democracy was one wherein government and religion would be separated for the first time in much of human history. Religion belongs in the control OF the people, not to control the people through government. Taking religion out of the government ensures maximum freedom of religion of the people. A religious people will provide a firm basis for a free government. A religious government only leads to tyranny.

I used opinions from more Supreme Court Justices with longer and more respectable careers and you denied their expertise on the basis that they were judges. Then you find one judge that agrees with your opinion and he becomes absolute. That's not exactly honest thinking.

Justice Story is a hard nut for atheists to crack. Better you shop for more modern, easily corruptible, "judges". BTW, Joseph Story served 34 years on the Supreme Court, with distinction! He also served before the judiciary became nearly 100% corrupt.

The Constitutional Convention refused to have prayers open sessions.

After weeks of debate, when the convention had become bitter and hopelessly deadlocked, Benjamin Franklin rose and spoke, ". . . I therefore beg to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessing on our deliberation be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business." Franklin then proposed that the Congress adjourn for two days to seek divine guidance. When they returned they began each of their sessions with prayer.

The Federalist Papers do not site any Biblical basis for our government - Greece and Rome are used. The only religious references are "Nature's God" (not Christian), "Almighty," and "Heaven." (#'s 20, 38, 40)

I cannot begin to count the number of times atheists have used that argument in their vain attempts to perpetuate their anti-Christian myth. But you will never hear an atheist quote this segment from Federalist Paper No. 2: "With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence." John Jay, the author of that paper, was the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the U.S. Note how Jay's argument parallels George Washington's argument in his Farewell Address (quoted in a previous post).

. . . the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson as primary author, used "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." No "Christian" terms were used.

True. It was, after all, written mostly by Jefferson. At least he recognized a "Creator". You do know that at least three (3) times in his letters Jefferson claimed he was a Christian? He also believed in "future rewards and punishments", which means he is NOT a deist as you and other atheists claim.

Christian preachers attacked the Constitution during ratification because it wasn't a Christian document. Kramick, Moore, The Godless Constitution quote articles from ratification saying the lack of religious testswould allow, "1st. Quakers, who will make the blacks saucy, and at the same time deprive us of the means of defence - 2dly. Mahometans, who ridicule the Trinity - 3dly. Deists, abominable wretches - 4thly. Negroes, the seed of Cain - 5thly. Beggars, who when set on horseback will ride to the devil - 6thly. Jews etc. etc."

Kramick and Moore certainly gave the leftists and other atheists something to wave in front of Christians. Unfortunately, Kramic and Moore proved nothing in their poorly researched, poorly written book. For example, Kramic and Moore quoted Oliver Ellsworth in their book. But as a Connecticut delegate to the Constitutional Conventionof 1787, in explaining to the people the clause that prohibits a religious test for public office, Ellsworth stated, "A test in favor of any one denomination of Christians would be to the last degree absurd in the United States. If it were in favor of Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Baptists, or Quakers, it would incapacitate more than three-fourths of the American citizens for any public office and thus degrade them from the rank of freemen." In other words, Ellsworth and Justice Story have similary understandings.

Professor Daniel Dreisbach, on "The Godless Constitution", stated, "[Kramick's and Moore's] argument, while an appealing antidote to the historical assertions of the religious right, is superficial and misleading," adding, "The professor's inordinate reliance on the Constitution's most vociferous critics to describe and define that document results in misleading, if not erroneous, conclusions. Furthermore, like the extreme anti-Federalists of 1787, the professors misunderstand the fundamental nature of the federal regime and its founding charter . . . The U. S. Constitution's lack of a Christian designation had little to do with a radical secular agenda. Indeed, it had little to do with religion at all. The Constitution was silent on the subject of God and religion because there was a consensus that, despite the framer's personal beliefs, religion was a matter best left to the individual citizens and their respective state governments (and most states in the founding era retained some form of religious establishment). The Constitution, in short, can be fairly characterized as "godless" or secular only insofar as it deferred to the states on all matters regarding religion and devotion to God."

That, Ophiucus, is exactly what I have been telling you all along.

Regarding the accuracy of the book, Dr. Dreisbach wrote, "The Godless Constitution's lack of clear documentation is a disappointment. In order to examine the book's thesis more fully, I attempted to document the claims and quotations in the second chapter, which sets forth the case that the "principal architects of our national government envisioned a godless Constitution and a godless politics." It was readily apparent why these two university professors, who live in the world of footnotes, avoided them in this tract. The book is replete with misstatements or mischaracterizations of fact and garbled quotations. For example, the professors conflate two separate sections of New York Constitution of 1777 to support the claim that it "self-consciously repudiated tests" (p. 31). Contrary to this assertion, neither constitutional section expressly mentions religious tests and, indeed, test oaths were retained in the laws of New York well into the nineteenth century. The Danbury Baptists, for another example, did not ask Jefferson to designate "a fast day for national reconciliation" (pp.97, 119).. . The suggestion that the U. S. Constitution is godless because it makes only brief mention of the Deity and Christian custom is superficial and misguided. Professors Kramnick and Moore succumb to the temptation to impose twentieth-century values on eighteenth-century text. Their book is less an honest appraisal of history than a partisan tract written for contemporary battles. They frankly state their desire that this polemic will rebut the "Christian nation" rhetoric of the religious right. Unfortunately, their historical analysis is as specious as the rhetoric they criticize."

Andrew Sandlin of the Christian Statesman wrote: "Recall that all of the states had establishments of some sort and several had established churches. The bedrock Calvinist (and other) clergy were in the forefront of the battle to avoid explicitly religious language in the Federal Constitution because they didn't want the Feds messing with their state establishments. The fact that it was the orthodox clergy who opposed an explicitly religious Federal Constitution should by itself refute the silly notions that the omission of reference to Christ denotes a secularizing motivation...Indeed, the fact that the Constitution does not mention Christ or the church is a testimony to a potent localized Christianity. It just so happens that these early Americans had a libertarian strain we today sorely lack. The federal government was not the civil be-all-and-end-all for them as it is for too many (including Christians) today, and they resisted any attempt of the Feds and the proposed Constitution to meddle with their explicitly Christian state establishments...It is hard for Christians suckled on USA Today, The Capital Gang, Dan Rather, and Bill Clinton's ultra-federalism, but they need to understand it...One writer pointed out Benjamin Franklin's and Thomas Jefferson's questionable relation to orthodox Christianity. Fair enough, but as Bradford noted in his essay, "Religion and the Framers" (Benchmark, Fall, 1990) (which the writer admits he has not read), the vast majority of the Founders were devout Christian men, though the secularists focus on the minority of radicals since the latter buttress the modern Godless cause. Why do Christians join the secularist God-haters in highlighting only the few heterodox Founders like Jefferson (who was not present at the Convention ) and Franklin, et al., while ignoring the 95% who were unashamedly Christian?"

Sandlin continues: "Thomas Woods concludes his review (Modern Age, Winter 1997) of Kramnick and Moore's, The Godless Constitution by noting: [I]t is an unstated but palpable nationalism on the part of Kramnick and Moore that renders them unable to break out of a self-imposed either-or dichotomy: either the federal government permits an established church or even minorexpressions of religious belief--including nondenominational benedictions at graduation ceremonies--are prohibited to every community in America. The possibility that the Framers may have envisioned a position between these extremes, that practices forbidden to the central [Federal] government may be perfectly licit at the state and local level, never enters their constitutional calculus. The Godless Constitution ultimately brings to mind Disraeli's famous description of one of his opponents: "He had only one idea, and it was wrong.""

One of Kramick's and Moore's colleagues at Cornell, Richard Baer, agrees with them in part, but disagrees with them in some major points, as follows: "Most liberals--and indeed many conservatives--simply do not want to deal with the fact that government public schools today routinely violate the consciences and the religious freedom of millions of Americans. The Godless Constitution completely misses the fact that neither Thomas Jefferson nor Horace Mann opposed the teaching of religion in the common schools. What they opposed was the teaching of what they called "sectarian" religion, in other words, the religion of many orthodox Christians. They considered their own Unitarian-deistic theology and morality entirely appropriate, indeed essential, to the task of public education...What has changed in our own day is that establishment educators now oppose the teaching of all religion in government public schools. Religion in toto is now considered sectarian; only what comes under the umbrella of the secular is judged to be nonsectarian. This leaves us with a troubling and unstable state of affairs, for secular beliefs and values have come to function in public education in an essentially religious fashion, directly displacing and undermining many traditional religious beliefs and values. Thus, rather than excluding religion, public schools today are utterly pervaded with religion, but of a humanistic variety that carries the misleading label "secular."... Liberals, of course, typically ridicule the claim that secular humanism is a religion (or is religious), but they overlook the fact that this claim was made originally not by fundamentalist Christians but by humanists themselves, including John Dewey. Nor do liberals want to deal with the claims of eminent scholars such as Emile Durkheim and Reinhold Niebuhr, who have argued that secular beliefs and values often function exactly like supernatural beliefs and values."

In a nutshell, Ophiucus, you should consider better (e.g., accurate) sources if you expect to get any significant mileage out of your myth.

James Madison, "Father of the Constitution," wrote, as used in the Remonstrance...

Ophiucus, according to David Barton:

"Madison’s religious views and activities are numerous, as are his writings on religion. They are at times self-contradictory, and his statements about religion are such that opposing positions can each invoke Madison as its authority. An understanding of Madison’s religious views is complicated by the fact that his early actions were at direct variance with his later opinions. Consider six examples of his early actions.

First, Madison was publicly outspoken about his personal Christian beliefs and convictions. For example, he encouraged his friend, William Bradford (who served as Attorney General under President Washington), to make sure of his own spiritual salvation: [A] watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven. Madison even desired that all public officials - including Bradford - would declare openly and publicly their Christian beliefs and testimony: I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.

Second, Madison was a member of the committee that authored the 1776 Virginia Bill of Rights and approved of its clause declaring that: It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.

Third, Madison’s proposed wording for the First Amendment demonstrates that he opposed only the establishment of a federal denomination, not public religious activities. His proposal declared: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established. (Madison reemphasized that position throughout the debates.)

Fourth, in 1789, Madison served on the Congressional committee which authorized, approved, and selected paid Congressional chaplains.

Fifth, in 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided a Bible Society in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.

Sixth, throughout his Presidency (1809-1816), Madison endorsed public and official religious expressions by issuing several proclamations for national days of prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving.

These were the early actions of Madison. In later life Madison retreated from many of these positions, even declaring in his Detached Memoranda his belief that having paid chaplains and issuing presidential prayer proclamations were unconstitutional. Recent Courts have made a point of citing Madison’s Detached Memoranda in arguing against public religious expressions.

Significantly, the Detached Memoranda was discovered in 1946 in the papers of Madison biographer William Cabell Rives and was first published more than a century after Madison’s death by Elizabeth Fleet in the October 1946 William & Mary Quarterly. In that work, Madison expressed his opposition to many of his own earlier beliefs and practices and set forth a new set of beliefs formerly unknown even to his closest friends. Since Madison never made public or shared with his peers his sentiments found in the Detached Memoranda, and since his own public actions were at direct variance with this later writing, it is difficult to argue that it reflects the Founders’ intent toward religion.

There are numerous ... public religious activities by the Founding Fathers that might be cited, and Madison participated and facilitated many of them. Yet Madison later privately renounced his own practices, thus distancing himself from his own beliefs and practices as well as those of the other Founders. Therefore, to use Madison’s “Detached Memoranda” as authoritative is a flagrant abuse of historical records, choosing a long unknown ex post facto document in preference to those concurrent with the framing and implementation of the First Amendment.

Newdow’s use of James Madison is typical of most revisionists: it gives only the part of the story with which he agrees and omits the part with which he disagrees. If Newdow wants to take the position that the “Founding Fathers” (plural) opposed the use of chaplains, then he must provide evidence from more than one Founder; he must show that the majority of the Founders opposed chaplains - something that he cannot do. "

John Adams wrote in "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America," 1787

Ophiucus, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813 Adams wrote::

"The general principles, on which the Father achieved independence, were the only principles in which that beautiful assembly of young Gentlemen could unite- - - And what were these general principles? I answer, the general principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: And the General Principles English and American Liberty, in which all these young men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert her Independence. . . Now I will avow, that I then believe, 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."

On August 28, 1813, Adams wrote:

"Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society."

Of course, many use the example from the Treaty of Tripoli that Adams signed as President...

The Treaty of Tripoli stated that the federal government was not founded on the Christian religion. That is possibly true, possibly not, but meaningless in either case since religion was a state, local, and individual matter until the meddlesome federal judiciary started imposing its religion (secularism) on the states and people. On the Treaty, David Barton wrote:

"Recall that while the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation, they did include a constitutional prohibition against a federal establishment; religion was a matter left solely to the individual States...It would also be absurd to suggest that President Adams (under whom the treaty was ratified in 1797) would have endorsed or assented to any provision which repudiated Christianity. In fact, while discussing the Barbary conflict with Jefferson, Adams declared: "The policy of Christendom has made cowards of all their sailors before the standard of Mahomet. It would be heroical and glorious in us to restore courage to ours".

Furthermore, it was Adams who declared: "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . 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." Adams’own words confirm that he rejected any notion that America was less than a Christian nation."

Ben Franklin wrote in essays a distrust of the power of Christianity such as from "Toleration"...

Did you know that Roger Sherman seconded the motion by Benjamin Franklin to start each session of Congress with prayer? And how about what Norman Cousins wrote (part of which was aforementioned): "Once, when breakdown in the constitutional debates seemed imminent, he cooled the passions and restored the perspective of the delegates: 'Our different sentiments on almost every question,' he said, '...is me thinks a meloncholy proof of the imperfection of human understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it...I have lived,sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth-- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice,is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assurde, Sir, in the sacrted writings, that 'except the Lord building the house, they labour in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war, and conquest. ' I therefore beg leave to move-- that henceforth paryers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business...' "

Thomas Paine, in the Age of Reason, a primary influence on the Founding Fathers...

You may have finally found a non-Christian member of the founding fathers (note I wrote, "may have").

Thomas Jefferson created the phrase Separation of Church and State, Danbury letter, and in response to the Virgnia Act:

Read about Thomas Jefferson above in Dreisbach and Sandlin.

Judge Brewer explained, "... On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians...

There is that pesky 1st Amendment wording, the "Congress shall make no law", again...

There is no such thing as "daily congressional prayers."

The House and Senate Chaplains (first appointed in 1789), who open the House and Senate each day with prayer, will most likely disagree with you.

Absolute rubbish.

He also served before the judiciary became nearly 100% corrupt.

Yet you dismissed my sources, some from earlier periods, saying ALL judges for 170+ years were corrupt. Interesting how you change your tune when you find ONE judge you like.

Franklin then proposed that the Congress adjourn for two days to seek divine guidance. When they returned they began each of their sessions with prayer.

Absolutely false. The Convention refused Franklin's motion after debate. REFUSED. It is a MYTH that they had the prayers. See earlyamerica.com for details.

The Continental Congress had a chaplain for prayers - a political move as he was an Anglican and they were courting Anglicans for support.

"... [T]he institutionalization of the congressional chaplaincy was motivated from the outset by partisan political concerns, and second, that the emergence of prayer at the inaugural ceremony was linked directly to the congressional chaplaincy and was characterized by concern about legislative privilege rather than spiritual necessity or religious establishment."(From Duche to Provoost: The Birth Of Inaugural Prayer", by Martin J. Medhurst Journal Of Church And State, Vol. 24, No. 3, Autumn 1982, pp 573-588)

But you will never hear an atheist quote this segment from Federalist Paper No. 2:

Mainly because that has nothing to do with religion and government - it has to do with shared heritage of a mostly English frontier society.

That heritage was interesting given the over-reliance on the huge influence of the Christian church in the populace even though:

Second, the contributions of religion, especially Protestantism, to the shaping of American society must be put into clearer perspective. In the generation that produced the Constitution, only about ten percent of the population were church members, and in 1800 there were fewer churches relative to population than at any other time before or since.(Religion & Constitutional Government in the United States, A Historical Overview with Sources. John E. Semonche, 1985)

The Founding Fathers were not exactly a stalwart group:

At the time of the Revolution most of the founding fathers had not put much emotional stock in religion, even when they were regular churchgoers. As enlightened gentlemen, they abhorred "that gloomy superstition disseminated by ignorant illiberal preachers" and looked forward to the day when "the phantom of darkness will be dispelled by the rays of science, and the bright charms of rising civilization."( The Radicalism of the American Revolution, by Gordon S. Wood, Alfred A. Knopf,1992)

And for the record, I am not an atheist despite your lying attacks.

At least he recognized a "Creator". You do know that at least three (3) times in his letters Jefferson claimed he was a Christian? He also believed in "future rewards and punishments", which means he is NOT a deist as you and other atheists claim.

He also edited a version of the Gospels according to his views wherein all mention of Jesus' divinity were removed to emphasize his philosophies - for which he has been lambasted by the religious right, when they choose to notice that embarrassing detail.

He also was of the enlightened movement that the Creator had walked away, leaving Man to his own devices - another source of the deist charges....unless it's convenient to use him as a source for the religious right.

In other words, Ellsworth and Justice Story have similary understandings.

As opposed to Franklin, Madison, Adams et al who were opposed to ANY religious test for ANY reason as it was NOT to be a religious government.

Your reliance on Story doesn't do your argument well since he refuted himself, and was known to be a "hater" of Jefferson, who you keep using. His qualifications have been under question as he never was a judge before being appointed to the Supreme Court as a political favor and issued decisions against Jeffersonian positions, especially separation, from his 'undying hatred.'(R. Kent Newmyer, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story: Statesman of the Old Republic, Gerald T. Dunne, Justice Joseph Story and the Rise of the Supreme Court)

Some quotes from his letters:

To Hon. Jeremiah Mason.,Salem, January 16th, 1822.:
Mr. Jefferson stands at the head of the enemies of the Judiciary,
The truth is and cannot be disguised, even from vulgar observation, that the Judiciary in our country is essentially feeble
It will perpetually thwart the wishes and views' of. demagogues
[It sure sounds like an ACTIVIST judge....]
To Judge Fay, Washington, February 15th, 1830.:
Have you seen Mr. Jefferson's Works? If not, sit down at once and read his fourth volume. It is the most precious melange of all sorts of scandals you ever read. It will elevate your opinion of his talents, but lower him in point of principle and morals not a little, His attacks on Christianity are (i la mode de Voltaire; and singularly bold, and mischievous.

Story got into hot water over his fights with Jefferson and his side commentary, dicta, while not the force of ruling was public. Thus his own pulling back of his opinion in his clarification.

religion because there was a consensus that, despite the framer's personal beliefs, religion was a matter best left to the individual citizens and their respective state governments (and most states in the founding era retained some form of religious establishment).

There you make my point for me - left to the individual as the state supports were all eliminated from 1830-1850 and made irrefutably unconstitutional after 1866. Thus, left to the individual. Period.

Professor Daniel Dreisbach

Professor is a bit of a stretch for a lawyer for a Calvary association for training evangelists for Russia. Also, not exactly unbiased.

Interesting how you trust a lawyer who says the right things...even when he is wrong. His charges of poor documentation are nearly libelous. The sourcing is clear and obvious even for those blinded by bias, the sources also include all founders not just critics.

Dreisbach is laughable in the propaganda line.

And did you really mean to include the line:
It just so happens that these early Americans had a libertarian strain we today sorely lack. - Sandlin

Did you not criticize the libertarian stand of supporting separation, and holding religion in the realm of the people as a "libertarian" ideal. Your source makes the exact point that state supported religions is not necessary with the people responsible for religion.

Later, your source Baer includes: They considered their own Unitarian-deistic theology and morality entirely appropriate, indeed essential, to the task of public .

Wait - you said Jefferson wasn't a deist...which is it.... In a nutshell, Ophiucus, you should consider better (e.g., accurate) sources if you expect to get any significant mileage out of your myth.

Interesting - I was about to say the same. Garman, M. Div, in reviewing Dreisbach's work said that it was:

[A]lucid example of "history by omission" and "the intellectually dishonest practice of selectively recounting only those historical facts which could be read" to support a history revisionist's effort to misuse history by using only a part of the historical record and then finishing the sentence with words which do not exist in the document from which he quotes.
Further on - in toto -
The simple problem is that to Dreisbach "the meaning of the First Amendment is ambiguous" (p.22) --obviously. Now an example of how Dreisbach would reword the First Amendment: he says (p. 69) that to nonpreferentialists--such as he is--the purpose of the Establishment Clause was to "prohibit the establishment of a national (or federal) church and implicitly to restrict Congress from granting any religious sect or denomination a preferred legal status." Again, for the record, let it be clearly noted that the word following "establishment of" in the Establishment Clause is "religion"--not "national (or federal) church . . . religious sect or denomination," as Driesbach prefers. The solution, then, is to understand the "voice of the framers,"in the terms in which the Establishment Clause is written, as well as in historical context. Everyone agrees that the Bill of Rights restricted the power of the federal government. The Establishment Clause restricted Congress in terms of an establishment of "religion"--just as it is written. For example, from history, in Virginia on October 25, 1779, James Henry presented the conservative demands in his bill "concerning religion." This bill . . . marks the great effort of the conservative party to re-establish . . . a general assessment and a regulation of religion. . . . The bill reads: . . . The Christian Religion shall in all times coming be deemed and held to be the established Religion of this Commonwealth; and all Denominations of Christians demeaning themselves peaceable and faithfully, shall enjoy equal privileges, civil and Religious. . . . Whenever free male Persons not under twenty one Years of Age, professing the Christian Religion, shall agree to unite themselves in a Society for the purpose of Religious Worship, they shall be constituted a Church, and esteemed and regarded in Law as of the established Religion of this Commonwealth, . . . Every Society so formed . . . shall entitle them to be incorporated and esteemed as a Church of the Established Religion of this Commonwealth. The above example is quoted from pages 58-59 of a history first published by the Virginia State Library in 1910 as written by H. J. Eckenrode in the book Separation of Church and State in Virginia, (reprinted in 1971 by Da Capo Press). It is a clear illustration that "in the minds of the framers," like James Madison, there was the idea of an "Established Religion" which was defined in terms of all Christian churches, not just one, single, official, national denomination or church. The James Henry idea of establishing Christianity as the state religion was rejected in Virginia, and Dreisbach is wrong when he writes (p. 74) that "the final draft [of the Establishment Clause] fulfilled Madison's objective to proscribe . . . a federal church." James Madison never used the words "a federal church," and there is no mention of "Christianity" in the Constitution for the United States of America. That which is prohibited in the Establishment Clause is an establishment of "religion"--religion is what it says, religion is what it means, religion is the only word which is compatible with thereof in the free exercise clause, and it does not take a Rhodes scholar to understand it. President Madison understood it when in February 1811 he vetoed bills relating to an Episcopal and a Baptist church as violations of the Establishment Clause. (Essays by Garman, 1998)

The full truth is something that gets in the way of religious demagogues as they have a vested interest in a theocratic government, something that our Constitution went to great lengths to avoid.

A contemporary of Jefferson and Madison, John Leland , a Baptist minister, who cried out:

Disdain mean suspicion, but cherish manly jealousy; be always jealous of your liberty, your rights. Nip the first bud of intrusion on your constitution. Be not devoted to men; let measures be your object, and estimate men according to the measures they pursue.
Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst of despotism.
It is turnpiking the way to heaven by human law, in order to establish ministerial gates to collect toll.
It converts religion into a principle of state policy, and the gospel into merchandise.
Heaven forbids the bans of marriage between church and state; their embraces therefore, must be unlawful.
Guard against those men who make a great noise about religion, in choosing representatives.
It is electioneering. If they knew the nature and worth of religion, they would not debauch it to such shameful purposes. If pure religion is the criterion to denominate candidates, those who make a noise about it must be rejected; for their wrangle about it, proves that they are void of it. Let honesty, talents and quick despatch, characterise the men of your choice. Such men will have a sympathy with their constituents, and will be willing to come to the light, that their deeds may be examined. . . (July 4 Oration, July 5, 1802)

There is that pesky 1st Amendment wording, the "Congress shall make no law", again... That pesky Article 5 and 14th Amendment again....everything must be followed by the states.

Absolute rubbish.

As is the position that to be a good Christian, you must be accept the government telling you and educating you how to be a good Christian.

One of many reasons why those of us who support religious freedom will always argue for religion to remain in the domain of the people and for the government to not invade this vital area for our freedom.

Yet you dismissed my sources, some from earlier periods, saying ALL judges for 170+ years were corrupt. Interesting how you change your tune when you find ONE judge you like.

That is a valid complaint. Story died in 1845, so lets' hear from judges of his period, or earlier.

Absolutely false. The Convention refused Franklin's motion after debate. REFUSED. It is a MYTH that they had the prayers. See earlyamerica.com for details.

LOL. I will give you that one. I have been unable to confirm that Franklin's request for prayer led to subsequent prayers. But your original point was that there was no prayer during the convention. It is important we understand why.

From Farrand's Records, Vol 1, June 28th, 1787:

(Franklin) "I therefore beg leave to move--that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service--

Mr. Sharman seconded the motion.

Mr. Hamilton & several others expressed their apprehensions that however proper such a resolution might have been at the beginning of the convention, it might at this late day, 1. bring on it some disagreeable animadversions. & 2. lead the public to believe that the embarrassments and dissentions within the convention, had suggested this measure. It was answered by Docr. F. Mr. Sherman & others, that the past omission of a duty could not justify a further omission--that the rejection of such a proposition would expose the Convention to more unpleasant animadversions than the adoption of it: and that the alarm out of doors that might be excited for the state of things within. would at least be as likely to do good as ill.

Mr. Williamson, observed that the true cause of the omission could not be mistaken. The Convention had no funds.

Mr. Randolph proposed in order to give a favorable aspect to ye. measure, that a sermon be preached at the request of the convention on 4th of July, the anniversary of Independence,--& thenceforward prayers be used in ye Convention every morning. Dr. Frankn. 2ded. this motion After several unsuccessful attempts for silently postponing the matter by adjourng. the adjournment was at length carried, without any vote on the motion."

Note that even Alexander Hamilton believed prayer would have been appropriate if adopted at the beginning of the Convention, and he was far from what secularists call "a Christian zealot". The main reason prayer was not adopted, according to Williamson, was the Convention had no funds.

Shortly after this, the Connecticut Compromise was presented, debated and adopted. By September 8, the rough draft of the Constitution of the United States of America was complete. Prayer has opened all sessions of both houses of Congress ever since.

Read Sect VI, Religion and the Federal Government, from "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic" for non-revisionist history of the mix of early government and religion.

Another good read is Affidavit in Support of the Ten Commandments by David Barton.

I have noticed that you rely heavily on modern day interpretations of the founders, rather than the quotes of the founders themselves. Why is that?

Mainly because that has nothing to do with religion and government - it has to do with shared heritage of a mostly English frontier society.

You claim that a statement that we have a common religion and the same principles of government has nothing to do with religion and government? Ridiculous

Heck, Ophiucus, I was an ignorant agnostic until I was 27 years old; and I was a Democrat until 1993. I am certain you could find many statements I have made in my life that contradict sound reason and judgement -- statements that you would agree with.

Yet, he states plainly, in an 1822 letter, that he believes in future rewards and punishments. That is contrary to "deist" doctrine. Ophiucus, everyone knows that one method the left has been using to rewrite history is to claim some of the key founding fathers were deists. And you use it well. But you will never convince anyone with half-a-brain, and with a reasonable knowledge of real American History, that you are anything but a deceiver.

Your reliance on Story doesn't do your argument well since he refuted himself, and was known to be a "hater" of Jefferson, who you keep using.

Story never refuted himself (except in your dreams). All federalists hated Jefferson (not sure about Story), but that has nothing to do with anything. It is true that late in life (1822 and 1823) Jefferson wrote some pretty nasty prophecies about the Supreme Court, the nastiest of which have come true.

[Story's] qualifications have been under question as he never was a judge before being appointed to the Supreme Court as a political favor and issued decisions against Jeffersonian positions, especially separation, from his 'undying hatred.'(R. Kent Newmyer, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story: Statesman of the Old Republic, Gerald T. Dunne, Justice Joseph Story and the Rise of the Supreme Court)

Huh? Story's qualifications are only being questioned by revisionists who have no basis for secularism other than deceit. Story was appointed by Madison, a friend of Jefferson. As for qualifications, Story graduated 2nd in his class from Harvard, passed the bar 3 years later, and had a successful law practice, despite being from the party of Jefferson and Madison while living amongst New England federalists. He served in the Mass Legislature and the U.S. House of Representatives before being appointed to the Supreme Court in 1811 by Madison. Story was credited with helping establish the Harvard Law School.

John Marshall, on the other hand, attended a few months of law lectures at William and Mary (his only formal education), was admitted to the bar in 1780, practice law for a couple of years, and was elected a delagate to the Virginia Assembly in 1782. Later he was a commissioner to France, a member of the U.S. House, and the Secretary of State under Johy Adams. He was appointed to the Supreme Court by Adams near the end of his term as a political move.

According to your illogic, John Marshall was not qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, much less as its Chief Justice, since his political record is similar to Joseph Story's (he never served as a judge and his appointment was a political move).

There you make my point for me - left to the individual as the state supports were all eliminated from 1830-1850 and made irrefutably unconstitutional after 1866. Thus, left to the individual. Period.

More revisionism. That power of the states was not usurped until about the 1960's, period!

Professor is a bit of a stretch for a lawyer for a Calvary association for training evangelists for Russia. Also, not exactly unbiased.

Considering your extremely biased and erroneous references, it is amazing you would would be daring enough to try the "Stop Thief" method at this time. But, in any case, everyone should read a bio of Dr. Daniel L. Dreisbach. Note that Dr Dreisbach, a professor at the School of Public Affairs, American University, Washington, D.C., has a B.A. from the University of South Carolina, a D.Ph. from Oxford University, and a J.D. from the University of Virginia. American University of Washington D.C. is accredited by the Commission on Higher Education of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, which accredits schools such as the Univ of Maryland, Penn State Univ, Univ of Pennsylvania, Rutgers, University of Delaware, and many others.

No need to read you further, Ophiucus. You have no credibility.

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.