Judeo-Christian Philosophy and the Founding of America

Capitalism Magazine ^ | 02/01/2004 | Michael Marriott

[Kerberos]

Stellar rebuttal to the "America was Founded as a Christian Nation" myth that has gained ground in some circles in recent years, promoted by those with a feeble understanding of both history and philosophy.

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP - A mind is a terrible thing to waste...too bad the author's mind is on "dormant mode."

[Congressman Billybob]

A similar article from the same source was posted yesterday. This one is as dumb as that one, and for the same reason. It demonstrates a blazing, deliberate ignorance of American history. This one is slightly better in that it refers, fleetingly, to the history that it then misunderstands and ignores. But the result is still ignorant in this article.

Congressman Billybob

Click here, then click the blue CFR button, to join the anti-CFR effort (or visit the "Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob" thread). Please do it now.

[LiteKeeper]

James Madison and Religion in Public

The Importance of Morality and Religion in Government

The Founding Fathers and Deism

Was George Washington a Christian?

A Godless Constitution?

Franklin at the Constitutional Convention

The Founders on Public Religious Expression

[Redcoat LI]

The Mayflower Compact

---

1620
"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&.

Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620."

[what's up]

"Only when the power of the Church was broken— first by the Reformation, second by the Renaissance and third by the Enlightenment"

Preposterous...the power of the Church was not broken...each movement was promulgated by those who believed in God. The Catholic church has had checks and balances throughout history, provided by new christian movements. How can the author say the power of the Church was broken by the Reformation? Luther promoted a new church and invigorated Christianity!

[lelio]

It demonstrates a blazing, deliberate ignorance of American history.

Care to expound?

[what's up]

"As one who speaks the word of God there were few real checks on the pope’s power."

The author is ignorant to make such a sweeping generalization. There were many checks on the pope's power throughout history. The barbarian kings,leaders of nation-states, the Holy Roman Emperor, the Church in the East, not to mention the times that there were 2 or 3 popes to balance each other !

[Hank Kerchief]

Thanks, Kerberos. I'm going to invite some people who will be interested in this, both positive and negative.

PHILOSOPHY PING

(If you want on or off this list please freepmail me.)

Hank

[Hank Kerchief]

Here's an article some of you will love to hate.

Hank

[beckett]

I hope we're not going to have this bozo's ignorant views foisted on the FR community day after day.

[Congressman Billybob]

I "expounded" on this yesterday, in responding to the companion article. Having read for forty years everything I could get my hands on that was written by the Framers, I know to a certainty that anyone who claims that their political views were informed by their religious views.

Since this is an extensive amount of "homework," odds are this writer, and the writer of the prior article, simply had not done their homework. If they DID read that material, then they are simply liars.

I am working on my eighth book, on Thomas Paine. I hope it will be published this year. He serves as a classic example of the misreading of the religious/ethical bases of the Framers. I count Paine as one of the Framers.

All the major atheist websites -- many of which I read in preparation for the brief I filed in the Newdow case (the "under God" case) -- claim Paine as an atheist, one of their own. They do so through dishonest "scholarship." They pull out of context some of his quotes and deliberately ignore others. Paine, at the end of his life, was a non-sectarian deist, exactly like Albert Einstein. Anyone who says otherwise is either an incompetent scholar, or a deliberate liar.

A similar misreading of American history underlies a similar canard against Thomas Jefferson.

If you want more than that, please buy -- or borrow at your local library -- my book when it comes out. The title is: These Are the Times that Try Men's Souls. Is that sufficient for now?

John / Billybob

[Skooz]

I hope we're not going to have this bozo's ignorant views foisted on the FR community day after day.

As long as the willfully ignorant need ammo to support their easily refuted views, the spew will flow.

[betty boop]

Our law is based on all men are created and have inalienable rights, not that the king can impose what he wants.

O'Reilly is so right here. Our system of equal justice under law is predicated on the Christian idea of the sanctity and worthiness of each and every human individual in the sight of God. This says that no government may legitimately discriminate among its citizens, finding some groups worthy and others unworthy, according to which way the political winds are blowing. All are scared in God's sight -- if not in the sight of man. And the natural rights of human beings which no state may violate devolve from this premise, and this premise alone. Governments have the exclusive duty to protect and uphold these rights, not invent new ones; legitimate governments do so.

[the OlLine Rebel]

"What cannot be accepted.... is that such a philosophy could, or in fact did, lead to the creation of the United States."

Well there's the crux of the problem rite there. Semantics, I guess, but nonetheless.

"LEAD" to the *creation*?

No, GUIDED IN the creation.

Those are different things. Did any1 ever say God "told" some1 to rebel against GB?

[Hank Kerchief]

This says that no government may legitimately discriminate among its citizens, finding some groups worthy and others unworthy

Well, yes, so long as the, "others," weren't slaves. Neither the Bible or the founding fathers, had any compunction against that.

Hank

[the OlLine Rebel]

Ummmm....."Amen"

(altho I think you meant "sacred" and not "scared" LOL)

Additionally, people don't seem to understand that God Himself has granted free will. And the US, at least in principle, most of the time, essentially recognized that same premise - freedom of choice.

[betty boop]

...altho I think you meant "sacred" and not "scared" LOL....

I did, Rebel. Thanks for the correction! (Most appreciated.)

[siunevada]

This is the true meaning of the phrase “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

As soon as we scratch out the preceding phrase "all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights" I believe we can bid a fond farewell to the U.S.A. because it will not continue to exist without acknowleding the source of our rights.

[Mamzelle]

Pray hear a word from a feeb--but the bio of Ben Franklin--"The First American"--is an excellent read. It might help you understand the POV of us poor knuckle-draggers. It almost got the Pulitzer, more's the pity for the dignity of the Pulitzer for turning it down.