Did You Know that Half the Declaration's Signers Had Divinity School Training?

Did You Know that Half the Declaration's Signers Had Divinity School Training?

No phrase has been more egregiously misapplied than Thomas Jefferson’s infamous “wall of separation between church and state,” a line he used in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802.This line, along with references to the supposed lack of Christian faith among the Founders, has for decades fed the fires of the American leftists in their drive to excise any references to God and/or Christ from the public square. Yet how “ir-religious” were these Founders?

It is worth beginning at the beginning and to note that entire colonies were established precisely to serve as religious sanctuaries for various denominations of the Christian church, with Pennsylvania a Quaker state, Maryland a Catholic state, and Massachusetts a Puritan state. Moreover, the supposedly “deistic” Jefferson wrote Virginia’s Sabbath law, and far from wishing to move America away from her Christian roots, Jefferson’s Bill for “Establishing Religious Freedom” in 1786 was expressly designed to move the nation toward a less-Anglican, more Protestant base. These words hardly sound like those of a man committed to atheism or even “deism”: “Almighty God hath created the mind free,” and “all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind . . . .” Jefferson wanted to extend the Gospel by “its influence on reason alone,” not coercion. Nevertheless, that hardly supports the notion that Jefferson lacked faith in God, or, for that matter, the Gospels.

What is completely ignored in the debates about “religious freedom” is that every one of the groups fighting the tax assessments for public funding of ministers desired “religious freedom” within a Christian tradition, and none, in their wildest dreams, would have suspected the concept of religious freedom would be used to justify the removal of Christian crosses from public squares, the elimination of prayers in school, or the removal of copies of the Ten Commandments from courtrooms. In the minds of these groups, the threat of tyranny by an Anglican Church would have been a far lesser evil than the complete removal of Christianity from the public square.

There was certainly no separation of church from our Founding statesmen. Half the Declaration’s signers had some sort of divinity school training, and while John Adams was the most overtly pious, even the supposed non-believers among the Founders, such as Benjamin Franklin, found the need to turn to God in times of trouble. During the Constitutional Convention's most contentious moments, it was Franklin who not only offered a prayer but who added:

Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance [emphasis added].

Do these words sound like those of a “deist” who thinks human ability sufficient for the challenges of the day? Franklin not only went on to quote scripture a la Adams, but stated flatly that “God governs the affairs of men” (emphasis Franklin’s).

Modern historians, steeped in the “feelings” and emotions of people, demand more evidence of the “inner man” from the Founders. But faith, to all of them, was a deeply private issue, lest one come up short against another. Whether or not George Washington prayed in the snow, or whether or not declarations such as Franklin’s were for “public consumption,” it is abundantly obvious that these men spoke of God, the Creator, the Lord, the Divine (capital “D”) relentlessly. Even if it were true that, initially, such pronouncements were intended for the ears of others, it nevertheless bespeaks a Biblical law that “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Romans 10:17). By constantly speaking faith, they consistently built up their own. Non-believers might see hypocrisy; believers would see confession and optimism, whereby one “calls those things which do not exist as though they did.” (Romans 4:17).

The omnipresence of Christianity in America provided an undergirding to everything the Founders said and did. It was so common that most people, aside from an ultra-pious man like John Adams, did not delve deeply into the implications of their faith for every daily interaction. Yet how can one escape the fact that virtually all of the Republic’s early universities were founded by denominations with the intent of advancing the cause of Christ---and not some generic “Creator”? How does one reconcile the evidence of a long and tortured spiritual journey of Abraham Lincoln, who only “surrendered all” after Gettysburg? How can the divinity school training of so many early giants---and many later presidents, who studied theology formally---be cavalierly swept aside? And all this in a young nation in which the path to power and fame was anything but the clergy!

Jefferson’s wall of separation between church and state clearly did not apply to a wall separating church and statesmen, for it was assumed by all that men of poor character could not govern. The unstated assumption beneath that was that character came from God, and faith, not from man’s own works. They spoke of character without ceasing: Alexander Hamilton stated that he would “willingly risk my life, though not my character, to exalt my station.” But of course, Hamilton had gotten that training from a New Jersey minister, who funded his education. Jefferson wrote in his Bible, “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our creator.” Jefferson, we might add, was the chairman of the American Bible Society. Patrick Henry, in 1776, stated, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here.” The First Continental Congress authorized the purchase of 20,000 Bibles in 1777 from Holland---a fact that anti-religious websites deliberately misrepresent. Indeed, the most common argument against the faith of the Founders is an argument from silence. Yet that speaks more about their view of what was properly discussed in public---even in private letters---than it does their lack of Christian faith.

Had the Founders been subject to the incessant polling we suffer from today, three things are clear: 1) They would have overwhelmingly, if not unanimously, characterized the United States as a Christian nation (leaving aside what each interpreted that to mean); 2) They would have overwhelmingly, if not unanimously, thought it imperative that leaders display the type of character that sprang from Christianity; and 3) They would have almost certainly unanimously agreed that the “wall of separation” was to prevent one Christian denomination from dominating, and was never intended to be a wedge between the government and Christianity. Even the so-called “Deists” among them would be horrified at the actions taken under the guise of protecting “religious liberty,” when in fact they are usually efforts to attack religion. I’d wager that had they seen the perversions of their intended protection of Christianity, more than a few would have uttered, “Oh, my God!”

Most of the states at the time of the Constitutional Convention, did not allow confessed Deists to hold public office.

If it had been the intent of the founders to fully seperate church & state, don't you think they would have addressed that in the Federal Constitution, instead of leaving that power to the states?

In colonial times your religion was the religion of the colony you lived in.

Not true.

That was changed by the separation of church and state.

However did that happen, when most of the states had official state churches at the time of the founding?

Do you really believe that separation of church and state would have been overwhelmingly supported if all those guys were Christian and wanted a Christian America?

It takes someone with no understanding of the Christian faith to make that statement. You are confusing "Christian state", national, with "Christian state", as in states, based on the "community standards" of each of the states.

If it had been the intent of the founders to fully serrate church & state, don't you think they would have addressed that in the Federal Constitution, instead of leaving that power to the states?

They did. A state cannot enact a state religion. That is a violation of separation of church and state.

Not true

That was the law in those days. It was not enforced in some of the backwoods counties, but is was enforced law in most of the colonies.

However did that happen, when most of the states had official state churches at the time of the founding?

During the Constitutional Convention of 1787 Ben Franklin suggested they start the convention with prayer. His suggestion was rejected and the convention was held without prayer. Those founders not only rejected prayer, they demanded separation of church and state.
All of the above are facts of American History that can be found in the Encyclopedia Britannica or any book on American history.

Now, I ask you this: If the founders were Christians who wanted a Christian America, why did they reject prayer at the convention? Why did the enact Separation of Church and State? Why does the Constitution not mention Jesus, or God. Why does the Declaration of Independence refer to the Deist "Nature's God" instead of the Christian Jesus God?

It takes someone with no understanding of the Christian faith

I understand the Constitution and the words of the Deists who wrote it.
...

A state cannot enact a state religion. That is a violation of separation of church and state.

Please provide the clause in the Constitution got rid of official state religious. After you fail to find it, check out the years that the original 13 disestablished on their own.

I'm combining this from two of your posts to make your statement clearer.In colonial times your religion was the religion of the colony you lived in. That was the law in those days. It was not enforced in some of the backwoods counties, but is was enforced law in most of the colonies.

People had to contribute tax dollars to maintain their state churches. People had to be members of good standing with the official state churches to be made freemen there. However, people did not have to worship in churches of the religion of the official church & there were churches of other denominations within most of the colonies.

Only about half of the Pilgrims were members of the church of the other half of the Pilgrims. None of them were Puritans. Puritans founded Salem & Scituate. Here you have two different religions within the same colony & neither of them were exactly in "backwoods counties". The colonists had a fit about the Royal Governor putting an Anglican church in Boston because if was offensive, not because it was "illegal".

During the Constitutional Convention of 1787 Ben Franklin suggested they start the convention with prayer. His suggestion was rejected and the convention was held without prayer.

Members of the convention were different religions, so the rejection of Franklin's suggestion makes some sense. It had nothing to do with any kind of rejection of Christianity.

Those founders not only rejected prayer, they demanded separation of church and state.

They rejected creating a national religion. That is hardly a demand for the separation of church & state.

All of the above are facts of American History that can be found in the Encyclopedia Britannica or any book on American history.

There are facts & there are interpretations of what those facts mean. If you don't believe my interpretation, keep sifting through the Constitution to find that clause which forced all of the states to disestablish.

Now, I ask you this: If the founders were Christians who wanted a Christian America, why did they reject prayer at the convention?

No prayer would have been appropriate for everyone there. In those days, most prayers weren't the watered down versions of prayer that are common today. Most of these people were heavily schooled in the doctrine of their faiths. Saying some kind of universal Christian prayer would have been akin to a Roman Catholic taking communion at a Baptist church, sure to offend everyone.

Why did the enact Separation of Church and State?

They didn't.

Why does the Constitution not mention Jesus, or God.

Religion was left to the states.

Why does the Declaration of Independence refer to the Deist "Nature's God" instead of the Christian Jesus God?

It was a good way to poke a finger in the eye of the monarch.

I understand the Constitution and the words of the Deists who wrote it.

Could you splain why Paine, clearly a deist quoted extensively from the Old Testament in "Common Sense"?

Could you splain why Paine, clearly a deist quoted extensively from the Old Testament in "Common Sense"?

If you would bother to read Paine you would understand why. May I suggest "Reason". If Deism had prophets, Paine would be to Deists as Jesus is to Christians. You say I do not understand Christianity, but you do not understand Deism.

"Except in the first article in the Christian creed, that of believing in God, there is not an article in it but fills the mind with doubt as to the truth of it, the instant man begins to think. Now every article in a creed that is necessary to the happiness and salvation of man, ought to be as evident to the reason and comprehension of man as the first article is, for God has not given us reason for the purpose of confounding us, but that we should use it for our own happiness and His glory"...Thomas Paine

According to Rev. Ashbel Green, a Presbyterian minister who was a close personal friend and advisor to President George Washington, "while Washington was very deferential to religion and its ceremonies, like nearly all the founders of the Republic, he was not a Christian, but a Deist."

I'll believe the words of the man who was there at the time, thank you.
...

If Deism had prophets, Paine would be to Deists as Jesus is to Christians.

Deists pray to Nature's god in the name of Paine? He died for them? LOL Muslim's think Jesus was a prophet. Christians don't.

You say I do not understand Christianity,

You clearly don't.

but you do not understand Deism.

I don't think you're um, enlightening me about it, if you're trying to tell me that Paine is a prophet of the erm, "faith". I'm tempted to ask you to try to untangle the mess you've made while trying to enlighten po ignorant me. I think your explanation would prolly be a real hoot. If you're gonna try anywayz though, feel free to talk down to me.

To answer my own question for you, the Lord tried to warn the Jews not to raise up kings over themselves. They didn't listen. The rest is history & God's warning was proven correct. Any Deist would agree, which is why Paine used it in his argument to toss out the monarchy.

I'm still waiting for that clause of the Constitution that forced all of the states to disestablish. Show me the rejected text the founders tried to include in the Constitution, which would have built a wall of separation.

Deists pray to Nature's god in the name of Paine?

No, apparently you don't understand the meaning of the word if. How are with is?

To answer my own question for you, the Lord tried to warn the Jews not to raise up kings over themselves. They didn't listen. The rest is history & God's warning was proven correct. Any Deist would agree, which is why Paine used it in his argument to toss out the monarchy

What's your point? Are you trying to instigate me into posting Paine quotes calling on Deists and Unitarians to unite against Christianity? Shall we turn America into Bosnia with a religious war?

I'm still waiting for that clause of the Constitution that forced all of the states to disestablish. Show me the rejected text the founders tried to include in the Constitution, which would have built a wall of separation

Ever heard of the first amendment? How about the tenth? Don't debate me on the issue...Take it up with the Supreme Court...They have ruled on it numerous times in our history. The "rejected text" you speak of was the Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, authored by Thomas Jefferson. It became law in Virginia on Jan 16, 1786. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was based on that act.

Prior to the first and tenth amendments, religious discrimination was written into the constitutions of various colonies. Those laws:

Established a loyalty oath for legislators and government employees, requiring them to believe in the Trinity, and/or the divine inspiration of the Bible.

Prohibited clergy from holding office.

Required legislators to be Protestant Christians.

Permitted the state to support the Christian religion from general tax revenue.

Granted religious and other human rights only to Christians, or only to theists.

Specified "The Protestant Religion" to be the established religion of the state.

Required citizens to observe the weekly Sabbath or Lord's day.....People were actually arrested and jailed in Virginia for not attending church services.

Is that what you mean by Christian America?
...

No, apparently you don't understand the meaning of the word if. How are with is?

I think I kinda understand the words if and is. If I run into trouble, could I please ask you to help me figger 'em out? Like I said, "If you're gonna try anywayz though, feel free to talk down to me."

Now where were we? Ah yes, we are back here again. If Deism had prophets, Paine would be to Deists as Jesus is to Christians.

It's unfortunate that your beliefs have closed your mind so tightly that you seem unable to understand my response to you. Christianity recognizes many prophets. Jesus is not one of them. Trying to equate Paine to the prophets or to Jesus in any way is ignorant, less you wanna try to tell me that nature's god spoke to him or that people thought it did. That's not what you're trying to tell me, is it?

What's your point?

My point has to do with the fact that Paine's understanding of Christianity added to his understanding in general. Although he was a deist, his beliefs did not close his mind. That allowed him to argue his points to Christians in their own language, instead of looking as foolish as someone who tries to do the same from a position of ignorance. Modern deists & agnostics could learn something from Paine. Instead of running away screaming from every idea that comes from someone else's religious teachings, they might actually find truths that speak to them in the texts too.

Are you trying to instigate me into posting Paine quotes calling on Deists and Unitarians to unite against Christianity?

What makes you think I'm trying to instigate you into doing anything?

Shall we turn America into Bosnia with a religious war?

Why would we wanna do that?

Ever heard of the first amendment?

Okay, I'll bite. What is it?

How about the tenth?

Tenth verse, same as the first.

Don't debate me on the issue...Take it up with the Supreme Court...They have ruled on it numerous times in our history.

Send 'em over. I'd be more than happy to straighten them out. Still, you're starting to make me feel old here. SCOTUS never really got around to doing it until it was within my lifetime. How bout you? Were you born before or after 1961 & 1978, the years the mighty robed deities finally straightened out Maryland & Tennessee?

The "rejected text" you speak of was the Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, authored by Thomas Jefferson. It became law in Virginia on Jan 16, 1786.

Looks to me like that means he knew it was a state issue, less you're gonna try to tell me that states had to recognize all of the provisions of other state constitutions, through full faith or something like that...

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was based on that act.

Full faith & all that, right? LOL Looks almost like you're making all of this up as you go.

If the first amendment was the big fix, why didn't all of the states quickly drop the religious clauses from their state constitutions? Take a look. Every single state constitution has a religious protection clause. Instead of dropping the clauses, all of the states tightened up the religious clauses in their constitutions, generally towards more state protections, IE, "freedoms".

If things keep going in the direction they have been going, the states will be required to drop their clauses soon, because SCOTUS is heading in the direction of establishing "none of the above" as the official state religion.

Prior to the first and tenth amendments, religious discrimination was written into the constitutions of various colonies.

I got news for ya, a bunch of things on your list lasted past the ratification of the Bill of Rights. States generally disestablished without any help from big brother.

I think I kinda understand the words if and is

I saw no evidence of that in your juvenile reply.

"If you're gonna try anywayz though, feel free to talk down to me."

I have no need or desire to immitate you.

It's unfortunate that your beliefs have closed your mind so tightly that you seem unable to understand my response to you. Christianity recognizes many prophets. Jesus is not one of them. Trying to equate Paine to the prophets or to Jesus in any way is ignorant, less you wanna try to tell me that nature's god spoke to him or that people thought it did. That's not what you're trying to tell me, is it?

No, I wasn't born yesterday. Hell, I've even been to the county fair! I even realize that you have three Gods and a whole slew of prophets and demons. So, what has that got to do with anything?

Modern deists & agnostics could learn something from Paine. Instead of running away screaming from every idea that comes from someone else's religious teachings, they might actually find truths that speak to them in the texts too

ROFL!
Nothing like talking down and lecturing another on dogma! Two sides to that coin fella. I don't see you willing to learn other dogma from someone else.

What makes you think I'm trying to instigate you into doing anything?

Little bit of humor, a concept you haven't discovered yet. Sorry I forgot to put in the ROTFLMAO for you.

Still, you're starting to make me feel old here. SCOTUS never really got around to doing it until it was within my lifetime. How bout you? Were you born before or after 1961 & 1978, the years the mighty robed deities finally straightened out Maryland & Tennessee?

ROFL!
Born before 1940. Does that make me an expert, dad?
How could such a smart guy like you forget the SCOTUS decision of 1892? Trinity ring a bell? That one went in your favor. No complaints about the mighty robed deities on that one?
...

"My side" is the one that has the federal government staying out of religion. If/when faced with religious cases they should decline, citing lack of jurisdiction, which would mean that even some stupid state rulings or laws might have to be allowed to stand. The feds should only step in if some more basic civil rights, such as life & liberty started getting reattached to the religious question. If people do not like the way their state is addressing the religious question, they can work to get their state to change or they can vote with their feet & move to a state more in tune with their beliefs. As we nationalize the question, freedom of movement loses most of it's meaning. Why move if all you are able to find is more of the same?

Nothing like talking down and lecturing another on dogma! Two sides to that coin fella. I don't see you willing to learn other dogma from someone else.

I would flunk the religious tests of colonial times, because I am not a member of any church & haven't been since I was a teen. I disagree with the politics of most, if not all of the organized faiths.

Learning other people's dogma has never been a problem for me, other than I forget more of it than I remember. It's not that it offends me, rather, much of it looks hollow or empty to me. I read "Reason" & it looks like meanderings of an author's bitterness spilling out, though it is likely that it "speaks" to you. Different strokes for different folks...

It is not that I want to inflict my world view or beliefs on anyone, but I resent the hell about the way that secularism has been inflicted on me & mine. It was done to me in the name of freedom, but it is no different than what was done in earlier days in the name of state religion.

I poke fun at zealots.

Because of the side of the argument that I take, people tend to make that assumption about me. I sure as heck am not going to tip my hand before there is any lucre in the pot. :o)

Lets clear the water. I like Paine, but I do not take him seriously.

One of my colonial ancestors was a Thomas Paine (1612-1706). He was Robert Treat Paine's great grandfather. I tried to find out if the revolutionary era Thomas Paine was related. As far as I know, there is no connection. Anyway, I've read a lot more about him than by him.

"Common Sense" was like a best seller, but don't ask me to remember the number of copies printed. The number was amazing, considering the size of the population. It had a huge impact on the history of our nation.

Secularist zealotry is just as dangerous as religious zealotry and I oppose them both.

My own special niche seems to find opposition by all! lol

America belongs to all of us.

Sure, but all I want is my own little corner of it. I think that is pretty much what most of us want.

Both those who demand America be a Christian nation

It is a Christian nation, but there is no law that makes it a Christian nation. It is built into it, through the majority of it's people. No piece of paper, no matter how well thought out defines a nation. A nation requires a certain amount of agreement about what is on that piece of paper. Zealots are working hard to change what's on the paper, without bothering to change their fellow citizen's hearts.

The secularists push to change the what's on the paper. They hope that pushing all signs of Christianity out of view will make it lose it's place in the society. The Romans tried it & that was back when we were really outnumbered. To me it seems kinda stupid to ignore the parts of history that you don't like.

The secular push causes the deeply religious to push back. I'm ready to give each side their own corner, so they can have everything they want. My only rule would be that both sides have to leave everyone else alone.

and those who demand America be Godless scare the hell out of me.

They don't scare me. I still have the basic fabric of the country watching my back.

That's where I'm coming from.

I figured as much. You should have started laffing earlier. I was pushing the ridiculous button pretty hard.

Robert Treat Paine... I think you are related. The name rings a bell. I like reading letters from the era and that's were I probably saw it. Maybe in 'Spirit of 76'. I'll try to find it again.

I'd say that there are good odds that they knew each other or at the least, knew of each other. R.T. Paine was a signer of the DoI & a Rep of Mass in the Continental Congress. He was in the thick of things, leading up to the Revolutionary War & beyond.

All of Thomas Paine's roots were in England. He grew up there. I think Franklin met him in London & liked his ideas, so brought him over to Philly. It's been awhile, so don't quote me, though I do know the part of him not being a colonist is correct.

If there is a family connection it would be in the 1600's or earlier, as my Thomas Paine was a Mayflower descendant. Also, their families were from different parts of England.

Wanna know my connection to Franklin, Washington, Nathaniel Greene & Nathan Hale? All of them are a near miss. LOL I've spent some time working to find a connection to John Paul Jones (the name Jones is almost as bad as Smith) & trying to connect my Monroes with James Monroe, but so far I have not had any success.

My distrust of Christian zealotry is a product of my age, I think. God loving Germans were chanting "Germany is a Christian Nation" in the thirties. That resulted in the murder of millions of God loving Jews. That happened in my lifetime.

All of the business that led up the the Nazi's is a heck of a lot more complicated than just hyper-Christianity or hyper-nationalism, as I'm sure you know. It took over a century of the Preussen education model, devised to create German militarism to reach fruition. Throw in the popularity of eugenics with the international elite thinkers & very bad things are bound to happen.

The Russian secularists murdered millions of their own in their quest to do away with God.

True & we have people who think too much like them running our schools. That is creepy to me, but not scary, if you know what I mean.

That's what makes FR so much fun. If we did that in real life our neighbors would call the men in the white coats to take us away!

I actually do the same in real life. My ex-husband threatened to call the men in white coats a few times. lol No, that is not why he is my ex. We agree more than disagree about politics.

Before my older sons moved out we used to regularly have good knock down, drag out debates. I told them if they ever resorted to calling me names, I won. I miss having those debates with them & FR has helped to fill that hole. Both have somehow ended up politically liberal. I blame their father & he blames me. lol I should have home schooled them, but they are both smarter than I am & I had to study to help them with their homework.

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.