Was America Founded As A Christian Nation?

Forbes ^ | 9/25/2012 | Bill Flax

[DocRock]

Library of Congress - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic

[Oratam]

The Old Stone Fort reminds me of churches (oratories, actually) that dot Ireland, particularly in the west.

I would love to know the orientation of the building as that might provide a clue as to its intended use.

(I find the name Isleta to be curious as well.)

Thanks for sharing!

[muawiyah]

The really, really, really, really oldest Christian religious structures had to be built by Roman Catholic priests dressed in buckskins ~ at least if they tried that before 1598 ~ afterwards, with settlement proceeding apace they'd been wearing rough linen robes ~ and there'd be Protestants out there somewhere ~ and in the far North, there'd been Orthodox priests.

There are a couple of major dividing lines in European history in North America that you have to keep in mind to even begin to understand what the different parties were up to. The first one occurs about 1541 with DeSoto's journey to the Midwest. Before that there was little activity inland ~ probably none for that matter. However the Indians were busy acquiring the horse, the European domesticated pig, European cattle, chickens and knowledge of the use of metal.

After 1541 serious attempts were made by Spanish colonialists and military organizations to place permanent settlements along the Gulf Coast and the East Coast. Piracy became a serious problem. Spain began sending prisoners of its wars with the Ottoman's to South Carolina ~ there are a number of different dates for this action, but the practical effect was to provide every East Coast tribe with an individual who spoke Turkish.

The second big divide is the year 1598 ~ KIng Philippe I died and so did Elizabeth. Afterwards normal people did normal things and serious attempts were made to place permanent settlements in North America. Santa Fe was established ~ near La Luz ~ which may be older but who knows?

[muawiyah]

Notice that today the old stone fort has a doorway. Archaeologists assume that it had no door when it was originally built ~ instead it had a window with an iron screen. A Christian would go there and stand outside the window accepting the host, doing confession, whatever. It'd be high enough to allow a man to stay on horseback so he could get away quickly in case of attack.

Spaniards were a walking, talking warehouse of advanced technology from the viewpoint of the Indians in all quarters ~ they'd take the horse, the harness, his belts, buttons, studs, metal pieces, firearms, bullets, pocket change, knives, swords, helmets ~ you name it ~ you see this same accomodation for men mounted on horses in the sachresty at the Alamo in fact! This way of life went on a couple of hundred years ~ the solutions were the same for the Spanish missionaries as they had been for early Christian missionaries moving North into primitive Europe.

I found a picture on the net of an early building in San Angelo TX that had the exact same stone work ~ but it was from the 1700s. This is earlier.

Whoever laid out the building used the Spanish El and not the English or French yard. d'Iberville may well have been advancing on the St. Joseph, not the Ohio. The map by d'isles in 1709/17 clearly shows French claims extended only to Michigan's southern bounds ~ the north line of the lowest tier of counties ~ which was a wild frontier.

There was a Spanish Fort on the St. Joseph (In Michigan) During the American revolution the Spanish militia at Cahokia joined with their American allies to retake that post from the Brits ~ and did so under a Spanish flag. Which meant somebody knew where the claims had always been and were willing to make good on them with military power. The Revolution rolled back Queen Anne's War for many Americans of the day.

[ravenwolf]

The secularists are wrong, period. But we cannot remake the Founders in our image to claim they were something they weren’t.

---

Amen to that, the liberals are wrong because the very foundation of this nation is based on believing in God.

If we read the declaration of independence we can see that the founders believed it was the divine providence of God that handed this country over to a free people.

Though it is pretty clear that the founders believed in God some of them may not have believed in Jesus at that time, also some of them may have believed that was something more personal.

The Christians are only wrong in the sense that they are trying to make the founding fathers into what their image of Christ should be.

At the same time many Christians, especially those religious ones would not approve of the real Jesus if he appeared, not knowing who it was because he would surly not fit their image of him.

He may find himself in jail if he lit a cigar in front of the wrong ones.

[sasportas]

The two examples I gave, the devil in the garden of Eden, the tares appearing early on among the wheat, was to illustrate America, though founded by Christians seeking religious liberty, the Masons were not about to let the Christians get away with making this country Christian.

The devil wasn’t about to let things be as God originally had it in the garden, his appearance there has caused a battle in the human race between the truth and satanic deception ever since, see Gen. 3:15. God sent Christ to the human race, the same thing, as the wheat and tares parable illustrates, there has been a battle between truth and deception in Christianity ever since.

Same thing with the original Christian faith in America, like the devil appearing early on among the wheat, who do we see but the Masons deceptively working in their agenda, a battleground ever since...between American Christians and American anti-Christians. The devil full well knows, as America goes, so goes the world.

As to the Illuminati, look at your dollar bill. The pyramid and all seeing eye was the insignia of the Illuminati. How did it get on our dollar bill? Go figure.

[hosepipe]

The proper answer (to the title of the thread) is (((( NO ))))..............
The God in the US Constitution is “generic”...
Its is a generic God..

And the truth is God “IS” generic.. since there is only one..
You know............. the real one...
But thats the God in the mentality of the founders..

Many have multiple Gods or even themselves(like atheists)..
But the God in the US Constitution is generic..
Whatever you call god is God.. perfectly OK to the US Constitution..

Some worship the Bible, or their Church or even some Used Jesus Salesman.. or even an Arabic Pedophile..
But thats OK to the US Constitution.. GOD is whatever you say “IT” is..

The genius of it all is amazing..

[TheWriterTX]

The founding fathers would beg to differ.

The Country they were hoping to create

More quotes specifically about Christianity

What they did want was a country not hostile to other religions. They saw the abuses that took place when the government interfered with religion (as Jefferson's letter to the Baptists clearly details); that argument has been flipped on it's head to not allowing "religion to interfere with the government."

The Founding Fathers wanted the dual voices in the public square. When either the State or the Church has all power, abuses occur. Both were meant to check each other. As history clearly shows, when you strip power from one, it is assumed by the other.

[betty boop]

Preamble.
...We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new Constitution of Civil Government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, DO agree upon, ordain and establish, the following Declaration of Rights, and Frame of Government, as the CONSTITUTION of the COMMONWEALTH of MASSACHUSETTS.

Part the First. A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Art. I — All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

Art. II.— It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING, the great creator and preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping GOD in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship.

Art. III. — As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of GOD, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this Commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of GOD, and for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.

Thus the third paragraph of the Preamble of the Massachusetts Constitution, and first three Articles of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, principally authored by John Adams. The Massachusetts Constitution was ratified on June 15, 1780, and served as a model for the federal Constitution which was drafted seven years later.

The Massachusetts Constitution has the distinction of being "the oldest functioning written constitution in continuous effect in the world."

Make of it what you will, dear reader!

Thanks so much for the ping to this engaging article, dear YHAOS!

[YHAOS]

“Though a Deist, Jefferson nevertheless understood and acknowledged that he was created by a living Creator . . . ”

If Jefferson was a Deist, spirited, he was very unconventional, in blatant defiance of all the usual characteristics defining the term. Jefferson discusses the ancient philosophers as a contrast to his most favored; “Jesus of Nazareth,” making it difficult to dismiss Jefferson as merely a conventional Deist, in a letter to William Short, October 31, 1819, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson in 19 volumes, Memorial Edition, edited by Albert Ellery Burgh.

In another letter, Jefferson writes to his namesake, addressing to him several things that might have a favorable influence on the course of his life. Jefferson starts by naming the two great commandments of the Judeo-Christian belief, going on to refer to others of the Ten Commandments, and closes by quoting the body of a Christian hymn Lord, who's the happy man. A letter to Thomas Jefferson Smith, February 21, 1825, Ibid.

Jefferson confirms his distaste for ‘Presbyterianism’ and equally his aversion to the teachings of Calvin. He then goes on to shatter the conventional understanding of his view of the ‘separation’ of church and state, by relating the sharing of a courthouse by various Christian sects, as a common temple of worship. What is surprising is not that different Christian sects proved to be willing to share in common worship, taking turns in leading the services, but that their place of common worship was the very seat of local government itself, the court-house, and that this event was reported, with equanimity, by none other than Thomas Jefferson, himself. He then goes on to confound us further by relating how he and his fellow Visitors (directors) of the University of Virginia provided space on the university grounds and the sharing of certain facilities for formal religious instruction by various Christian sects, all this in a letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, November 2, 1822, Ibid.

In yet another letter, Jefferson declares his faith only in Christ’s teachings of the early church, a letter to John Adams, October, 13 1813, Ibid. And, finally, in yet another letter he declares, “To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian (emphasis mine), in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other. (Thomas Jefferson, to Doctor Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803, Ibid).

The letters and other documents of Jefferson fixes exactly the problem critics face in attempting to deny a Christian influence on the making of America, including The Declaration itself. To tailor the charge of Deism to any of the Founding Fathers, the critics must redefine ‘Deist’ to fit the changing characteristics of the different Founders. Franklin proclaimed “God governs in the affairs of men.” Not a belief usually attributable to Deists. Jefferson, on the other hand, swore fealty to Jesus Christ (“the pure gospel of Jesus Christ”). And critics will find no comfort in examining the Christian values of any of the other Founders charged with drafting The Declaration Of Independence (see John Adams, a letter written to Thomas Jefferson, dated June 28, 1813, Ibid).

In reality there is a very great deal of Judeo-Christian values in The Declaration and The Constitution. What neither document does is demand adherence (the establishment) to any particular denominational doctrine. Consequently, there is very little “God” in The Constitution, the Founding Fathers being convinced that government (at least the Federal government) should have little to do with issues of conscience, looking to exercise a minimum control over human action and to exercise no restraint on thought.

Ever since that time Nihilists have sought to gain advantage of the Founders’ circumspection by insisting the documents are devoid of Judeo-Christian values (and will pitch a fit at any contrary understanding). Please do not fall prey to their con.

“Oh, we are weary pilgrims; to this wilderness we bring
A Church without a bishop, a State without a King.”
. . . . . anonymous poem, The Puritans’ Mistake, published by Oliver Ditson in 1844

[YHAOS]

see Post #70.
my bad.

[a fool in paradise]

Moreover, Believers should refuse Big Government operating in Christ’s name.

It is the Socialist Left like Obama and Pelosi who insist that Obamacare and other socialist programs must be passed because "Jesus says we are our brother's keeper". It is the Left that insists I must tithe to the government to fund social programs.

The Religious Left made it a corner stone of their message since 2004 when they lost the White House. They cited the God Gap and decided to cast their agenda in religious terms.

What is Forbes writing about this for? Shouldn't they be picking investments like the Church of $cientology for example?

[Yosemitest]

Read and reference Aitken's BIBLE ENDORSED BY CONGRESS.

Congressional resolution, September 12, 1782, endorsing Robert Aitken's Bible [page 468]
David C. Claypoole, 1782 from the Journals of Congress

The war with Britain cut off the supply of Bibles to the United States with the result that
on Sept. 11, 1777, Congress instructed its Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from "Scotland, Holland or elsewhere."
On January 21, 1781, Philadelphia printer Robert Aitken (1734-1802) petitioned Congress
to officially sanction a publication of the Old and New Testament
which he was preparing at his own expense.
Congress "highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken,
as subservient to the interest of religion . . . in this country, and . . . they recommend this edition of the bible to the inhabitants of the United States."
This resolution was a result of Aitken's successful accomplishment of his project.

Aitken's Bible

Aitken published Congress's recommendation of September 1782 and related documents (Item 115)
as an imprimatur on the two pages following his title page.
Aitken's Bible, published under Congressional patronage,
was the first English language Bible published on the North American continent.



"The Bible of the American Revolution"

As long as the United States remained under British rule,
the British government forbade the printing of Bibles in America.
When the Colonies declared their independence,
the importation of Bibles became restricted
and by 1777 there was a severe shortage of Bibles in America.
On September 11, 1777, this shortage of Bibles was brought to the attention of the Continental Congress
by its chaplain, Dr. Patrick Allison.
He said in his report that Bibles were urgently needed because,
“the use of the Bible is so universal and its importance so great”
and on Dr. Allison’s advice, Congress passed a resolution
to make every attempt to import 20,000 Bibles in English
“from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere, into the different parts of the Union.”
The importation of Bibles soon proved to be nearly impossible
and the Continental Congress had to search for another alternative
to supply the population with their most important book.

On January 21, 1781, the noted colonial printer Robert Aitken petitioned Congress
for both sanction and support for the production of a complete Bible for the American people
and a committee was immediately formed to determine
if Aitken were qualified to produce a book of such significance.
Aitken’s impressive credentials
(he had, among other things, been the publisher of the Journals of Congress for the first Congress
and published numerous articles by Thomas Paine)
convinced the committee and on September 10, 1782,
a Congressional Resolution was adopted granting Aitken permission and financial support
for the printing of the first edition of the first American Bible.

George Washington, one of the greatest supporters of the Aitken Bible, was so pleased with the result
that he regretted that the Revolutionary troops had been disbanded
before he could provide them with such an appropriate symbol of his gratitude.
Writing to a friend, Washington lamented,
"It would have pleased me well,
if Congress had been pleased to make such an important present
(a copy of the Aitken Bible) to the brave fellows,
who have done so much for the security of their Country's rights and establishment."

The printing of the new Bible marked a significant moment in the history of the United States.
More American versions of the Bible soon followed
and, no longer subject to British editions of the Bible, the United States was,
for the first time, able to fully express the freedom of religion held so dearly by the population.
The Aitken Bible was championed by the people
and symbolized a dramatic release from British, and indeed government control,
over their right and ability to worship.








Although 10,000 copies of the Aitken Bible were printed, the first printing is extraordinarily scarce today.
20^th-century estimates place the number of extant copies between 30-40, with possibly five (certainly no more than ten) in private hands.
It is one of the world’s rarest books, significantly rarer than even the Gutenberg Bible. 

The photo of the copy to the left is an extraordinarily scarce first edition,
one of approximately 30 known copies (with perhaps only five in private hands),
of the first English Bible printed in America,
the first and only Bible ever to be printed with Congressional approval.
An absolutely extraordinary copy of a most rare and important volume.

Additional information can be found at

The First American Bible, (An Historical Preface)

History of the Aitken Bible

Sale of the "First American Bible" May 17, 1902, The New York Times

THE PATRIOTS BIBLE: THE HOLY SCRIPTURES OF OUR WAR FOR VIRTUE, LIBERTY, AND INDEPENDENCE

The Story Of A Girl: The Aitken Bible

The Bible in American History -- the Aitken Bible
The Only Bible Ever Printed with Congressional Approval

Houston Baptist University: Aitken Bible - 1782 - Bible of the Revolution

WHAT PLACE DID GOD, CHRIST, THE BIBLE, AND CHRISTIANITY HAVE IN THE MINDS OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS AND COLONISTS?
PLEASE JUDGE FOR YOURSELF FROM THE EVIDENCE BELOW.

Presbyterian Printer Robert Aitken and the first All American Bible

'Rarer than a Gutenberg'... a 1782 bible brings $67,500



The Holy Bible, Aitken by AbeBooks.com

*** 1782 Robert Aitken Bible Facsimile Reproduction*** No commemorative or historical pages

We need to reprint this great piece of our history and give it to the public again, with the appropriate page below.

[spirited irish]

The issue of whether Jefferson was a deist or not doubtless exists because after his public career was over he rejected the deity of Jesus Christ:

Thomas Jefferson: Deist or Christian?, by D.James Kennedy, WND, 06/19/2002 http://www.wnd.com/2002/06/14285/

“Jefferson’s outlook on religion and government is more fully revealed in another 1802 letter in which he wrote that he did not want his administration to be a “government without religion,” but one that would “strengthen … religious freedom.....The real Thomas Jefferson, it turns out, is the ACLU’s worst nightmare.”

Jefferson was a true friend of the Christian faith. But was he a true Christian? A nominal Christian – as demonstrated by his lifelong practice of attending worship services, reading the Bible, and following the moral principles of Christ – Jefferson was not, in my opinion, a genuine Christian. In 1813, after his public career was over, Jefferson rejected the deity of Christ. Like so many millions of church members today, he was outwardly religious, but never experienced the new birth that Jesus told Nicodemus was necessary to enter the kingdom of Heaven.”

[Political Junkie Too]

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world..."

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence..."

-PJ

[loveliberty2]

Thanks, billflax, for taking on this topic.

I first read this post last night when it was too late to respond with references, especially to early posts about Jefferson and his supposed religious beliefs, or lack thereof.

Thanks, also, to YHAO for the excellent information contained in his Post #70.

All of us posting here have been brought up in an America whose early history was largely revised, removed from local libraries, and/or deliberately removed from school textbooks. We must remember that the so-called "liberal" or "progressive" movement began before we were born, and by the time we were in school, much of the work to distort, dissemble, and remove the essential ideas of liberty from textbooks and public discourse already had begun to occur.

As a result, we must look to early histories, original documents, or the writings and speeches of the day.

Theologians are not a reliable source for answers to these questions, for they have been trained in similar educational institutions as the rest of us.

An 1872 history by Frothingham is available for reading online. "Rise of the Republic of the United States . . . " traces the "Christian Idea of Man" as the idea which underlay the development of America. Then, there is an 1876 Centennial Thanksgiving Sermon by Rev. Benjamin W. Arnett, available in the American Memory Section of the LOC (African-American Collection) which provides great detail and documentation for the idea that America was, indeed, founded as a "Christian" nation, including references to Supreme Court Justices' statements and other documentation from records.

As for Jefferson, for obvious reasons, he did not discuss his personal faith publicly, and said so. Some of his pertinent comments in letters have been posted on this thread already, and I will not repeat those. There are others though which may provide another glimpse that the censors and mind controllers of the Left have failed to acknowledge in their quest to misuse a single phrase from his Letter to the Baptists.

For instance:

"Our Saviour... has taught us to judge the tree by its fruit, and to leave motives to Him who can alone see into them." --Thomas Jefferson to Martin Van Buren, 1824. ME 16:55

Then, we might examine "The Works of Thomas Jefferson," Federal Edition (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5). Vol. 2.
Author: Thomas Jefferson
Editor: Paul Leicester Ford
Part of: The Works of Thomas Jefferson, 12 vols Notes on religion l

This should be read in its entirety as an indication of Jefferson's diligent study of the subject. The following are only a selected few observations from these "Notes."

To Rev. Samuel Miller, 23 January 1808 "Sir, -I have duly received your favor of the 18th and am thankful to you for having written it, because it is more agreeable to prevent than to refuse what I do not think myself authorized to comply with. I consider the government of the U S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U.S. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority. But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting & prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the U.S. an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant too that this recommendation is to carry some authority, and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription perhaps in public opinion. And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation the less a law of conduct for those to whom it is directed? I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting & prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, & the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the constitution has deposited it.
"I am aware that the practice of my predecessors may be quoted. But I have ever believed that the example of state executives led to the assumption of that authority by the general government, without due examination, which would have discovered that what might be a right in a state government, was a violation of that right when assumed by another. Be this as it may, every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, & mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the U S. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.
"I again express my satisfaction that you have been so good as to give me an opportunity of explaining myself in a private letter, in which I could give my reasons more in detail than might have been done in a public answer: and I pray you to accept the assurances of my high esteem & respect."

To James Fishback, 27 September 1809 (L&B 12:315):
"Reading, reflection and time have convinced me that the interests of society require the observation of those moral precepts only in which all nations agree (for all forbid us to murder, steal, plunder, or bear false witness,) and that we should not intermeddle with the particular dogmas in which all religions differ, and which are totally unconnected with morality. In all of them we see good men, and as many in one as another. The varieties in the structure and action of the human mind as in those of the body, are the work of our Creator, against which it cannot be a religious duty to erect the standard of uniformity. The practice of morality being necessary for the well-being of society, he has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral precepts of Jesus, and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in his discourses. It is, then, a matter of principle with me to avoid disturbing the tranquility of others by the expression of any opinion on the innocent questions on which we schismatize."

To Miles King, 26 September 1814 (L&B 14:197-8):
"He has formed us moral agents. Not that, in the perfection of His state, He can feel pain or pleasure in anything we may do; He is far above our power; but that we may promote the happiness of those with whom He has placed us in society, by acting honestly towards all, respecting sacredly their rights, bodily and mental, and cherishing especially their freedom of conscience, as we value our own. I must ever believe that religion substantially good which produces an honest life, and we have been authorized by One whom you and I equally respect, to judge of the tree by its fruit. Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to our God alone. I inquire after no man's, and trouble none with mine; nor is it given to us in this life to know whether yours or mine, our friends or our foes, are exactly the right. Nay, we have heard it said that there is not a Quaker or a Baptist, a Presbyterian or an Episcopalian, a Catholic or a Protestant in heaven; that, on entering that gate, we leave those badges of schism behind, and find ourselves united in those principles only in which God has united us all."

"Our Savior chose not to propagate his religion by temporal punishments or civil incapacitation, if he had, it was in his almighty power. But he chose to extend it by it’s influence on reason, there by shewing to others how they should proceed."

"Christ has said ‘wheresoever 2 or 3 are gatherd. together in his name he will be in the midst of them.’ This is his definition of a society. He does not make it essential that a bishop or presbyter govern them. Without them it suffices for the salvation of souls."

"Compulsion in religion is distinguished peculiarly from compulsion in every other thing. I may grow rich by art I am compelled to follow, I may recover health by medicines I am compelled to take agt. my own judgment, but I cannot be saved by a worship I disbelieve & abhor.
"Whatsoever is lawful in the Commonwealth, or permitted to the subject in the ordinary way, cannot be forbidden to him for religious uses: & whatsoever is prejudicial to the Commonwealth in their ordinary uses & therefore prohibited by the laws, ought not to be permitted to churches in their sacred rites. For instance it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child. It should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children: it is ordinarily lawful (or temporarily lawful) to kill calves or lambs. They may therefore be religiously sacrificed, but if the good of the state required a temporary suspension of killing lambs, as during a siege, sacrifices of them may then be rightfully suspended also. This is the true extent of toleration.
"Truth will do well enough if left to shift for herself. She seldom has received much aid from the power of great men to whom she is rarely known & seldom welcome. She has no need of force to procure entrance into the minds of men. Error indeed has often prevailed by the assistance of power or force. Truth is the proper & sufficient antagonist to error. If anything pass in a religious meeting seditiously and contrary to the public peace, let it be punished in the same manner & no otherwise than as if it had happened in a fair or market. These meetings ought not to be sanctuaries for faction & flagitiousness."

"Our wish... is, that the public efforts may be directed honestly to the public good, that peace be cultivated, civil and religious liberty unassailed, law and order preserved, equality of rights maintained, and that state of property, equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry, or that of his fathers." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural, 1805. ME 3:382

"It is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere [in the propagation of religious teachings] when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2:546

Note: Bolding and underlining added for emphasis here)

[tpanther]

Exactly.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/

[Slyfox]

"Our Savior chose not to propagate his religion by temporal punishments or civil incapacitation, if he had, it was in his almighty power. But he chose to extend it by it’s influence on reason, there by shewing to others how they should proceed."

I would like to make a point about the quote I have put in bold.

The scholastic influence on our Founders, coming mainly from Thomas Aquinas, paired reason and faith and proved how compatible they actually were. (Subjective moralists, however, separate faith and reason which results in the perversion of both of them.) When our Founders wrote the Constitution they did so together in one philosophy based on objective moral theology where faith and reason were not separated.

In this thread there were some people who maintained quite soundly that there could be no Ten Commandment influence in the Constitution. Quite the contrary, it is so deeply embedded that only people paying attention will notice it.

[Zionist Conspirator]

I never understood this question. What has the religious beliefs of the Founders got to do with the duty of each and every individual to find the objective Truth? Being a chrstian because America's Founders were chrstians (if they were) is no different than being moslem in Saudi Arabia simply because the country was founded by moslems.

A world where everyone bases his religious beliefs on the beliefs of the founders of his country would be a very henotheistic world.

[loveliberty2]

Thanks for your thoughtful addition to this discussion.

Yes, to your observations.

On a slightly different point, Jefferson's understanding of "the laws," as articulated below, seems to be consistent with what is known as the "golden rule" as well. Naturally, then, he favored Blackstone's "Commentaries" for the teaching of young students at UVA.

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."

" The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

"It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately."