Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

The secularists are wrong, period. But we cannot remake the Founders in our image to claim they were something they weren't.
1 posted on 09/25/2012 7:24:34 PM PDT by billflax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last
To: billflax

Twice mutinous parties had sailed off to make their own fortunes and some were eventually captured by the Spanish, revealing the presence of the French colony.
The remaining colonists were about to leave Florida in August 1565, when they spotted sails on the horizon. Ribault had arrived with a relief expedition of supplies and 600 soldiers and settlers, including more women and some children.

On learning of Ribault’s departure for Florida, Phillip II of Spain sent Admiral Pedro Menendez to remove the French from Florida. At a place later named Matanzas (Slaughter), he put to the sword about 350 men - all but those professing to be Catholics and a few musicians.

http://www.nps.gov/timu/historyculture/foca_end_colony.htm


55 posted on 09/26/2012 12:32:51 AM PDT by triSranch ( Home of J.C. Calhoun and the Birthplace and Deathbed of the Confederacy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: billflax
More like it was founded on the assumption that everyone here would be Christian and therefore behave according to Christian principals.
When the State centralized control of education and enshrined the principals of the French Revolution rather than the values of our own Revolution, it was only a matter of time until Christian principals were discarded.

Once "everyone" went to college, it was all over. People had been brainwashed into accepting non-Christian behavior in public rather than allowing others freedom of worship as long as they conformed to a Christian moral code and public behavior in keeping with Christian principals. Having achieved their goal of brainwashing a few generations, the democrat fascist nobility was able to begin to openly take over. Since they couldn't start by murdering the priests and pastors, though, they did the same thing the pre-Revolutionary French folks did and got everyone used to violence and an absence of law.

Face facts, when King Barry was able to first grab power within the democrat machine and then get elected, the fascists won. They had and have exactly the sort of society and government machine they've been working towards ever since they lost their slaves.

It's just a matter of time before the final confrontation between the majority and the new nobility takes place. They can't actually win and it will be nearly impossible for them to blend back in and hide their real intentions, but they can make it a very, very, difficult time in our history.

There Will Be Blood.

56 posted on 09/26/2012 12:44:37 AM PDT by Rashputin (Only Newt can defeat both the Fascist democrats and the Vichy GOP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: billflax
Library of Congress - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic
61 posted on 09/26/2012 3:50:13 AM PDT by DocRock (All they that TAKE the sword shall perish with the sword. Matthew 26:52 Gun grabbers beware.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: billflax

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.


65 posted on 09/26/2012 6:07:38 AM PDT by ravenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: billflax
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?

72 posted on 09/26/2012 12:32:38 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (Obama likes to claim credit for getting Osama. Why hasn't he tried Khalid Sheikh Mohammed yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: billflax
Read and reference Aitken's BIBLE ENDORSED BY CONGRESS.

Additional information can be found at We need to reprint this great piece of our history and give it to the public again, with the appropriate page below.

73 posted on 09/26/2012 12:50:07 PM PDT by Yosemitest (It's simple. Fight ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: billflax
"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

75 posted on 09/26/2012 3:30:47 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too ( It doesn't I naturally when you're not natural born.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: billflax; spirited irish; hosepipe; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; joanie-f; 353FMG; svcw; Salvation; ...
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)

76 posted on 09/26/2012 5:30:28 PM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: billflax
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.

79 posted on 09/26/2012 8:50:53 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Ki-hagoy vehamamlakhah 'asher lo'-ya`avdukh yove'du; vehagoyim charov yecheravu!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: billflax

Technically we are a secular government that does make a general acknowledgement of a creator. The federal government does not make laws advocating one religion over another. That being said, we are a nation composed of mostly Christians (but that is changing).


82 posted on 09/26/2012 9:15:13 PM PDT by ColdSteelTalon (Light is fading to shadow, and casting its shroud over all we have known...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson