First because I was angry with the tone you took; second, being a historian (specifically a historian of ideas) I was compelled to explain the foundations of the original assertion as something more then mere "bashing." After all, most "Founder bashing" is based on some ostensibly legitimate foundation. For example slave owning. Now those who wish to discredit the founders on this are selective in their reading of history; ignoring the difficulty there would have been in outlawing slavery and some of the founders own reservations about the institution, they are quick to accuse the founders of hypocrisy. Wrong tho this assertion is a counter argument that none of the founders ever owned slaves would be equally asinine in its omission.
My point in the explanation was that the Age of Enlightenment was pagan in many ways. That part which wasn't was, due to other influences (mostly Calvinism), almost pseudo-zionistic. A good the example of this latter sentiment would be the original English revolution of 1649, which, though it had strong religious undertones, ultimately led to the more secular revolutions of 1776, 1789, those of Miguel Hidalgo and Bolívar, the 1848 revolutions, and finally the revolution 1917.
The strange combination of these ideas (divinely chosen nation, with secular progressivism) in the period of the Enlightenment resulted in a teleological view of human history and ultimately led to all the "progressivist" elements of our modern world. That the Founders were products of this period means that regardless of their consciously professed creeds, they were operating in what was becoming a post-Christian world. I would even go so far as to say that Christianity itself was in many areas succumbing to this "Spirit of the Age." Indeed the contemporary "paganization" of Christianity is something that even DeTocqueville hinted at in his book On Democracy in America. I could go on for quite sometime about that, but this post is long enough already.
>>>First because I was angry with the tone you took...<<<
You were angry because I compared your understanding of the Founding Fathers with that of the ACLU (Post #95).
>>>second, being a historian (specifically a historian of ideas) I was compelled to explain the foundations of the original assertion as something more then mere “bashing.” After all, most “Founder bashing” is based on some ostensibly legitimate foundation. For example slave owning. Now those who wish to discredit the founders on this are selective in their reading of history; ignoring the difficulty there would have been in outlawing slavery and some of the founders own reservations about the institution, they are quick to accuse the founders of hypocrisy. Wrong tho this assertion is a counter argument that none of the founders ever owned slaves would be equally asinine in its omission.<<<
That is the same argument one might expect to hear from an ACLU-type while preparing us for the BIG BASH.
>>>My point in the explanation was that the Age of Enlightenment was pagan in many ways.<<<
Please explain to us what was pagan about the faith of the settlers of the Jamestown Colony, the Pilgrims, the early Colonies, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, John Jay, George Mason, etc.?
>>>That part which wasn’t was, due to other influences (mostly Calvinism), almost pseudo-zionistic. A good the example of this latter sentiment would be the original English revolution of 1649, which, though it had strong religious undertones, ultimately led to the more secular revolutions of 1776, 1789, those of Miguel Hidalgo and Bolívar, the 1848 revolutions, and finally the revolution 1917.<<<
That is completely irrelevant nonsense posted in an attempt to make us think your knowledge of history is intellectually superior to the rest of us. It won’t work here.
>>>The strange combination of these ideas (divinely chosen nation, with secular progressivism) in the period of the Enlightenment resulted in a teleological view of human history and ultimately led to all the “progressivist” elements of our modern world.<<<
Secular progressivism (so-called) was not introduced in any great measure into our society until the rise of the Marxists in the latter 1800’s. The first truly progressive authority in America was the 16th Amendment of 1913, which gave the Feds complete control over taxation.
>>>That the Founders were products of this period means that regardless of their consciously professed creeds, they were operating in what was becoming a post-Christian world.<<<
I think you have been smoking too much wacky tobacky. Christianity was the dominant ideology in this nation in all aspects of our society, including education, until the 1960’s, and is still the dominant preference, no matter that our Marxist courts disallow it..
>>>Indeed the contemporary “paganization” of Christianity is something that even DeTocqueville hinted at in his book On Democracy in America. <<<
DeTocqueville was not born until more than 25 years after the American Revolution began. Why consider him an authority on Christianity in America, and not Washington, Adams, Jay, Jefferson, Madison, Ellsworth or Story?
>>>I could go on for quite sometime about that, but this post is long enough already.<<<
That is the first thing you have posted that I agree with.