Posted on 03/15/2002 11:03:09 AM PST by 2banana
Our nation's strength springs from founders' Christian principles
Research shows that 54 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were Christians, and 27 had a theological education.
By BOB SCHEUER
In response to Bill O'Neill's Guest Opinion that our country was not founded as a religious nation, I would like to apply some facts from our nation's history.
Mr. O'Neill claims that we who believe that this country was founded on Christian principles are "wrong." While he is entitled to his opinion, consider some of the facts. Research shows that 54 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were Christians, and 27 had a theological education. These men went on to establish more than 100 Bible societies.
Patrick Henry said, "It cannot be said too often or too loudly, that America was founded not by religionists, but by Christians, and not upon religion, but upon the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ."
If, as Mr. O'Neill states, "the Constitution . . . bans prayer in public schoolrooms," why did we take 175 years to figure that out and remove prayer in 1962?
It is often said that we don't really know the intent of the founding fathers. I beg to differ. Gouveneur Morris was the apparent author of the Constitution, a signer of it, and the most active voice at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 (speaking 173 times). In his commentaries of 1790 and 1791, Morris wrote, "Religion is the only solid basis of good morals. Therefore, education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man toward God."
Fisher Ames, the author of the First Amendment, wrote in 1801 that it would be a grave mistake to let the Bible out of the public schools.
It is not just the founders who supported Christian principles. Each branch of our government held to them. Consider the Trinity decision of the Supreme Court in 1892. After 10 years of examining hundreds of documents on the foundation of the country, they came to a unanimous decision, saying the documents "add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a religious people, a Christian nation."
Mr. O'Neill concludes that religion and government "must be free from each other lest they destroy each other." Here's what George Washington thought about the subject: "True religion offers the government its surest support."
President John Adams, another founder, said: "Our Constitution is for a moral and religious people." President John Quincy Adams said: "The highest glory of the American Revolution was that it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."
President Thomas Jefferson held another job at the time he was president. He was the superintendent of schools in Washington, D.C. He required only two books to be taught in the schools: The Holy Bible and Watts' Hymnal (any Christian principles in those books?).
The first session of Congress in September of 1774 began with three hours of prayer (I wonder to whom they were praying?). The day after the Bill of Rights was passed in 1789, Congress voted to have a "day of thanksgiving and praise unto almighty God."
The House Judiciary Committee in 1854 was asked to remove religion from public affairs. After investigating for one year, the committee concluded that at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the Amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, but not any one denomination. In this age, they said, there can be no substitute for Christianity. Benjamin Franklin, often thought of as one of the least religious founding fathers, said, "The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men."
Mr. O'Neill claims that "the Constitution bans religion from all government rooms." On the contrary; government was banned from religion. That is, the Constitution prohibits the government from establishing a national religion. The reason people left England was that the king was telling them how to worship God, and forcing them into a particular denomination.
Mr. O'Neill bases his opinion on a small portion of Article 6. Here is the full paragraph, including the first half which Mr. O'Neill omitted:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." There is nothing about a "ban" on religious activity, but rather a prevention from religion as being a requirement in holding public office.
After looking at some of the facts, and not just spouting opinion, it is more than clear that this great country was indeed founded by Christian men who believed the Christian principles they held would be the strength of this new country.
Mr. O'Neill was listed in his Guest Opinion as a "student of constitutional law." I pray that he will continue to study until he actually comes across some facts.
If you take time to research the actual historic record, you will find that the evidence is not only overwhelming, but conclusive, that the United States of America was founded by Christian men on Christian principles.
Bob Scheuer, Newtown, is a retired specialty food salesman and is currently a stay-at-home dad. Thursday, March 14, 2002
... which are Christian values!
That's correct.
Jesus said very clearly that if one is struck on the cheek, that one should then turn the other cheek, to allow that also to be struck.
Jesus also made it quite clear that he did not intend to change the law in any way whatsoever. (Matthew 5:17.18) Thus, Jesus's word is not law, it's just a practical how-to guide on attaining salvation.
We are certainly not required to turn the other cheek. However, you'll find that it usually makes sense to consider your adversary's point of view before you get into a fight with him. Also, even if you disagree with his point of view, it pays to go out of your way to make sure you're not being unfair with him. After all, if you fight back, you've pretty much lost your chance ever to convince him and win him over to your side!
Is this your evidence, RD, that Washington was a deist? Doesn't he explicitly include himself in the category of "Christians" on the logic of these statements -- after all, he does use the "we" word -- or do you suppose this is just empty rhetoric? And if you do, why? Just wondering what you think. best, bb.
Jefferson was a Unitarian. He had no problem with state taxes being raised to fund the Unitarian church.
Only according to some other Christian sects. Unitarians of the time were Christians and did not believe in the divinity of Christ (most of them, some did). John, Abigal and John Quincy Adams were Unitarians. They considered themselves Christians. So did the radical Unitarian feminist,Julia Ward Howe, who wrote these lyrics at the begining of the Civil War:
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.
Was the woman who wrote the lyrics to The Battle Hymn of the Republic not a Christian? She didn't think so.
Think this expectation may be misled. I don't have the final signatories list in front of me right now, so would have to check to be sure; but I'd bet the farm that the two deists are Jefferson and Franklin.
Washington was a Christian, body and soul. IMHO. best, bb.
LarryLied: "Only according to some other Christian sects. Unitarians of the time were Christians and did not believe in the divinity of Christ"
Per the current definition of Christian...can a person be called a Christian today who does NOT believe in the divinity of Jesus?
Was the woman who wrote the lyrics to The Battle Hymn of the Republic not a Christian?
Who cares? She most certainly was NOT a "founder"! The issue of debate is whether the United States was "founded on Christian principles". And the Senate of the Fifth Congress of the United States, and founder John Adams, both emphatically said that the United States was,
"...NOT IN ANY SENSE FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.."
So whoever NOW (in 2002) says that the United States WAS founded on the Christian religion is directly contradicting the UNAMIMOUS 1796 opinion of the Senate and second President of the United States.
Yes, but it's pretty ridiculous to say that the United States was "founded" on "Christian principles" when the United States was founded on ARMED REBELLION!
We are certainly not required to turn the other cheek.
I guess that would depend on whether you consider yourself a Christian, and whether you, in your own words, follow Jesus':
..how-to guide on attaining salvation.
I didn't call you on this on the Libertarian Party add on drugs board, because it was off-topic. But on what do you base your claim that Jefferson, "...had no problem with state taxes being raised to fund the Unitarian church."
I say that's wrong. Jefferson considered his work on the "Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom" to be, with the Declaration of Independence, and founding the University of Virginia, to be among the 3 most important things he did in his life. He began work on that Statute in 1777 (just a year after the Declaration of Independence). That statute says, in part,
"...no man shall be compelled to frequent or SUPPORT (my emphasis) any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever..."
The Virginia Religious Freedom Statute
In fact, in his early work on that Statute, Jefferson wrote:
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical."
So where do you get the idea that Jefferson supported state taxes for the Unitarian Church?
Good Lord, you Christians sure are a conceited lot!
None of them surprise me, nor do I mistake them for Christians.
You may not, but some of your Christian brothers sure do! Washington's writings that were quoted on in post #57 gave no indication that he believed in the divinity of Jesus. They merely referred to Almighty God. Therefore, it was wrong to assume FROM THAT WRITING that he was a Christian. Some Christians have the crazy idea that anyone who refers to "Almighty God" or "The Lord" is a Christian.
Jefferson was a Unitarian. He wrote on June 22, 1822:
"I rejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief, which has surrendered its conscience to neither kings nor priests, the genuine doctrine of one God is reviving and I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian."
Franklin's theology was certainly Unitarian and he was friends with and attended services held by dissenters (Unitarians) such as Joseph Priestley and Theophilus Lindsey. He reflected the general Unitarian view of Christ:
I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see
Thomas Paine said in no uncertain terms he was a deist. Jefferson, Franklin, John Adams and others get labeled with the word "deist" because other congregations did not like Unitarians and thought they to not be Christians (same thing we see today...Mormons, Catholics and various protestant groups claim others are not true Christians). Liberals also like to pretend many of our Founders were not Christians but were deists.
Because he proselytized for the Unitarian Church at the time there was a huge debate, won by Daniel Webster (a Unitarian himself), over the church being funded in Massachusetts and elsewhere by state taxes.
The end was justice. The means was armed rebellion. So I would rather say she was founded on justice.
We are certainly not required to turn the other cheek.
I guess that would depend on whether you consider yourself a Christian, and whether you, in your own words, follow Jesus':
..how-to guide on attaining salvation.
Again, Jesus did not indend to change the law. The law had even said, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." (Which means, as I understand it, that if somebody attacks you or infringes on your property, you may bloody well defend yourself.)
And Jesus did not say, "From now on, 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' shall be superseded by 'Thou shalst turn the other cheek.'" Yet again, he said he did not intend to change the law in any way whatsoever. "An eye for an eye" is still in force; the right to self-defense has never been questioned by anyone I call a real Christian.
What Jesus said is that there is no obligation of forceful self-defense. When you can turn your adversary into a friend, why not do it. Practical guidelines for everyday interaction, you see?
And indeed, your colonial forefathers did not resort to armed rebellion until they were convinced of the futility of trying to be friends with King George. "Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies..." So they acted just like Christians are supposed to!
Smile-n-Win: The end was justice. The means was armed rebellion. So I would rather say she was founded on justice.
Yeah, just the kind of justice Jesus preached: "Kill 'em all, and let God sort 'em out!" (Jesus to his Apostles, as the Roman soldiers closed in, in the Garden of Gethsemane.)
The law had even said, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." (Which means, as I understand it, that if somebody attacks you or infringes on your property, you may bloody well defend yourself.)
How in the world do you get "infringes on your property" out of that statement? And what about Jesus' teaching to give the shirt off your back?
And Jesus did not say, "From now on, 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' shall be superseded by 'Thou shalst turn the other cheek.'" Yet again, he said he did not intend to change the law in any way whatsoever.
So Christians should follow all the Jewish laws? Eat only kosher foods?
When you can turn your adversary into a friend, why not do it. Practical guidelines for everyday interaction, you see?
I thought (you wrote) they were guidelines for getting into heaven? When did they change to being guidelines for "everyday interaction?"
An eye for an eye" is still in force; the right to self-defense has never been questioned by anyone I call a real Christian.
My understanding is that Quakers will not kill another human being. There were quite a lot of British soldiers (not to mention Hessians! see below..) killed during the Revolutionary War. Would Quakers then fall short of your definition of a "real Christian"?
And indeed, your colonial forefathers did not resort to armed rebellion until they were convinced of the futility of trying to be friends with King George.
*My* colonial forefather was a Hessian soldier...a POW. Perhaps YOUR colonial forefather was shooting at him, simply because he was trying to do his job? ;-) (He was a corporal, so he may have been impressed into service.)
Well, you're wrong. The Virginia Religious Freedom statute, of which Jefferson was the original author (though it was actually passed through the efforts of Madison) makes it very clear that Jefferson did NOT support Virginia state taxes being paid to churches. He called that "sinful and tyrannical, in fact."
So you'll have to come up with more evidence than that Jefferson "proselytized for the Unitarian Church" as proof that he supported having Virginia tax monies paid to the Unitarian Church. (Such monies would have actually been illegal in Virginia, precisely because of the Religious Freedom Statute of which Jefferson was so justifiably proud.)
I'm going to be off the FR boards for a couple of days, but I look forward to any quote you might find that overcomes my Jefferson quote that such taxes would be "sinful and tyrannical."
Only one month before his death, Franklin questioned the divinity of Jesus. So Franklin can only be a true Unitarian if Unitarians at the time of Franklin's death questioned the divinity of Jesus.
1) Since you are quite certain on this point of theology, it must be obvious that you have performed some rigorous word studies in Scripture and can relate Scriptural references as to why the Person, known to us today as The Lord Christ Jesus, didn't create, nor was around until His incarnation and miraculous birth in Nazereth, or perhaps His kicking in the womb of Mary. Why do you hold this position?
2) Since you have studied this issue, you are also well aware that many Christians have also studied the topic in word studies and base many of their positions in regards to the topic on the explicit names used for Christ in Scripture. Likewise, as you portend to share Christian spirit, not only would you seek to share your understanding, but a burning desire will swell within you to explain to all why certain well studied theologic positions describing Christ as the Creator are so mistaken. Why haven't you offered to give this immediate lesson rather than argue the point in accusatory fashion?
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.