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.

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

"Jefferson made his famous statement about wanting everyone in the USA to "die a Unitarian" while the debate over prohibiting Massachusetts from levying state taxes to fund the Unitarian and Congregationalist churches was at a peak. If Jefferson was so opposed to taxes supporting religion, why was he a member of a church whose leaders endorsed the concept?"

Because the leaders of HIS church--he was a VIRGINIAN--did NOT support state tax monies to churches.

Why don't you simply look on the Internet? Use a search engine, like Google. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that Jefferson did NOT support giving state tax monies to churches:

Jefferson, pioneer for separation of church and state

WHERE DID THE PHRASE "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" ORIGINATE?

The phrase originates in Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut. Jefferson was responding to the Danbury Baptists' complaints that Connecticut's law was oppressive to their religion (among other things, Connecticut's law allowed towns to levy taxes for the support of a religion designated by the majority of voters; since Connecticut was overwhelmingly Congregationalist, the law effectively forced Baptists throughout the state to support Congregational churches). The Baptists, who knew of Jefferson's advocacy of separation, "honored [Jefferson] as an apostle of religious liberty. Much of their address sounded like [Jefferson's] bill for establishing religious freedom in Virginia, and they hoped that the sentiments of their 'beloved President' would prevail so that 'hierarchy and tyranny' would vanish from the earth" (Dumas Malone, Jefferson the President: First Term, 1801-1805, p. 109).

The man COINED the phrase "separation of church and state" for God's sake!

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.

They didn't "question" His divinity. They denied it in no uncertain terms¹. And they weren't the first Christians to do so. Arians, Racovians, and Socinians were all anti-trinitarians of one sort or another. Theophilus Lindsey organized the first successful Unitarian congragation in England. Benjamin Franklin attended the first gathering along with his friend Joseph Priestley (another Unitarian).

the leaders of HIS (Jefferson's) church--he was a VIRGINIAN--did NOT support state tax monies to churches.

William Ellery Channing was the foremost Unitarian in America at the time and he did support state taxes going to his church. Channing helped Daniel Webster develop the case he argued when Massachussetts attempted to write separation of church and state into their constitution.

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." 77 posted on 3/17/02 8:36 PM Pacific by Mark Bahner

Jefferson was no Calvinist (Jefferson knew of Calvinism, and quite expressly did not claim to be one); and Jefferson was no Unitarian (Jefferson knew of Unitarianism, and quite expressly did not claim to be one).

It is inappropriate for any organized system of religious doctrine to claim Jefferson as their own; Jefferson's greatest Moral sin was, perhaps, Hubris.... Spiritual Pride. Being a Great Man (and he surely was), he considered himself more-or-less competent to make up his own religion as he went through life. Neither Calvinist nor Unitarian, Jefferson was a Sect unto himself.

I don't consider such Spiritual Pride a particularly good way for Man to make his way to God, but it certainly disallows the ridiculous idea that Jefferson "proselytized for the Unitarians" any more than Jefferson "proselytized for the Calvinists". Jefferson did neither. He claimed no Calvinism and He claimed no Unitarianism; he made up his own idea of Religion, and there, but for the grace of God, go we all.

Why then did Jefferson say, "I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian" Talk to any classical Unitarian and they will say something along the line of Jefferson's statement of being a sect unto himself. The Jefferson Bible is classic Unitarianism as much as such a thing exists. 85 posted on 3/17/02 10:20 PM Pacific by LarryLied

I'll charitably grant that the Jefferson Bible was "as much Unitarian as such a thing exists". As far as his personal beliefs went, I will charitably grant Jefferson to the Unitarians, even though he NEVER actually claimed that church mambership for himself.

But Jefferson's kind words for the Unitarians in 1822 does absolutely NOTHING to support the idea that he was "proseltyzing for the Unitarians" in the Virginia Religious Freedom Statute of 1786 (which was as much the creation of the Calvinist James Madison as it was the Confused Thomas Jefferson). Good grief, man, that is THIRTY-SIX years of a man's life!! Thirty-six years ago I was not yet a Calvinist; heck, I was not even born.

In 1822, Jefferson may have, at the end of his life, turned out to be a "unitarian" (or at least, somewhere in their relative vicinity). But in 1786, he was certainly not "proselytizing for the Unitarians". The idea is absurd.

I didn't mean to claim he was pushing Unitarianism earlier. The church wasn't even established officially until 18 something. But the general tenets of Unitarianism he did subscribe to most of his life. As you know, Unitarians were all over the place. They were dissenters and easier to describe by saying what they were against than what they were for. Unitarians mutated a lot(look at them today) and they had no creed as Catholics do. Most all of them admitted Christ was the most perfect moral teacher the world had known, relied on reason, not revelation, on works, not grace and didn't believe in orginal sin.

No wonder so many said, and say, they were not Christians, eh?

Of course they... and we (identifying myself as a Orthodox Christian).... say that Jefferson (and all Unitarians) are NOT Christians.

We admit (indeed, happily affirm!!) that Jesus Christ was the most perfect Moral Teacher the World has ever known.
Good Grief... Shall the very Giver of the Moral Law be Immoral??

And we admit (indeed, happily affirm!!) that Jesus Christ was a paragon of Justice and Reason.
Good Grief... Shall the very LOGOS of God be ILLOGICAL??

But the term, CHRISTIAN, is a definitional term with distinct meaning..
A CHRISTIAN is one who affirms that Jesus Christ was the greatest Moral Teacher who ever lived...
...the greatest Rational Philosopher who ever lived...

...AND....

That after being nailed to a piece of wood for claiming to be God... having a Roman Stake shoved through His heart for Our Sins....
....buried dead in a Grave for three days....
...The Man who claimd to be Lord of heaven and earth, though dead and buried....
Got up and walked out of that Grave.

O grave, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?

The Garden Tomb.
March 18, 2002AD and still empty.

CHRISTIAN is a term with definitional meaning.

Of you do not believe that Siddharta Gautama was an Enlightened Bodhisattva... then why not just claim to be a Taoist? You have the RIGHT to be a simple Taoist, and it is SILLY for you to claim to be a Buddhist if you are not!!

And if you do not believe that Jesus Christ physically resurrected from the Grave... then why not just claim to be a Unitarian? You have the RIGHT to be a simple Unitarian, and it is SILLY for you to claim to be a Christian if you are not!!

Christianity is a Term with definitional meaning. It means: "the Grave is Empty; Our Lord, though once dead, walked away therefrom."

If you would be Christian, we would gladly you have you....
...but respectfully, Larry, it is intellectually SILLY to claim to be a Christian -- or a Buddhist -- if you AIN'T.

Jefferson was a Unitarian…. 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.

Hi LarryLied! I think what we have here is a case of “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” At the level of foundational beliefs, I don’t see any distinction between Unitarianism and deism, which differ fundamentally from the Christian revelation of the New Testament.

I’m not a Unitarian (i.e., a deist), though my Dad is. He refers to himself by either term more or less indistinguishably. Which suggests to me that he considers the terms to be synonymous.

A look at the core beliefs of Unitarianism and deism as compared with Christian ideas may help to illustrate the identity of the two.

First, Unitarians and self-described deists both believe in a creator god – One impersonal God – who got the universe started, but then withdrew. This God is not active in creation, either directly or through human souls. God is “unitarian,” that is, One; therefore, Jesus was not the Son of God, not the Logos of the “in the beginning,” but a great human moral teacher on the level of a Buddha. The soul is not immortal – there is no afterlife. When a man dies, he is simply extinguished, his body decomposed and returned “back to nature.”

Christians, on the other hand, are Trinitarians: They believe in a God of Three Persons, One of Whom – the Son – incarnated as Jesus the Christ and entered into actual human history. This is a “suffering God” who died for the forgiveness of sins, and to restore the order of the human soul destroyed in the Fall by bringing it back into relationship with the Father. The soul is immortal, and lives everlastingly.

We are clearly speaking of two different creeds here. On this basis, Reformed Christianity, Roman Catholicism, and the Church of Latter Day Saints are all “on the same page” – that is, they are “Christians” in the fullest sense. Unitarians, however, in rejecting the creedal core of the Faith, have gone a different way.

I don’t mind if we lump them all together and call them all Christians, provided we do not ignore the fact that there are profound differences in belief as between Unitarians (deists) and Trinitarians (theists).

Thanks for writing, LarryLied. Best, bb.

>> 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?

It's clearly a statement in support of the right to self-defense, isn't it?

And what about Jesus' teaching to give the shirt off your back?

Charity is recommended, but not mandatory. To rephrase my oft-repeated statement, Jesus did not legislate.

So Christians should follow all the Jewish laws? Eat only kosher foods?

What Jesus meant by "law" is pretty much what we mean by "honor" nowadays; it had been expressed in the Ten Commandments, and includes the part of the law that needs to be enforced by the government: respect for life and property. It also includes things that need not be enforced by the government, such as "no idols," "no adultery," and so on.

>> 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?"

Getting into Heaven or not is all about everyday interaction! Your morality is expressed in your actions, and your actions are manifested in your everyday interaction. If you learn to turn the other cheek sometimes, you are more likely to have friends and be successful in life. Same for generosity. Cynicism and jealousy, on the other hand, will make you a sore loser, prone to fail to respect your fellow man's property. And then there shall be no place for thee in Heavens above.

My understanding is that Quakers will not kill another human being ... Would Quakers then fall short of your definition of a "real Christian"?

The Quaker tenet that rejects the right to self-defense clearly goes against my sense of Christianity. So the answer is yes.

Note that I'm not saying that all Quakers will go to Hell. Self-defense is permitted, but not mandatory. Preaching against self-defense is not forbidden. Enforcing a ban on self-defense would definitely be evil (in addition to being extremely hypocritical), but the Quakers wouldn't do that.

>> And indeed, your colonial forefathers ...

> *My* colonial forefather was a Hessian soldier...

I used the word "your" because I'm not an American. Turns out I should have said "their" ... :-)

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.