Posted on 07/13/2002 8:23:34 AM PDT by Donna Lee Nardo
or have to figure out what "piso mojado" means before I do a pratfall, just because I am on the wrong side of the "wet floor" warning sign!I've always thought it sounds like a reason to mop the floor, not something posted after mopping. But I'm evil that way. >:)
-Eric
You're exactly right! You cannot study the debates surrounding the wording of the US Constitution without seeing their painstaking analysis of the Bible and of Christian writings as the foundation and justifications for the government they were attempting to forge.Are you trying to say that the First Amendment was only meant to apply to Jews, Christians, and Moslems?There were extensive debates on "obscure" passages from Nehemia and other minor prophets and what these writing implied about this country. When they talked about religious freedoms, they talked about the freedom to worship the God of the Bible in whatever manner a man felt he should.
-Eric
Until the end of his life, Jefferson would have been a Christian. Even in the end, he "held the teachings of Jesus Christ to be divine" and thus considered himself a Christian on that basis. Since his endorsement did not enclude the writings of the apostles he was not what I would consider a fundamentalist, but neither was he the man that radical secularists would make him out to beJefferson considered Jesus of Nazareth to be a great moral teacher, but not divine, let alone the Son of the God. He also mocked critical Christian principles such as Jesus's birth from a virgin and the Book of Revealations. By no modern standard could he be considered a Christian:
But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer [Jesus] of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State.
-Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Samuel Kercheval, 1810.
-Eric
The widespread notion that the founding fathers were not religious and Christian is pure bunk revisionist history.Jefferson denied the divinity of Jesus Christ, Franklin and Paine had doubts. These were not minor founders, but three of the most influential.
While I intend to post my treatise and examination of this issue, along with my husbands work titled 'Bibles & Gunpowder: The foundations of the American Revolution' (he was the keynote speaker at the SC Freepers Rally last year on this topic) I just want to weigh in on the question with some interesting quotes:Patrick Henry never said such a thing. David Barton, who publicized this quote, has admitted he can't document it, or several other quotes he used. Once again I post the link: Unconfirmed Quotations."It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." - Patrick Henry
Someone made the statement inan arlier post that implied that Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian; this is the result of more historical bunk - especially when Jefferson himself identified himself as a Christian:Jefferson called himself a Christian largely to mock those he felt had perverted Jesus's teachings. He did not believe Jesus was the Son of God, and he did not believe key parts of the Bible.
Parting Question: If either Atheists, Wiccans, Hindus or Muslims had been the religions and belief structures of the founding fathers would we have inherited the concepts of individual self government, freedom and rights that we have in our Constitution and the Bill of rights?If Christianity or even Judeo-Christianity had been meant to be the basis of our Constitution, why is neither God nor Jesus so much as mentioned in the document (despite clear chances to do so in the Preamble or Article VI) except for the dubious matter of the date? Why is the right to violate at least three of the Ten Commandments not only tolerated, but explicitly protected?
-Eric
The infamous wall of separation was a metaphor used in private correspondence to assure the Danbury Connecticut Baptist Assocation that the newly powerful federal government had no designs upon the affairs of the church. It was taken out of context by Blackmun to provide the thinnest type of scholarly support for an opinion written out of whole cloth.Actually it was Chief Justice Morrison Waite, in Reynolds v. U.S.(1878) who first referenced the Danbury letter, saying that since it came from "an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured."
This was even before it was discovered that Madison has said something quite similar, that clearly meant that the Amendment was meant to protect government from religion as much as vice versa:
Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.
-James Madison, "Monopolies. Perpetuities. Corporations. Ecclesiastical Endowments," as reprinted in Elizabeth Fleet, "Madison's Detatched Memoranda," William & Mary Quarterly, Third series: Vol. III, No. 4 [October, 1946], p. 555
-Eric
You ever been to Cleveland Heights? Greenwich Village in NY? Ever stroll down Cicero in Chi-Town? You tell me.It would be interesting to take a sampling of the people (especially younger) walking around Coventry and send them down the streets of a few southern Ohio small towns I could name. :snicker:
-Eric
Pinging Civil War posters, This one is ripe for comment.
Even the Founders might have been bothered by this part (as the nation was not founded on solely Christian principles, and this is clearly documented). The rest is very good.Does the Constitution count? It protects the right to violate at least three of the Ten Commandments. A nation founded solely (or even predominantly) on Christian principles would likely do no such thing. At the very least, it would explicitly reference Christianity in its founding document.Please provide some solid references by the founders on this, because so far I've missed all this documentation.
-Eric
As a college history professor I suddenly feel enlightened by your post. I'll immediately change my curriculm - contact hundreds/thousands of my former American History students - revoke my publications - trash my books in progress - and throw away all primary documentation because they most likely are forgeries.
Do you think that I have never heard comments such as yours? They only make me feel better about what I put out in the classroom....
opps, hate to run...but I have to get to class - Today's Lesson: "The Founding Father's Deep Religious Principles and the Impact of Judeao Christianity and God on the American Idea of Liberty."
...nothing new here, move along...
The "melting pot" that you erroneously describe, has always meant that as each and everyone of the many waves of immigrants, from every corner of the world arrived in the US, they added their own "ingredient" to the stew of American culture.Tremendous post and dead on.
Both the "melting pot" and the PC "salad bowl" are false concepts of how American assimilation works. The "stew pot", where the new ingredients blend into the rich base and remain distinguishable at the same time. That's how if I eat kielbasa it's part of my heritage, black beans and rice or lasagna and I'm taking advantage of living in America.
There's a balance though. The modern-day Know-Nothings seem to object to any expression of ethnic identity by the "newer" immigrants, just as their 19th Century predecesors objected to such (including Catholicism) practiced by Poles, Italians, the Irish, etc. They are as full of it as their apt-named ancestors. Still, there are ways in which all Americans can and should be expected to adapt. I'd include following our work ethic, adapting to our sanitary and hygenic practices, and learning English. The PCers object to this largely to maintain large blocks of economically disadvantaged voters they can exploit.
In modern assimilation, we can even see patterns being repeated:
What people often run small entreprenuerial businesses that employ the whole family, yet place tremendous value on education for their children? Asians? Nope, Jews 100 years ago.
What people have very close family and religious ties, work hard in a lot of manual labor type jobs (sometimes to the ire of their predecesors), and sometimes have language issues? Hispanics? Nope, Italians and Eastern Europeans, 100 years ago.
What people are heavily represented in entertainment, sports, domestic labor, politics, and both crime and law enforcement? Blacks aren't really immigrants but their modern experience resembles the Irish 100 years ago.
Assimilation progresses over time.
-Eric
Hitler in the 1930'sNo suprise there.
-Eric
Si, Senor...MUD
Thank you for setting me straight!If you're a history scholar involved in the "is America a Christian Nation?" debate, you certainly have to be aware of the work of David Barton. Indeed, your initial post used one of the quotes that his original work publicized. The link I provided is Barton himself admitting that he can't document the quotes.As a college history professor I suddenly feel enlightened by your post. I'll immediately change my curriculm - contact hundreds/thousands of my former American History students - revoke my publications - trash my books in progress - and throw away all primary documentation because they most likely are forgeries.
Do you think that I have never heard comments such as yours? They only make me feel better about what I put out in the classroom....
opps, hate to run...but I have to get to class - Today's Lesson: "The Founding Father's Deep Religious Principles and the Impact of Judeao Christianity and God on the American Idea of Liberty."
Since you used one of the quotes, I assumed you hadn't seen the Barton admission. They come up from time to time, which is why I keep that link handy.
No one is denying that most of the Founders and Framers were Christians, and certainly a number of them weren't shy about expressing it. But it's also true that most of those didn't believe in mixing government and religion, for both philosophical and practical reasons. Others disagreed, and attempted to insert some acknowledgement of Christianity into the Constitution. This attempt of course failed.
Those who believed in separation certainly would have rejected the idea that religion and patriotism should be mixed, which was the original premise of this thread.
-Eric
FREE dixie,sw
I have an issue with the government officially "mandating" a language...suggesting that we give away a little piece of our First Amendment rights to correct what I believe to be a non-problem just seems dumb to me.You may have misunderstood my point, I'm not saying that no one would be permitted to speak other languages. I'm saying that English is the primary language of the US, and it's not proper for the government or schools to make special accomodations for others. I'm also saying that it's virtually impossible for a younger person to pull their own weight in America, much less get ahead, and the schools should stress this fact.
-Eric
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.