Founding Father Deists?

Hessian

Well-Known Member
I heard a lecture from a kindly old lady in the Episcopal church in Philadephia where many of our Contitnental Congressmen and early senators met. With the Apostle's creed framing her nearly white hair...she outright lied-demonstrating the leftist revisionism that mucked up our schools in the 1970's.
"As you all know, our founding father's were mostly Deists..."

The labor of hundreds of scholars in the 1980's and 1990's has put this theory in the dust bin. Amidst the Nation-hating leftists we see the need to demonize our founders, describing them as bitter, slave-holding aristocrats who cared more for the pocketbooks than their rights we fought for. And that their highly reasoned minds rejected Christianity, redemption, the resurrection of Christ, miracles etc.
WRONG!
Their own words in letters, sermons, eulogies, etc reveal men who believed in the providencial hand of God which brought them independence and Liberty.
John Locke...heavily read by our founders was very devout. "Nature's God" has nothing to do with the "Clock-watcher" god that so many bearded hippi professors snickered about.
So the next criticism that pops up is "Well, they didn't lead moral Lives and what about Jefferson rewriting the Bible? Huh?"

Jefferson...was a deist.
BUT: He did not start out that way, in fact he was cofounder of a fundamentalist church in Charlottesville in 1777. He counted a number of pastors as his close friends but he took a turn for the worse when he stayed too long in PreRevolutionary France.
Did others follow his lead? Not even his close friend Madison jumped into the muddled Deist mindset.(Franklin wasn't quite sure what he believed...)
So, call me on the carpet and demand proof:
Patrick Henry, George Washington, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, John Laurens, Richard Henry Lee, all and many more made powerful statements of true faith.

So the kindly old deceived lady continues to give her inaccurate lecture day by day, unaware of the dusty discredited Liberal beliefs. In fact...she outright presents hypocrisy: If these founders were all diests, then why attend church as often as they did, why recite the Apostle's Creed every Sunday, why write comments on inspiring sermons, and prayers when they don't believe it? It makes them profound liars and false leaders. Thanks ma'am...time to retire.

(Edited by Hessian at 7:59 pm on April 9, 2002)
 

jimmy

Drunkard
Once again, we've got Hessian throwing out opinion as though they were fact.  The Fouding Father's Deism is STILL taught in Universities around the nation to this day. Of course, I can hear you scoffing at the "liberal" nature of education in today's society, but funny how the highly educated tend to be liberal...hmm....
Anyway I went to a few sites that pointed out various quotes, taken out of context, that support Hessian's arguement that the founding father's were steeped in religion, and Christianity to be precise. Well, I did my own research and found my OWN page of quotes by the SAME people, and again, taken out of context. So do what you will with them. Below, I've provided links to both where they have quotes from all the generally accepted founding fathers on the matter.  You can decide for yourself what you believe. Oh and don't let the "Ayn Rand" thing scare you...the quotes are not FROM her...

http://religion.aynrand.org/quotes.html  -as deists
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/deism.htm  -as christians

Funny how you can pretty much find support for both arguments and Hessian presents his as undisputed fact. Fancy language, cadence and concluding sentences can't mask your unflinching desire and seemingly paralyzing fear to un-learn ANYTHING you've been taught in your fundamentalist upbringing, Hessian...keep em coming...
 

Hessian

Well-Known Member
Jimmy...is it hard for you to come up with logical fallacies and "Broad minded" pathos on every possible topic?
Gee, all the educated people are liberal huh?...Um, Mr Bennett, Miss  Rice, Gen Powell, Mrs Thatcher, um..shall we continue with the list of brilliant people who attended college and did not come out as half baked Liberals?

I love the context argument also...although it is the first valid approach to every topic, it does not have to become the chief complaint on every topic.
Jimmy blasts Saddam's son on another post...hmm, lets apply the context argument...Has he lived there? does he speak farsi? Has he taken courses in Iraqi culture or history? Hmmm?
OH how narrow! How opinionated! How dare he take the circumstances out of context!!! I trust this is obvious to most, Jimmy likes to throw his westernized, narrow opinion around while telling everybody else to "broaden your mind!" And thus when he shakes his educated finger at everyone who he deems "narrow," he exhibits the hypocrisy of his own narrow opinions.

I'm narrow, I chose it to be this way, I'm quite educated, and I love being a fundamentalist. "For the road to hell is a broad way..."
"I am the way, the truth, and the life, NO MAN commeth to the Father but by me."
 

jimmy

Drunkard
First of all, Hessain, that's not MY assertion that more educated people tend to be liberal; it's statistical fact.  Of course there are PLENTY of BRILLIANT conservatives and, hell, there may even be a few stunningly bright fundamentalists.  And, Hessian, everyone has their NARROW viewpoints about certain aspects of life so don't act all affected because you "admit" or "own" your narrowness.  You're not special.
As to how you came to be like this, I have no idea. You are obviously an educated man but this is not always a recepie for a good thinker. You've got good debate skills and are obviously well-read. Yet the opinions you throw out here are constantly one-sided, often laiden with intolerance and ignorance, and gussied up with flowery language and cadence to hide the fact that most of it is regurgitated tripe fed to you by whatever whacked out institution spawned you (be it home, church, school or whatever).
Yeah I often try to get people, (like you at first) to open their minds if I hear them make some blanket statement or go off half cocked about something of which they have little to no knowledge.  But that doesn't mean I'm an "everyone's right in their own way" bleeding heart liberal.  I blast Saddam's son because he's a monster. Because he's documented as engaging in torture, murder, kidnapping and all kinds of brutality and shows no remorse.  What would be the "context" that could be in to make it ok???  I guess for you if his victims were "gay" maybe it'd be ok, right?

And I shake my finger at you, sir, because I think you are wrong. I think your way of thinking is wrong and dangerous. And when you post something here, I do my best to show the other side of it (a) because you NEVER do and (b) I wouldn't want someone to just blindly follow your line of thinking without doing some thinking of their own.  But, you're a fundamentalist and LOVING it so that idea probably kills you too....people thinking for themselves instead of allowing YOUR interpretation of God to govern their lives...how scary.
 

Christy

b*tch rocket
Jimmy, we are all one sided in accordance with our own views, experiences, beliefs etc....  I truly believe liberals are wrong and far more dangerous than any Christian Fundamentalist.   That is my view through experience.  Knowledge is a far cry from wisdom.  You can educate yourself out the wazoo, expose yourself to many many things, and not be very knowledgeable, but still not wise.  Anyway, I'll get more into the whole, what makes you wise later, but you really should lighten up on Hessian a bit.  His opinion has just as much value as anyone elses.
 

jimmy

Drunkard
That's basically what I said, Christy. That we are all capable of being "narrow" in our views because we all experience the world differently. So if you want to call each person's perspective a "narrow" view of the world then that's fine. But I think that a true NARROW view is when you engage in an arguement about an issue and you don't attempt to not only present the facts of both sides, but you don't even address the other side. I guess this could be from fear or lack of knowledge.  But I see fundamentalist and others that I would call "narrow" shutting out the rest of the world and only accepting one truth while NOT addressing their reasons for doing so...other than "I'm right". When I engage in arguements, I try to speak to the specific points of the other sides arguements. That's how you debate. You don't just rattle off "well this is how I feel, I'm entitled to my opinion and that's it"; that's a cop out. If someone can't handle a debate or arguement about an issue because they don't like being called upon to back up their own statements then don't get in them. (i'm not saying you in particular, Christy).
And as for lightening up on Hessian...I'm sure he doesn't mind. We have rubbed eachother the wrong way from day one with his comment about killing gays.  But he gives as good as he gets with me and and if the arguments we have scare of others, well, so be it.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Yeah, Jimmy!  Do you kiss your grandmother's cheek with that mouth?  Uh..or...do you...shake your grandfather's hand...with that...uh...those typing fingers!  Yeah - that's it!
:lol:
 

jimmy

Drunkard
Vrai, I do both...and as for my grandparents, some of the sh*t out of their mouths makes ME blush...
 

Hessian

Well-Known Member
Sorry to drift off my own topic for a moment...but I'll clarify one thing:

I AVOID SAYING "I FEEL" ABOUT ANYTHING!
Thus, I present opinion based on fact and observation without playing in the world of touchy-feely. If I have a hunch...I'll tell you it is a hunch.

Back to subject:
Reread an excellent treatise on "Washington: Diest, Freemason, or Christian"
It was a well developed thesis and very factually developed.
One problem that Revisionist are quick to point out is all the Homespun mythology about our founders that was born from the 1790's-1840's...anecdotle hearsay. This gave them ammunition to discredit our guys.
However, with renewed emphisis on "Original documentation" we find a wealth of writings that clarify their true beliefs and positions.
Want monthly essays and collections & analysis?
Subscribe to the Providence Foundation out of Charlottesville.
The symposium held 5 years ago at Uni. of Vir. on Jefferson's evolution of Religious beliefs as well as the general decline of the Anglican church in his era was very enlightening. Another will be held this Fall.

Crackpot, one sided,...hardly; The facts talk, and no one discussed their "Feelings."
I thank Jimmy for the general somewhat grudging admission that I have at least a partial brain. I would suppose that this type of exchange is good to fire up the front lines and rethink strategy.

So...where is the original "Seperation of Church and state" found?
Any takers?
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
The place I have always heard it attributed to was a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists dated 1 Jan 1802.
 

Hessian

Well-Known Member
A+ Ken!
Most of the media make the mistake by saying immediately after it "as found in the constitution." I had to call channel 9 one day and inform Andrea R. of that oversight.

Isn't it interesting that a private letter written 14 years after the ratification makes such huge cases even today??!

Next question: As President, Jefferson also oversaw the District of Columbia's growing need for education. He (being the lover of education as the great hope for all people) prescribed what two texts to be standard issue in DC Public schools?
 

BudoPo

Member
Typically, "the separation of church and state" is used to refer to that part of the first amendment (first used by Thomas Jefferson, and later by the Supreme Court).  It's much easier and faster than quoting half the amendment.

Admittedly, though, much of the general public no doubt thinks "the separation of church and state" is the actual terminology used in the constitution.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
And “typically” it has been shifted 180 degrees in meaning from the intent of the amendment that states in relevant part (and only ten more words), “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.   This says that the Federal Government cannot establish a national religion or prohibit the free exercise of a religion that is allowed by the states.   There was no prohibition on states from doing it if it was within the powers of their legislatures.  

In 1947  Supreme Court Justice Black’s opinion in Everson vs. Bd. Of Ed. closed with the following, “In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."  If you do some digging and read the letter he sent to the Danbury Baptists, read his second inaugural address, or look into his actions while a member of the state legislature of Virginia or when he was governor you will see something different.  By doing so you can clearly see the intent and it is not what it has become since that Supreme Court decision.
 

jimmy

Drunkard
Went back and got Jefferson's letter to the Baptists for reference here:

Gentlemen:

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which are so good to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Thomas Jefferson

First of all, Ken/Hessian, I see this as his way of trying to assure the Baptist, who were concerned about Connecticut enacting exactly that type of legislation which you say that the constitution still allowed for, that such a thing would NOT happen since the intent of the first ammendment phrase (which he quotes just prior) WAS to establish a separation of church and state. Be it State as in Republic/Nation or literally "state"(my guess would be he simply meant to imply GOVERNMENT), the intent to me seems to be that he was assuring them that the government was designed to stay out of religion and vice versa.
Now, interpret this how you want but in MY estimation what Jefferson clearly is doing here is expressing a regard and respect for religion and religious people but is by no means expousing anything Christian-specific in nature.  Also, the end of this letter, in reference to the "common Father and Creator of man" seems to me a HIGHLY deist attitude and NOT one that would suggest underpinings of Christianity from Jefferson.  Am I not seeing this correctly?

And even if you can make the arugement, which I'm finding hard to believe at this point, that the separation of church and state idea has evolved into something else, why is that bad?  Respecting religious freedoms carries a nice flip side of NOT respecting one over the other. I'm not one who is a big fan of banning prayer in school; if someone wants to pray, then they have the FREEDOM to express that religion. But I don't think anyone should be FORCED into prayer at the begining of school. With how diverse this country is, I find it irrational for Christians to want to assert Christian morality and teachings into schools which should remain secular. The SUBJECT of religion is FINE to bring up and the various teachings/ideas SHOULD be explored. But none should be put over the other and that is what I see so many hard-core Christians arguing.

Sorry so long.....


(Edited by jimmy at 10:08 am on April 16, 2002)
 

jimmy

Drunkard
Oh and Hessain, as for your question (I can really see that you are indeed a teacher...ken got an A+)...I believe that one of the texts was the bible, correct?
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Jimmy,

To accurately keep Jefferson's response in context you should read the letter from the Baptists to Jefferson.  Here it is.

“The address of the Danbury Baptists Association in the state of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801.

To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America.

Sir, Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that none are more sincere.

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the association,

Nehemiah Dodge
Ephraim Robbins
Stephen S. Nelson”

The Baptists were motivated by Connecticut’s charter, laws, how religion was integral to the legislative process of that state, and how that state was taxing all religions to support the Congregationalist church dominating within the state.  The concern for the Baptists was that they felt that religious freedom was not an inalienable right within Connecticut as it should be.  Jefferson’s letter showed his views supported their position that a wall of separation existed between the church and state thereby making freedom of exercising religion an inalienable right at the Federal level.  It made it clear that, in concerns of religion, the Federal Government had no legislative rights.  Matters of the states, which this falls within, were left to the states to determine and that there would be no national religion.
 

BudoPo

Member
The way I read it, both letters concern a need to keep government out of religious affairs (well, really to ensure religious freedom and tolerance).  That is, *government*.  Both Federal as well as local.  I don't think the letters are really differentiating between the two.

Just as an aside, the debate (often heated) between whether powers not expressed in the Constitution are granted or not to the States has been going on for a long time, on many different issues.  That is, if a power isn't mentioned in the Constitution, does that mean that the States have the right to enact such a power, or does it mean (by not being mentioned in the Constitution) that the States do not have the right?  If I recall correctly, it's referred to as the loose and strict views of the Constitution.  I'm not sure if what I'm trying to say is coming across well or not.  It was just an aside anyway.

But back to this thread.  Personally, I think it's critical that religion be kept separate from government.  Not being a Christian living in a country overwhelmingly Christian (I'm including all the Christian denominations here), I feel especially sensitive to that.  Jimmy mentioned religion in schools, so I'll use that.  If a student wants to pray in school, that's fine.  I'm also ok with bible/religious groups meeting (on their own time, like the chess club, or debate team, etc).  But people not of the same persuasion or beliefs should not be made to feel compelled to join, or be separate from the rest of the students in some way.  Of course, this is for public schools; private or religious schools are a different matter.

It's also not a matter of adding other religions to the mix.  We have a national Christmas tree, but we added a Chanukah menorah.  That's not the answer.  Are we going to add Buddhist symobls, too?  Hindu?  Shinto?  etc, etc.

Here's an interesting thing regarding this topic: Christmas is a Federal holiday.  Is this a violation of the first amendment? (I'm not trying to be snide; I'm curious about your opinions).
 
Top