The Jefferson Bible-No, he isn't *your* kind of Christian.

[SFG75]

Nothing is more amusing to me than when fundamentalists claim that the founders were deeply devout-which implies that the founders had the same literal beliefs as they do. I got news for you-they didn't!. :lol: As prime example, I'd like to take a look at and discuss Thomas Jefferson, his letters to friends, as well as his cut and pasted improved version of the bible, stripped of the hobgobblins of other people. Jefferson said many great things about Jesus and his life(which fundies quote) but while he praises the philosphy of Jesus, he castigates any and all miracles and other supernatural acts ascribed to him(which the fundies conveniently ignore)

Jefferson on the life of Jesus

I am with Him in all His doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance towards forgiveness of sin; I require counterpoise of good works to redeem it, etc., etc. It is the innocence of His character, the purity and sublimity of His moral precepts, the eloquence of His inculcations, the beauty of the apologues in which He conveys them, that I so much admire; sometimes, indeed, needing indulgence to eastern hyperbolism.

Jefferson commenting upon the apostles and others he loathed.

I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore to Him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of His disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus. These palpable interpolations and falsifications of His doctrines, led me to try to sift them apart.

Jefferson's letters and text of the Jefferson Bible. (http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/jeffbsyl.html)

With this being said-any thoughts? :cool:

[Scaryclouds]

You do realize that there where 38 delegates that signed the on the Constiution right?Yes of course Thomas Jefferson is one on the main people involved in early American politics but to imply that the majority or a strong percentage of the founding fathers where not religious because Thomas Jefferson wasn't is a generalization.

But I do agree with you in that the fundamental christians are wrong in saying that the U.S. constitution has strong christian relivance. Even as a christian I do not want to see religion in the government. Religion and power typically do not generate positive results for society. It's not a problem of christianity or any religion for that matter but the corrupt nature of people who seek power.

[SFG75]

The founders were like people today. Some are very devout, some are luke-warm(i.e.-holidarys only church attending folk) some are indifferent, and some are rabidly against it!. I tire when I hear of "the founders" and especially Jefferson, being labeled a literalist follower of God. In the cases of Jefferson and Tom Paine, the description is the farthest thing from the truth. Not only that, but many ministers opposed the ratification of the constitution because of it's inexplicable absence of God. :angel:

[Oliphaunt]

The founders were like people today. Some are very devout, some are luke-warm(i.e.-holidarys only church attending folk) some are indifferent, and some are rabidly against it!. I tire when I hear of "the founders" and especially Jefferson, being labeled a literalist follower of God. In the cases of Jefferson and Tom Paine, the description is the farthest thing from the truth. Not only that, but many ministers opposed the ratification of the constitution because of it's inexplicable absence of God. :angel:


I wonder if the rightwingers, even back then, were accusing everyone who disagreed with them of being "unamerican" and "traitorous" before the country even formed? :sorry:

[Scaryclouds]

The founders were like people today. Some are very devout, some are luke-warm(i.e.-holidarys only church attending folk) some are indifferent, and some are rabidly against it!.

Actually I'll have to disagree with you there. While you do point out examples like Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine (and I'm sure there are others) I would have to say on the whole people back then and including the founding fathers where more religious than people are today.

[Russikan]

Actually I'll have to disagree with you there. While you do point out examples like Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine (and I'm sure there are others) I would have to say on the whole people back then and including the founding fathers where more religious than people are today.

See that's the point. People back then were more religious then people are today. Yet the Founding Fathers were less religious then people of that time, probably less religious then people today, and most certainly less religious then the people in charge of government today. Even the vaunted Washigton was called a Diest by his own Pastor. The founding fathers were atypically unreligious for their time period.

[lord tammerlain]

I wonder if the rightwingers, even back then, were accusing everyone who disagreed with them of being "unamerican" and "traitorous" before the country even formed? :sorry:


I think they called them witches(sp) and burned them instead

[SFG75]

See that's the point. People back then were more religious then people are today. Yet the Founding Fathers were less religious then people of that time, probably less religious then people today, and most certainly less religious then the people in charge of government today. Even the vaunted Washigton was called a Diest by his own Pastor. The founding fathers were atypically unreligious for their time period.

Washington also wasn't an active church attendee.

[eugene40]

I wonder if the rightwingers, even back then, were accusing everyone who disagreed with them of being "unamerican" and "traitorous" before the country even formed? :sorry:



well they were american,, and all of they were traitors,,, so then it really would have been right on.

[Russikan]

Washington also wasn't an active church attendee.

Yes, his own pastor said that he was a diest that went only because society expected it of him.

[mugawump]

Did he have an actual bible, or just a collection of papers?

Nothing is more amusing to me than when fundamentalists claim that the founders were deeply devout-which implies that the founders had the same literal beliefs as they do. I got news for you-they didn't!. :lol: As prime example, I'd like to take a look at and discuss Thomas Jefferson, his letters to friends, as well as his cut and pasted improved version of the bible, stripped of the hobgobblins of other people. Jefferson said many great things about Jesus and his life(which fundies quote) but while he praises the philosphy of Jesus, he castigates any and all miracles and other supernatural acts ascribed to him(which the fundies conveniently ignore)

Jefferson on the life of Jesus



Jefferson commenting upon the apostles and others he loathed.



Jefferson's letters and text of the Jefferson Bible. (http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/jeffbsyl.html)

With this being said-any thoughts? :cool:

[SFG75]

Did he have an actual bible, or just a collection of papers?

Cut and pasted papers.

[RobinD69]

Some of the founding fathers were deists,which meant they believed in a creator but no necesarialy a particular faith.There are two sides to the story of the Jefferson Bible,one has already been elaborated upon and the other is that Jefferson painstakingly cut and pasted a new bible from 2 for the indians to better understand the faith without it shockingly conflicting with their own faith.This is a moot point considering evidence can be presented for both sides and none of us can truly know a mans heart as God can.It is without a doubt known that Christians settled this nation,but as for the founding fathers and the formations of the constitution being of Christian origin or influence,both sides can be argued and evidence can be found for both sides.

[Dangerrmouse]

[QUOTE=RobinD69]...It is without a doubt known that Christians settled this nation,... QUOTE]

Is it? Foundation myths aside, the majority of the first European settlers whilst originating from a Christian culture, were not primarily motivated by religion. They may well have been preceeded by the Vikings, predating Christianity, and before them, Native Americans who originally settled at the end of the last ice age may doubt such a claim.

[Malone1234]

The Founding Fathers were all heavily influenced by the Enlightenment, which was a vehemently anti-religious, pro-humanist movement. If you study up on those who signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, you would be surprised at how many of them were, in their own words, Deists and not Christians. They were a reactionary group and it makes sense that most of them would be anti-establishment in a time when the establishment was Christianity. Jefferson and Madison were the staunchest anti-Christians of the time, to be sure, but Washington, Franklin, Monroe, etc weren't far behind.

If I recall correctly, Jefferson predicted that Christianity as a whole would disappear within his own lifetime. Turns out he was wrong, but it goes to show how deeply suspicious and dismissive he and his colleagues were of divine revelation.

[meloakey]

The foundation of this country was founded about religious freedom. That people could come to this country and not be persecuted for their beliefs. Yes history shows that people were. During the meetings between the founding fathers, the idea of opening each day with a prayer was submitted. It was voted against by those that attended. In the constitution the only references to religions is that nothing is suppose to be based on a religion.

[RobinD69]

The Vikings came to hunt and not to create a nation,as for the native americans they followed the food.But the original "Pilgrims" or "Early Settlers" where from Briton and saught religious freedom.And yes the founding fathers were against the establishment of a government religion,but not opposed to the influences of religion in the formation of their laws and traditions.
You can quote the founding fathers all you like,you can twist and turn what they said and did,but there is and was more that they said and did that most want to ignore.There are many books written on them and there is much on the internet that portrays both sides,but sitting here arguing that only one side is correct without looking at all the evidence shows all parties lack of seeking the truth.

[Dangerrmouse]

Thats a long way to go in an open boat just to hunt, even for Vikings! Their problems arose from sharing a meal, including milk, with the "skralings" who were lactose intolerant, thought they had been poisoned, and drove the Vikings out.
As to the religious intolerance myth, there were fewer than a dozen "pilgrims" out of 112 passengers on the Mayflower who had even a tenuous connection to the original Scrooby community.

[FredFlash]

Nothing is more amusing to me than when fundamentalists claim that the founders were deeply devout-which implies that the founders had the same literal beliefs as they do.

Define "founders" for me please.

Fred

[FredFlash]

Even as a christian I do not want to see religion in the government. Religion and power typically do not generate positive results for society.

Define religion for me so I know exactly what does not belong in government.

Fred

[FredFlash]

But the original "Pilgrims" or "Early Settlers" where from Briton and saught religious freedom. And yes the founding fathers were against the establishment of a government religion,but not opposed to the influences of religion in the formation of their laws and traditions.

The Pilgrims and the Puritians were fools who gave the government authority over what belonged to God.

What influence did religion have on the formulation of laws during the Early Years of the Republic under the Constitution?

Fred

[FredFlash]

The Founding Fathers were all heavily influenced by the Enlightenment, which was a vehemently anti-religious, pro-humanist movement. If you study up on those who signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, you would be surprised at how many of them were, in their own words, Deists and not Christians. They were a reactionary group and it makes sense that most of them would be anti-establishment in a time when the establishment was Christianity. Jefferson and Madison were the staunchest anti-Christians of the time, to be sure, but Washington, Franklin, Monroe, etc weren't far behind.

If I recall correctly, Jefferson predicted that Christianity as a whole would disappear within his own lifetime. Turns out he was wrong, but it goes to show how deeply suspicious and dismissive he and his colleagues were of divine revelation.

If the founders were not Christians explain why our system of government was founded on a Baptist religious doctrine.

Fred Von Flash

[pRoPhEcY]

Jesus(PBUH) was a man with uncombed hair, who wore a tattered, outdated garment.

Who was called unclean and uncouth.

A bold and fearless man, who upheld the law of the spirit, in defiance of the man-made laws.

Who was called a violent fanatic.

A man of such compassion, the very sight of human suffering brought tears to his eyes.

Who was called soft and weak.

Jefferson was as much a hypocrite as the modern-day hypocrites.

Expounding upon high ideals and great principles as the Black beasts are fetching his slippers and picking his cotton.

Expounding upon his admiration for the martyred Nazarene(PBUH) as he lays down with a fifteen year old Black African girl.

[pRoPhEcY]

as for the native americans they followed the food

What a vulgar remark.

The Red Indians(in dios) of North America are, without exception, organized as RELIGIOUS societies.

Every single Red Indian society is religious, without exception.

The thanksgiving and appreciation they feel, and express, towards their Creator informs every single convention that governs their lives.

The Land is Sacred. The Beauty of the Given World.

And that is the only "worship", of God, there is.

[FredFlash]

I wonder if the rightwingers, even back then, were accusing everyone who disagreed with them of being "unamerican" and "traitorous" before the country even formed? :sorry:

Sometimes it was the left wingers who did the name calling. James Cannon in 1776 in Pennsylvania passionately attacked the proponents of a religious test and called them fools, blockheads, self righteous, and zealous bigots. See Christopher Marshall, Sr., to James Cannon, 1 July 1776, Marshall Letterbook, Ms, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, p. 193. http://www.uark.edu/depts/comminfo/www/oath.html

I kinda like James Cannon.

FVF

[JustinH]

And yes the founding fathers were against the establishment of a government religion,but not opposed to the influences of religion in the formation of their laws and traditions.

Care to cite that? They intentionally left God out of the Constitution, that should be an indicator how much they wanted religion to influence law. They were nothing if not a very vague group, and most of their writings certainly indicate that.

[JustinH]

One other thing: it was mentioned that you kind find proof of both in the writings of Jefferson, Adams, Madison and Paine. This is true, but when you view it in context it's an entirely different situation.

In public speeches and writings, all 4 were careful to avoid insulting Christians, but the majority of their derogatory writings were actually in private. That should tell you the difference between their political safety net, and their true opinions.

[FredFlash]

And yes the founding fathers were against the establishment of a government religion,but not opposed to the influences of religion in the formation of their laws and traditions.

How did religion influence the laws and traditions established by the First U. S. Congress? It reinforced the principle of no government authority over religon, it refused to require federal officials to ask God to help them discharge their civil duties, it did not permit prayer during its official daily sessions, it did not require the display of the Ten Commadments in courtrooms or anywhere else, it did not declare the people's trust in God on the nation's coins, it did not recommend a belief in one Nation under God, and it did not encourage or support the Gospel in the Northwestern Terrritory or anywhere else.

FVF

[FredFlash]

One other thing: it was mentioned that you kind find proof of both in the writings of Jefferson, Adams, Madison and Paine. This is true, but when you view it in context it's an entirely different situation.

In public speeches and writings, all 4 were careful to avoid insulting Christians, but the majority of their derogatory writings were actually in private. That should tell you the difference between their political safety net, and their true opinions.

Give us some examples of James Madison's derogatory writings.

FVF

[FredFlash]

Does anyone know where I might find the 1853 report of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, in relation to the expediency of abolishing the office of chaplain in the public service?
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=044/llsj044.db&recNum=122&itemLink=D?hlaw:1:./temp/%7Eammem_eRC3::%230440123&linkText=1

FVF

[DRMIZER]

Washington also wasn't an active church attendee.
Christian preachers who ardently wanted Washington to be portrayed as one of them have made up many stories of George Washington's strong Christian beliefs. One of the primary purveyors of these propaganda pieces was Mason Locke Weems, a Christian preacher who came up with the fable of George Washington and the cherry tree. He also feverishly promoted the myth of George Washington and Christianity.

Washington, like many people in colonial America, belonged to the Anglican church and was a vestryman in it. But in early America, particularly in pre-revolutionary America, you had to belong to the dominant church if you wanted to have influence in society, as is illustrated by the following taken from Old Chruches, Ministers and Families of Virginia, by Bishop William Meade, I, p 191. "Even Mr. Jefferson, and George Wythe, who did not conceal their disbelief in Christianity, took their parts in the duties of vestrymen, the one at Williamsburg, the other at Albermarle; for they wished to be men of influence." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

http://www.deism.com/washington.htm

[heel31ok]

Christian preachers who ardently wanted Washington to be portrayed as one of them have made up many stories of George Washington's strong Christian beliefs. One of the primary purveyors of these propaganda pieces was Mason Locke Weems, a Christian preacher who came up with the fable of George Washington and the cherry tree. He also feverishly promoted the myth of George Washington and Christianity.

Washington, like many people in colonial America, belonged to the Anglican church and was a vestryman in it. But in early America, particularly in pre-revolutionary America, you had to belong to the dominant church if you wanted to have influence in society, as is illustrated by the following taken from Old Chruches, Ministers and Families of Virginia, by Bishop William Meade, I, p 191. "Even Mr. Jefferson, and George Wythe, who did not conceal their disbelief in Christianity, took their parts in the duties of vestrymen, the one at Williamsburg, the other at Albermarle; for they wished to be men of influence." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

http://www.deism.com/washington.htm
So that means they were just playing church and in reality were hypocrites.

[FredFlash]

Thomas Jefferson, The Christian Indians, The Moravian Brethren And The U. S. Government Promoting Christianity?


It has be asserted that President Thomas Jefferson did not envision that the Separation of Church and State would prohibit the United States from making reasonable accommodations to religion and recognizing God on its currency, in its courts or in its classrooms. Jefferson's actions as President by extending three times a pre-Constitution act that had designated lands "for the sole use of Christian Indians and the Moravian Brethren missionaries for civilizing the Indians and promoting Christianity" demonstrate that he was misinterpreted. See Michael Gaynor; The U.S. Supreme Court arbitrarily took separation of church and state much too far; July 19, 2005.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/gaynor/050719

I say Michael Gaynor is full of hooey!

[DRMIZER]

How is it possible that church and state are "much too far" separated?

[FredFlash]

How is it possible that church and state are "much too far" separated?

Better to have too much separation than not enough. The rights of conscience are, in their nature, a peculiar delicacy, and will little bear the gentlest touch of governmental hand. Founder Daniel Carroll (1789) (Annals of Congress 1:729-731).

FVF

[steveksux]

The Jefferson Bible???? What would Weezy say about that???

Randy

[FredFlash]

What was “the successful experiment” in Thomas Jefferson’s XYZ letter to Benjamin Rush in 1800? Was it the Alien and Sedition Act?

The delusion into which the X.Y.Z. plot shewed it possible to push the people; the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro' the U.S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists.

FVF

[Dutch]

Washington also wasn't an active church attendee.

"It is impossible to govern the world without god and the bible."

Presidend George Washington Sept. 17th 1796. ;)

[Dutch]

Christian preachers who ardently wanted Washington to be portrayed as one of them have made up many stories of George Washington's strong Christian beliefs. One of the primary purveyors of these propaganda pieces was Mason Locke Weems, a Christian preacher who came up with the fable of George Washington and the cherry tree. He also feverishly promoted the myth of George Washington and Christianity.

Washington, like many people in colonial America, belonged to the Anglican church and was a vestryman in it. But in early America, particularly in pre-revolutionary America, you had to belong to the dominant church if you wanted to have influence in society, as is illustrated by the following taken from Old Chruches, Ministers and Families of Virginia, by Bishop William Meade, I, p 191. "Even Mr. Jefferson, and George Wythe, who did not conceal their disbelief in Christianity, took their parts in the duties of vestrymen, the one at Williamsburg, the other at Albermarle; for they wished to be men of influence." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

http://www.deism.com/washington.htm

According to your own link, washington did believe in god. ;)

[KatsuhikoJinnai]

Paine was undeniably fervently anti-Christian. Indeed, he's probably more anti-Christian than any politician in Washington today.

A significant number of the Founding Fathers were Deists, and a likely greater number genuinely were Christians.

It would likely be incorrect to say that America was founded on Christian ideas. However, in looking at the Founding Fathers, I do see an overarching belief in a Creator, from Who comes inalienable rights. To say that America was based, to a considerable extent, on this principle - a principle that both the Deists, and the Christians, shared - would probably be fair.

[W.J. Wilczek]

It is probably not helpful to paint things in the colors of political or religious ideology. Most of our so-called “founding fathers” - when viewed candidly - were a fairly pragmatic, and irreligious, lot. Franklin, who is considered to be the “First American” came close to forsaking hearth and home for England. Even Jefferson was hardly the liberal reformer we would have him be. The “times that try men’s souls” bring out firebrands like Paine; who, if he was not a founding father, was certainly the midwife of American independence, and abetter to the overthrow of the French monarchy as well. Like Jesus, we would not be able to stand him. (Indeed, Paine was such a pain in the arse that he managed to make himself persona non grata in England, America and France!) Our perception of these characters is clouded by the dark glass of history, and distorted by attributions that represent so much wishful rather than critical thinking. It is like crediting Rembrandt’s paintings with depth of hue when their darkness is due to his using cheap paint.

[Dutch]

It is probably not helpful to paint things in the colors of political or religious ideology. Most of our so-called “founding fathers” - when viewed candidly - were a fairly pragmatic, and irreligious, lot. Franklin, who is considered to be the “First American” came close to forsaking hearth and home for England. Even Jefferson was hardly the liberal reformer we would have him be. The “times that try men’s souls” bring out firebrands like Paine; who, if he was not a founding father, was certainly the midwife of American independence, and abetter to the overthrow of the French monarchy as well. Like Jesus, we would not be able to stand him. (Indeed, Paine was such a pain in the arse that he managed to make himself persona non grata in England, America and France!) Our perception of these characters is clouded by the dark glass of history, and distorted by attributions that represent so much wishful rather than critical thinking. It is like crediting Rembrandt’s paintings with depth of hue when their darkness is due to his using cheap paint.

True enough and well said. Our founding fathers were indeed...human, with all the attendant frailties of men. But men they were. They accomplished much. They made real the ideas of locke, adam smith and others.

Jefferson felt our democracy depended on "strong yoeman farmers." Men with a strong sense of independance, self reliance, work ethic and the moral values that would sustain them and the democracy they represented. What would they have thought of todays socialistic tendancies of communalism, wealth distribution, and the marginalization of religion, (and the problems associated with it) I cannot say. I can't help but think they would....disaprove.

[W.J. Wilczek]

Democracy in America has come a long way from its early beginnings following our struggle for independence. The intoxicating ideas of Rousseau and Locke that inspired our revolution gave way to a more sober expression of our rights and freedoms expressed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Likewise, the America Alexis de Tocqueville described in the 1820's and 1840's, which was largely an agrarian society, was eclipsed by the rise of the nation to an industrial power in the latter half of the Nineteenth Century; and with such changes came the inevitable expansion of the nature and power of government, and the laws that govern society. Our founding fathers could only be utterly astonished at the America of today.

[FredFlash]

"It is impossible to govern the world without god and the bible."

Presidend George Washington Sept. 17th 1796. ;)

Washington is known to have made some official statements of public piety, but this is not one of them. Though this assertion is very widely reported to have been said in Washington's Farewell Address (17 September 1796), this is not actually the case, as any search of the documents would reveal. It has also been presented as having been part of his Proclamation on 1795-JAN-01 of 1795-FEB-19 as a day of national Thanksgiving in this form:

"It is in an especial manner our duty as a people, with devout reverence and affectionate gratitude, to acknowledge our many and great obligations to Almighty God, and to implore Him to continue and confirm the blessings we experienced. It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible. It is impossible to account for the creation of the universe, without the agency of a Supreme Being. It is impossible to govern the universe without the aid of a Supreme Being. It is impossible to reason without arriving at a Supreme Being. Religion is as necessary to reason, as reason is to religion. The one cannot exist without the other. A reasoning being would lose his reason, in attempting to account for the great phenomena of nature, had he not a Supreme Being to refer to."

In the above paragraph the italicized portion appears to be entirely bogus, and there is no actual record of such a statement ever having been made by Washington. The first sentence is an almost accurate rendition of one from Washington's official proclamation, being a portion of this segment:

"In such a state of things it is in an especial manner our duty as a people, with devout reverence and affectionate gratitude, to acknowledge our many and great obligations to Almighty God and to implore Him to continue and confirm the blessings we experience.
 Deeply penetrated with this sentiment, I, George Washington, President of the United States, do recommend to all religious societies and denominations, and to all persons whomsoever, within the United States to set apart and observe Thursday, the 19th day of February next as a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, and on that day to meet together and render their sincere and hearty thanks to the Great Ruler of Nations for the manifold and signal mercies which distinguish our lot as a nation..."

It is to be noted that there is genuine piety expressed in this statement, but it is not of any sectarian kind, Christian or otherwise. The last portion of the bogus statement which uses it is a truncation of what might also be another genuine statement. In A Life of Washington (1836) by James K. Paulding, Washington is quoted as having stated:

It is impossible to reason without arriving at a Supreme Being. Religion is as necessary to reason as reason is to religion. The one cannot exist without the other. A reasoning being would lose his reason in attempting to account for the great phenomena of nature, had he not a Supreme Being to refer to; and well has it been said, that if there had been no God, mankind would have been obliged to imagine one.

In the spurious version of the Thanksgiving proclamation which uses a portion of this, Washington's allusions to Voltaire's famous statement that "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him" has been omitted. In the cases of these "quotations" it seems that if statements suitable to their sectarian interests do not exist, some people feel it necessary to invent them.

[Dutch]

Washington is known to have made some official statements of public piety, but this is not one of them. Though this assertion is very widely reported to have been said in Washington's Farewell Address (17 September 1796), this is not actually the case, as any search of the documents would reveal. It has also been presented as having been part of his Proclamation on 1795-JAN-01 of 1795-FEB-19 as a day of national Thanksgiving in this form:

"It is in an especial manner our duty as a people, with devout reverence and affectionate gratitude, to acknowledge our many and great obligations to Almighty God, and to implore Him to continue and confirm the blessings we experienced. It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible. It is impossible to account for the creation of the universe, without the agency of a Supreme Being. It is impossible to govern the universe without the aid of a Supreme Being. It is impossible to reason without arriving at a Supreme Being. Religion is as necessary to reason, as reason is to religion. The one cannot exist without the other. A reasoning being would lose his reason, in attempting to account for the great phenomena of nature, had he not a Supreme Being to refer to."

In the above paragraph the italicized portion appears to be entirely bogus, and there is no actual record of such a statement ever having been made by Washington. The first sentence is an almost accurate rendition of one from Washington's official proclamation, being a portion of this segment:

"In such a state of things it is in an especial manner our duty as a people, with devout reverence and affectionate gratitude, to acknowledge our many and great obligations to Almighty God and to implore Him to continue and confirm the blessings we experience.
 Deeply penetrated with this sentiment, I, George Washington, President of the United States, do recommend to all religious societies and denominations, and to all persons whomsoever, within the United States to set apart and observe Thursday, the 19th day of February next as a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, and on that day to meet together and render their sincere and hearty thanks to the Great Ruler of Nations for the manifold and signal mercies which distinguish our lot as a nation..."

It is to be noted that there is genuine piety expressed in this statement, but it is not of any sectarian kind, Christian or otherwise. The last portion of the bogus statement which uses it is a truncation of what might also be another genuine statement. In A Life of Washington (1836) by James K. Paulding, Washington is quoted as having stated:

It is impossible to reason without arriving at a Supreme Being. Religion is as necessary to reason as reason is to religion. The one cannot exist without the other. A reasoning being would lose his reason in attempting to account for the great phenomena of nature, had he not a Supreme Being to refer to; and well has it been said, that if there had been no God, mankind would have been obliged to imagine one.

In the spurious version of the Thanksgiving proclamation which uses a portion of this, Washington's allusions to Voltaire's famous statement that "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him" has been omitted. In the cases of these "quotations" it seems that if statements suitable to their sectarian interests do not exist, some people feel it necessary to invent them.

George Washington's farewell address.

United States 19th September 1796

Friends and fellow citizens.

~snip~ Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indespensible supports. ~snip~

You'll find this part on page 20.

http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/farewell/transcript.html

We can argue whether or not George Washington was or was not a christian. We can argue whether or not he was a diest. People of faith, any faith, probably make good citizens.

[FredFlash]

People of faith probably make good citizens.

Is that your reason for being a Christian? Is religious faith just something to be used, some might say abused, to achieve the temporal objectives of the civil government?

It is but lip service, and vain worship, if our homage toward the Creator is rendered according to the recommendation or advice of the government. See "Essential Rights" by Isaac Backus (1774).

FVF

[Dutch]

Is that your reason for being a Christian? Is religious faith just something to be used, some might say abused, to achieve the temporal objectives of the civil government?

It is but lip service, and vain worship, if our homage toward the Creator is rendered according to the recommendation or advice of the government. See "Essential Rights" by Isaac Backus (1774).

FVF

I'm not a christian. I wouldn't know. I do believe people of faith, do make good citizens. Is there wrong in such an observation? What of your assertion that George Washington was not a christian? Thomas Jefferson? If they were athiests, why didn't they try to develope the perfect citizen on that basis, the marxists certainly did.

[JoeR]

You're ignoring the option of deism. This doesn't even mean they are necessarily anti-Christian either - not to mention if they were they would likely have to keep it quiet, hell you still would have to keep it quiet today if you want to succeed in politics.

[FredFlash]

I do believe people of faith, do make good citizens. Is there wrong in such an observation? What of your assertion that George Washington was not a christian? Thomas Jefferson? If they were athiests, why didn't they try to develope the perfect citizen on that basis, the marxists certainly did.

I take Washington and Jefferson at their word. They were whatever they said they were. Neither ever claimed to be an atheist and if I said they did then I was in error.

If the First U. S. Congress wanted to prohibit the central government from establishing a religion, why did it establish two of them in 1789 by electing Chaplains and paying them from the national taxes?

[DRMIZER]

According to your own link, washington did believe in god. ;)Yes he did. But he was more of a deist than a Christian.

[FredFlash]

Nothing is more amusing to me than when fundamentalists claim that the founders were deeply devout-which implies that the founders had the same literal beliefs as they do.

The founders were Christians, but they weren't the type of Christians that David Barton and D. James Kennedy make them out to be. The Cristianity that prevailed during the early days of the young republic included the belief that Christ ordained a Separation of Church and State.

James Madison wrote that:

If some of the States have not embraced this just and this truly Xn principle in its proper latitude, all of them present examples by which the most enlightened States of the old world may be instructed; and there is one State at least, Virginia, where religious liberty is placed on its true foundation and is defined in its full latitude.

[steveksux]

I was more a proponent of the "Good Times" Bible rather than the "Jefferson's" Bible, cause JJ's (remember Kid Dy-no-nite!) sister had really nice boobs compared to Weezy, George's wife. The "Starsky and Hutch" Bible even beat the "Jefferson's" Bible cause of that cool red Torino with the white stripe.

Randy

[W.J. Wilczek]

It’s high time that the Congress did something to “reform” the Bible. We have suffered too long under the tyranny of the King James version, and should declare our independence by issuing an American Bible that makes the Scriptures “politically correct.” And there ought to be a constitutional amendment banning “un-American” Bibles.

[FredFlash]

Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1793

MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1790.

The petition of the Reverend Joseph Willard and others, in behalf of the congregational clergy of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, was read, stating "that printers in some of the states are now undertaking to publish editions of the Holy Bible, a work which, in its nature, requires a most critical and faithful inspection, and which, in other Christian countries, is performed under the direction of the supreme authority;" and praying "Congress to take this interesting subject into their consideration, and to direct such measures as, in their wisdom, may be thought proper, to secure tire public from impositions by inaccurate editions of the Holy Scriptures."

Ordered, That this petition lie for consideration.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=001/llsj001.db&recNum=153&itemLink=D?hlaw:3:./temp/~ammem_KnAU::%230010154&linkText=1

[Dutch]

Yes he did. But he was more of a deist than a Christian.

Ok, give me a percentage. You know, like 60/40, 80/20, something along those lines. :D

[Dutch]

You're ignoring the option of deism. This doesn't even mean they are necessarily anti-Christian either - not to mention if they were they would likely have to keep it quiet, hell you still would have to keep it quiet today if you want to succeed in politics.

Unless you're representing the area of california that includeds SF. I'm given to understand nancy peloci is a catholic. ;)

[DRMIZER]

Ok, give me a percentage. You know, like 60/40, 80/20, something along those lines. :DNo can do. . . . . . .Wish I could. I only recall reading many of his letters to others and reading between the lines, he was a deist. . . .'Course he could have been both, leaving and taking the dogma as he thought it proper to do so long as he believed in a supreme being. Maybe a 50/50

[DRMIZER]

You're ignoring the option of deism. This doesn't even mean they are necessarily anti-Christian either - not to mention if they were they would likely have to keep it quiet, hell you still would have to keep it quiet today if you want to succeed in politics.How true, how true. Wonder how many Deists we've REALLY HAD as presidents and we didn't know?

[FredFlash]

The Meaning of the Establishment Clause in 1831

The first article in the amendments to the constitution was intended to guard the blending of religious creeds with civil polity, or, in other word, the ultimate “union of church and state.” Acting according to the spirit of the constitution, (to its praise be it spoken,) our Government, as such, inquires not, into and know not, what is orthodox in matters of religion. All who are subject to its authority, as well as all who are employed in its service, are regarded equally as citizens, irrespective of the professions or creeds.

But when once the Congress shall have assumed the right of deciding by a legislative act the orthodoxy of this and any other point of religious controversy, the magic spell will have been broken which has excluded the religious intolerance from our civil tribunals.
The next step, after selecting by law a religious opinion, will be to enforce its observance.

[W.J. Wilczek]

The union of church and state is an unholy alliance; and it produces bad offspring.

[FredFlash]

The union of church and state is an unholy alliance; and it produces bad offspring.


The Distinction between Church and State is Essentially Necessary to Human Liberty and Happiness.

Mr. Baylor spoke in support of the proposed ban on members of the clergy serving as State Legislators and said that the ban was calculated to keep clear and well defined the distinction between Church and State, so essentially necessary to human liberty and happiness. Page 163, Debates of the Texas Convention. Wm. F. Weeks, Reporter, published by authority of the convention, Houston, Published by J.W.Cruger, 1846.


FVF

[W.J. Wilczek]

State-sponsored religion leads to the limitation of religious freedom, and, ultimately, religious persecution.

[FredFlash]

State-sponsored religion leads to the limitation of religious freedom, and, ultimately, religious persecution.

It centainly lays the foundation for it. James Madison warned us that every provision against usurpations on the rights of conscience short of the "great barrier" against them will leave crevices through which bigotry may introduce persecution; a monster, that feeding and thriving on its own venom, gradually swells to a size and strength overwhelming all laws divine and human.

FVF

[W.J. Wilczek]

History records many, from the lowly to the high-and-mighty, that lost their heads over religion.

[FredFlash]

History records many, from the lowly to the high-and-mighty, that lost their heads over religion.

That was just the majority using civil authority to express its religion.

Fred

[W.J. Wilczek]

There are some people who are so simple as to believe in the literal truth of the Bible. Some actually hold that it is the word of God; and still others argue over which version of the Scriptures is the true text.For example, William Tyndale translated the Bible into English; but he used the Greek and Hebrew texts rather than the Latin Vulgate prepared by St. Jerome in the 4th Century A.D. Thomas More declared that Tyndale's Bible was heresy, and Tyndale a heretic. (Both More and Tyndale came to bad ends because of their beliefs.) The King James version was adapted from Tyndale's translation; which in turn was revised, rewritten and edited by Francis Bacon. Indeed, to be a literalist, one need believe God an Englishman! Perhaps it would be best to have a label on the cover of the Bible warning the unsuspecting public that the true meaning of the word of God may have been lost in translation.

[DRMIZER]

There are some people who are so simple as to believe in the literal truth of the Bible. Some actually hold that it is the word of God; and still others argue over which version of the Scriptures is the true text.For example, William Tyndale translated the Bible into English; but he used the Greek and Hebrew texts rather than the Latin Vulgate prepared by St. Jerome in the 4th Century A.D. Thomas More declared that Tyndale's Bible was heresy, and Tyndale a heretic. (Both More and Tyndale came to bad ends because of their beliefs.) The King James version was adapted from Tyndale's translation; which in turn was revised, rewritten and edited by Francis Bacon. Indeed, to be a literalist, one need believe God an Englishman! Perhaps it would be best to have a label on the cover of the Bible warning the unsuspecting public that the true meaning of the word of God may have been lost in translation.You're stepping into BIG do-do on this one. But I 100% agree.

[heel31ok]

There are some people who are so simple as to believe in the literal truth of the Bible. Some actually hold that it is the word of God; and still others argue over which version of the Scriptures is the true text.For example, William Tyndale translated the Bible into English; but he used the Greek and Hebrew texts rather than the Latin Vulgate prepared by St. Jerome in the 4th Century A.D. Thomas More declared that Tyndale's Bible was heresy, and Tyndale a heretic. (Both More and Tyndale came to bad ends because of their beliefs.) The King James version was adapted from Tyndale's translation; which in turn was revised, rewritten and edited by Francis Bacon. Indeed, to be a literalist, one need believe God an Englishman! Perhaps it would be best to have a label on the cover of the Bible warning the unsuspecting public that the true meaning of the word of God may have been lost in translation.
The things lost in translation were those that were improperly translated. the truth about newer translations is they have been refined and clarified to better convey the truth of the word of God. This is confirmed when compared to early Greek and hebrew texts. The ones claiming foul are those who want it to be foul, not those who truly follow logic, common sense and standard verification and authentication practices. One would have to go against common sense to declare them to be false. The warning for the unsuspecting public should read that the true meaning of the word of God has been found in translation.

[KatsuhikoJinnai]

There are some people who are so simple as to believe in the literal truth of the Bible.

Some parts of the Bible are undeniably meant to be taken literally. Other parts are undeniably meant to be taken symbolically (many prophetic passages, for example).

Some actually hold that it is the word of God...

Why should we not? Your attempts here to unwarrantly besmirch the credibility of Christians like myself is duly noted. What makes your viewpoints on the matter of greater credibility than my own?

...and still others argue over which version of the Scriptures is the true text.

Very few Christians today rely exclusively on one particular translation, and fewer still would consider any translation other than the perfered one to be heretical.


For example, William Tyndale translated the Bible into English; but he used the Greek and Hebrew texts rather than the Latin Vulgate prepared by St. Jerome in the 4th Century A.D. Thomas More declared that Tyndale's Bible was heresy, and Tyndale a heretic. (Both More and Tyndale came to bad ends because of their beliefs.) The King James version was adapted from Tyndale's translation; which in turn was revised, rewritten and edited by Francis Bacon. Indeed, to be a literalist, one need believe God an Englishman! Perhaps it would be best to have a label on the cover of the Bible warning the unsuspecting public that the true meaning of the word of God may have been lost in translation.

Why? Do we honestly believe that an omnipotent God could not wield a sufficient amount of influence over the translation of His own communications with humanity to ensure that they remain at least reasonably accurate to their original wording when translated through language, and time?

I don't doubt that some fairly insignificant portions of scripture (the lengthy geneology chains, for example) may have been somewhat lost in translation, because I doubt that God would be overly concerned with their inerrant translation. However, the weightier portions of the Bible I have no problem placing my faith in the veracity thereof.

[W.J. Wilczek]

There is no proof that Jesus existed. Indeed, it would be difficult to credit the Bible generally (and the gospels in particular) as proof of anything. It is, at best, anecdotal evidence, viz. stories whose authorship cannot be authenticated and which cannot be corroborated except by other hearsay evidence; and although there are references in the Scriptures of persons, places and events whose existence can be corroborated by other historical records, it is hard to credit the story of Jesus in the gospels as anything more than fable. The four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) cannot be authenticated; and even if they could, they cannot be proved contemporaneous accounts of a percipient witness to the events described or even recorded recollection. They were most likely popular stories handed down by verbal tradition and miscellaneous writings of the early Christian sects, which were later collected and revised under the auspices of the Church (not all of the gospels were approved), and eventually translated into Latin by St. Jerome in the 4th Century A.D. The English Bible, as stated supra, is even more attenuated, being translated by William Tyndale, who used the Hebrew and Greek texts and not the Latin Vulgate; which translation was later revised (and edited) as the King James version. To argue over which version of the Scriptures is correct is merely to beg the question.

For the same reason, it is questionable that these texts can even be relied upon as an historical record. For example, we know a great deal more about Pontius Pilate than we do about Jesus. Pilate was a Roman aristocrat, a knight of the equestrian class, and appointed Procurator of Judea as representative of the Emperor Tiberius. The historical references to Jesus, on the other hand, are sketchy at best. Philo of Alexandria, who was contemporaneous with Jesus and Paul, does not mention Christ or the Christians; and the brief account of Flavius Josephus in the Testamonium Flavianum (C.E. 93) appears to have been added by a later hand. Even the reference by Tacitus is second-hand hearsay (probably from his friend and correspondent Pliny the Younger, who was Governor of Bithynia, and would have had access to the historical records and reports of the region). See Annals, 15.53.

The proof (or disproof) of an asserted fact is determined by evidence of which there are many kinds, e.g., physical evidence, testimonial evidence, opinion evidence, demonstrative evidence, scientific evidence, etc.; and what is required to prove an asserted fact depends on the matter in question, and the probative value of the relevant evidence of it. In this respect, the Bible is no more relevant than other ancient literary works such as Homer as proof. Questions of this sort require one to assume as true what may not be susceptible of proof; which presumptions invariably result in irrational arguments that get nowhere. The truth is that the Scriptures are just not intended to be subject to such critical examination; and to argue the validity of the several texts, again, merely begs the question. You can argue it forever, but it will bring you no closer to the truth of the matter.

[heel31ok]

There is no proof that Jesus existed. Indeed, it would be difficult to credit the Bible generally (and the gospels in particular) as proof of anything. It is, at best, anecdotal evidence, viz. stories whose authorship cannot be authenticated and which cannot be corroborated except by other hearsay evidence; and although there are references in the Scriptures of persons, places and events whose existence can be corroborated by other historical records, it is hard to credit the story of Jesus in the gospels as anything more than fable. The four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) cannot be authenticated; and even if they could, they cannot be proved contemporaneous accounts of a percipient witness to the events described or even recorded recollection. They were most likely popular stories handed down by verbal tradition and miscellaneous writings of the early Christian sects, which were later collected and revised under the auspices of the Church (not all of the gospels were approved), and eventually translated into Latin by St. Jerome in the 4th Century A.D. The English Bible, as stated supra, is even more attenuated, being translated by William Tyndale, who used the Hebrew and Greek texts and not the Latin Vulgate; which translation was later revised (and edited) as the King James version. To argue over which version of the Scriptures is correct is merely to beg the question.

For the same reason, it is questionable that these texts can even be relied upon as an historical record. For example, we know a great deal more about Pontius Pilate than we do about Jesus. Pilate was a Roman aristocrat, a knight of the equestrian class, and appointed Procurator of Judea as representative of the Emperor Tiberius. The historical references to Jesus, on the other hand, are sketchy at best. Philo of Alexandria, who was contemporaneous with Jesus and Paul, does not mention Christ or the Christians; and the brief account of Flavius Josephus in the Testamonium Flavianum (C.E. 93) appears to have been added by a later hand. Even the reference by Tacitus is second-hand hearsay (probably from his friend and correspondent Pliny the Younger, who was Governor of Bithynia, and would have had access to the historical records and reports of the region). See Annals, 15.53.

The proof (or disproof) of an asserted fact is determined by evidence of which there are many kinds, e.g., physical evidence, testimonial evidence, opinion evidence, demonstrative evidence, scientific evidence, etc.; and what is required to prove an asserted fact depends on the matter in question, and the probative value of the relevant evidence of it. In this respect, the Bible is no more relevant than other ancient literary works such as Homer as proof. Questions of this sort require one to assume as true what may not be susceptible of proof; which presumptions invariably result in irrational arguments that get nowhere. The truth is that the Scriptures are just not intended to be subject to such critical examination; and to argue the validity of the several texts, again, merely begs the question. You can argue it forever, but it will bring you no closer to the truth of the matter.


Homer has not been offered as proof of Christ's existence so it is not even a factor,nor are any other writings not intended for that purpose.The relevance of the Bible comes from the fact that it was not denied nor proven to be wrong during it's own time when the evidence or lack there of would have been greater to prove either side. Just as it take millions of years to attempt the false assertion of improper eveolutionary thought it takes 3000 years to get to a point where the existence of Christ can come into question.The doubt is not a fact in the earht as a whole but in the minds of those who now wish to do away with it for their own purposes and peace of mind.

the only ones who would at this point deny the multiples kinds of evidence that clearly shows Christ as a real historical figure are those who either are decieved or are attempting to promote that deception themselves.

I know alot of it here is for the shock value but has very little in the way of factual substance.

As afar a Tyndale and his translation is concerned I still do not see your point. His use of greek and hebrew validate more than invalidate it. The fact that he did not use the Vulgate is a plus on his side. your attempt to discredit is backwards because it would be more suspect if it came from the Vulgate.

the other arguments you offer are weak at best with a little "fraud " thrown in as well. Purposely or not I do not know , but the false assertion of non contemporary account to the life of Christ are absolute falsehood to the worst degree because they are an attempt to do for the authors what the same enemies accuse them of. Blatantly creating false dates of authorship then using their own false creations against the authors themselves.

this reminds me of the popular philosophy of today that says the seriousness of the charge is enough to discredit, no matter what the facts actually are.
Many claim common sense then have none, many claim to use proper methods of determination and then tamper with the evidence. Many call evil good and good evil. There is nothing new under the sun.

[JoeR]

Just as it take millions of years to attempt the false assertion of improper eveolutionary thought

:lol: Right, so because a discovery takes a long time it must be wrong?

[W.J. Wilczek]

To say that Christ exists because it says so in the gospels is a fallacious form of reasoning that, petitio principii, only begs the question, i.e., the truth of the assertion (that Christ existed) is assumed in the premise. In other words, for the statement to hold up, one has to assume as fact that the gospels are true. Such circular argument is illogical, which typifies discussion of religious subjects.

[heel31ok]

:lol: Right, so because a discovery takes a long time it must be wrong?
it is just convenient how time is used as part of the process.In the two cases cited my answer to you is , yes.

[heel31ok]

To say that Christ exists because it says so in the gospels is a fallacious form of reasoning that, petitio principii, only begs the question, i.e., the truth of the assertion (that Christ existed) is assumed in the premise. In other words, for the statement to hold up, one has to assume as fact that the gospels are true. Such circular argument is illogical, which typifies discussion of religious subjects.
The whole Bible spoke of Christ from the beginning so the revelation of Christ is not limited to the Gospels. I am sorry there is not enough evidence for you.But there is enough for most people.

[W.J. Wilczek]

The difficulty with using the Bible as proof was explained, supra. In brief, to do so requires you to presume the Scriptures as true, which presumption, in itself, is not susceptible of proof. Believe what you wish; but that does not make it true. The Bible is no more proof of the existence of God than Homer’s Iliad is of the existence of the gods of the Greek Pantheon; and to persist in argument based only on unsupported belief is to be irrational.

[DRMIZER]

I went to college a number of years, including religious institutions. I never had a history course that indicated Christ was part of the landscape at that time. Interesting AND true. In fact, no historical documents point to the life of Jesus. . . . .none. The bible is NOT an historical document any more than any other religious acclimation, no matter how much we want it.

So if emotion drives thought and fear of death drives belief, then belief is all there is for one to hold on to.

To each his own.

[W.J. Wilczek]

According to the gospels, at the trial of Jesus, Pontius Pilate asked the most profound question in the history of western civilization; he asked: “What is truth?” Pilate was an urbane Roman aristocrat, and, if the gospels accurately relate the event, his questioning of Christ evinces a high level of juridical sophistication. Interestingly, Jesus does not answer the question; and again, if the gospels are a true account, in that brief silence, we can adduce more truth about who Christ really was than represented in all of the gospels.

[W.J. Wilczek]

The King James version of the Bible is great literature, because Francis Bacon wrote it.

[FredFlash]

Why Presidential Religious Recommendations During
Early Years Of Republic Are Not Legitimate Legal Precedent


Those who reject the exclusive and absolute authority of Christ over religion and foolishly advocate government authority over the duty which we owe to our Creator, frequently cite the joint resolution passed by Congress in 1789, requesting President George Washington to issue religious advice to the American people, as legal precedent for general government advisory authority over religion, including the recommendation that the people obey the Ten Commandments. However, a close examination of the historical evidence reveals that Congress believed that the joint resolution was illegal and had no intent to establish a legal precedent or to assume the authority to issue religious advice to the people.

The proposal to pass the 1789 resolution was advanced in the House of Representatives just a few days before the end of the first session of the First U. S. Congress. It was contested on legal grounds that it was a religious matter and as such was excluded from Congressional authority, and on moral grounds that it mimicked European customs which made a mockery of thanksgivings. Interestingly, the supporters of the proposal did not even argue that the new U. S. Constitution granted Congress the authority to pass such a resolution. Instead, they argued that the resolution was justified by the rejoicings and thanksgiving rendered upon the completion of Solomon’s Temple in 956 B. C., and the practice of the Continental Congress.

The most reasonable conclusion, based on the legislative history, is that Congress believed it had no power under the Constitution to pass the resolution; however, a trivial deviation from strict Constitutional principles was warranted by the extraordinary occasion of the peaceful establishment of a new system of national government. This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that the First U. S. Congress did not pass similar resolution the next year. The conclusion and its confirmation are further bolstered by the fact that Congress would not pass another joint resolution of a religious nature for twenty-four years. Congress clearly did believe that issuing religious recommendations to the people was consistent with the principles of the Constitution.

President George Washington proved he was not a genuine Christian (one who acknowledges the exclusive authority of Christ over the duty which we owe to the Creator) when he abused his civil authority by the corruption of religion for political purposes. He issued a foolish recommendation, without even a joint resolution from Congress, on January 1, 1795 recommending that the people pray and give thanks for “the suppression of the late insurrection” in Pennsylvania. (The “Whiskey Rebellion”) John Adams also proved to be a Counterfeit Christian by issuing two blatantly politically influenced religious recommendations, in four years, without a joint resolution from Congress.

[FredFlash]

President Thomas Jefferson respected the authority of God and flatly refused to issue religious recommendations during his eight years in office. An experiment with religious proclamations during the War of 1812 by Congress and President Madison backfired when “the language of scripture itself was employed by divines in their sermons, and by magistrates in their proclamations, to point political sarcasm and to rekindle political rage.”

Congress learned a lesson. It never passed another joint resolution asking the President to issue religious advice to the people.

An attempt by Henry Clay in 1828 to pass a joint resolution asking President Andrew Jackson to issue a recommendation to fast passed in the Senate. It was the subject of a lively debate in the House; but it died on the table with out a final vote.

Saint George Tucker, as professor of law at the College of William and Mary and the exponent of Jeffersonian republicanism, in 1803 published the first extended, systematic commentary on the United States Constitution after its ratification and later its amendment by the Bill of Rights. On the question of religious recommendations, Tucker wrote: “The proclamation of the two former presidents recommending fasting and prayer, were of this nature; they were an assumption of power not warranted by the constitution, or rather prohibited, by the true spirit of the third article of amendments.” See Saint George Tucker; Blackstone’s Commentaries; Volume 1,Appendix, Note D, Section 15-- Executive Powers-- Footnote No. 303. Published in 1803. http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1d15000.htm

Summary and Conclusion

The 1789 joint resolution of Congress for an executive recommendation of prayer and thanksgiving cannot be accepted as a legitimate legal precedent for anything other than to justify a deviation from Constitutional principles in the event this nation ever peacefully adopts another system of national government. There is no provision in the Constitution that grants Congress the authority to pass a joint resolution for an executive religious recommendation; there is no provision in the Constitution that grants the President the authority to issue an executive religious recommendation; the First U. S. Congress never claimed that the 1789 resolution was Constitutional, the proponents of the resolution never argued that it was Constitutional, the First Congress did not pass another religious resolution the next year; Congress did not pass another religious resolution for almost a quarter of a century; only eight such resolutions were passed during the first twenty-four years of the Republic; no religious resolutions were passed by Congress for at least the next one hundred years; James Madison believed religious resolutions made “no part of the trust delegated to political rulers”; Saint George Tucker was of the opinion that religious proclamations were not warranted by the constitution, or rather prohibited, by the First Amendment; and James Madison’s view of religious freedom, and his interpretation of the First Amendment eventually prevailed during the Early Years of the Republic on every issue involving the interpretation of the religion clauses.

[W.J. Wilczek]

I got a good laugh out of that! The only reference in our Constitution to Christ in the Anno Domini (“In the year of the Lord”), which was the method of dating formal documents adopted following the conversion from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar in 1582. It appears in the subscription and not the body of the Constitution, and it signifies nothing but the date.

[DRMIZER]

I got a good laugh out of that! The only reference in our Constitution to Christ in the Anno Domini (“In the year of the Lord”), which was the method of dating formal documents adopted following the conversion from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar in 1582. It appears in the subscription and not the body of the Constitution, and it signifies nothing but the date.You've studied this quite a bit, haven't you? It's great to have a learned opinion around!

[FredFlash]

William Leggett Says Executive Religious Recommendations Violate the Rule of Entire Separation of the Affairs of State From Those of the Church (1836)

“We regret that even this single exception should exist to that rule of entire separation of the affairs of state from those of the church, the observance of which in all other respects has been followed by the happiest results. It is to the source of the proclamation, not to its purpose, that we chiefly object. The recommending a day of thanksgiving is not properly any part of the duty of a political Chief Magistrate: it belongs, in its nature, to the heads of the church, not to the head of the state.”

http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Leggett/lgtDE12.html


*****************************************

William Leggett

LEGGETT, William, author, born in New York city in 1802; died in New Rochelle, New York, 29 May, 1839. His father, Major Abraham Leggett, was a soldier of the Revolution. The son was educated at Georgetown college, D. C., and in 1819 removed with his father to Illinois. He entered the navy as a midshipman in 182., but resigned in 1826, and became editor of the "Critic," a weekly literary journal which wits soon united with the "New York Mirror." In 1829 he became an editor of the "New York Evening Post," and was attached to that journal till 1836. At the outset he stipulated with William Cullen Bryant, the senior editor, that he should not be required to write political articles, as he had neither taste nor fixed opinions regarding politics; but before the year had passed he appeared to have found his true vocation in discussing" them, and wrote vigorous editorial articles in favor of free trade and against the United States bank. In 1835 the meetings of the Abolitionists in New York were dispersed by mobs. Leggett denounced these proceedings, and defended the right to free discussion in regard to slavery as well as all other subjects. Retiring from the "Post," he began the publication of "The Plain Dealer" in 1836, which attained a large circulation, but was discontinued in less than a year through the failure of its publisher. After this, his h eMth being greatly enfeebled, Mr. Leggett left literary work and retired to New Rochelle, New York He was appointed in 1839 by President Van Buren diplomatic agent to Guatemala, but died before the day of sailing. Mr. Leggett was remarkable among the journalists of his day as an unflinching advocate of freedom of opinion for his political opponents as well as for his own party. Mr. Bryant wrote the poem to his memory beginning "The earth may ring from shore to shore." he describes Leggett as fond of study, delighting to trace principles to their remotest consequences, and as having no fear of public opinion regarding the expression of his own convictions. It was the fiery Leggett that urged on Bryant to attack William L. Stone, a brother editor, in Broadway. Soon afterward he fought a duel at Weehawken with Blake, the treasurer of the old Park theatre. To the surprise of all New York, Leggett selected James Lawson, a peacefully disposed Scottish-American poet, who was slightly lame, as his second; and when asked after the bloodless duel for his reasons, he answered: " Blake's second, Berkeley, was lame, and I did not propose that the d--d Englishman should beat me in anything." His writings include "Leisure Hours at Sea" (1825); "Tales of a Country School Master" (1835); "Naval Stories" (1835); and "Political Writings," edited, with a preface, by Theodore Sedgwick (1840). See "Bryant and His Friends," by James Grant Wilson (New York, 1886).--His nephew, William Henry, botanist, born in New York city, 24 February, 1816; died there in April, 1882, was the son of Abraham Alsop Leggett. He was graduated at Columbia in 1837, and after travelling through Europe followed the profession of a teacher till his death. He was one of the earliest members of the Greek club, an association of college graduates that was formed for the study of that language, and was devoted from early life to the science of botany, in which he became an authority. He founded the "Torrey Botanical Bulletin" and was its sole editor and publisher front 1870 till 1880. Mr. Leggett was a member of the New York academy of sciences and of the Philadelphia academy of natural sciences.

http://www.famousamericans.net/williamleggett/

[FredFlash]

Thomas Jefferson, The Christian Indians, The Moravian Brethren Missionaries and Federal Land For Civilizing the Indians and Promoting Christianity?


Those who reject the absolute and exclusive authority of Christ over religion in favor of civil authority over the duty which we owe to our Creator, often claim that President Thomas Jefferson did not envision that the Separation of Church and State would prohibit the United States from making laws recommending that we hold certain particular religious opinions approved by the government or declaring the religious sentiments of the majority. To support this claim they cite Jefferson’s extending an act of legislation that had designated lands "for the sole use of Christian Indians and the Moravian Brethren missionaries for civilizing the Indians and promoting Christianity." [Note 1}

A careful examination of the historical document pertaining to the Moravian Brethren and the Christian Indians reveals that those who made the claim in question have either confounded the name of a Pennsylvania Corporation founded by the Moravian Brethren with the reasons Congress granting the Moravian’s a trust in the land in question or they have never actually investigated matter and examined the evidence to learn the truth.

The Moravians were pacifist Christians expelled from Germany in about 1722. They became missionaries who “Christianized” Indians in Georgia, Connecticut and Pennsylvania including a group of Delaware Indians in Pennsylvania in 1742. The Delaware Indians became successful farmers on land along the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania. In the early 1700’s the Delaware Indians were forced off of their land in Pennsylvania. The Indians relocated to Ohio and created another successful agricultural community on the Muskingum River. [Note 2]

The 400 Christian Indians in the Ohio community accepted the offer of the Continental Congress that all such Indians that would sit still and not take up the hatchet against the Americans, should have all the lands they held confirmed and secured to them after peace was restored. The Christian Indians were forced off their land in Oho by the British and removed to the south shore of Lake Erie and left to starve to death. In 1782, the Pennsylvania Militia murdered ninety of the Christian Indians when they returned to their fields searching for food. The Indians scattered, mostly into Canada.

When the American Revolution ended the Moravians attempted tried to locate the Indians and help them reclaim their land in Ohio promised them by the Continental Congress if they remained neutral during the war. The Moravian believed that the Indians were being threatened by some Americans not to return to their land. The Moravians asked Congress to convey an estate in trust in the Ohio land to them to cut off any hope the Americans had to gain legal title to the land.

Congress complied with the Moravian’s request in 1787 by conveying a trust estate to a corporation established by an act of the Pennsylvania General Assembly upon the petition of the Moravians and others. The legal name of the corporation was “The Society of United Brethren for propagating the Gospel among the heathen.”

The efforts of the Moravians to locate the Indians and help them settle permanently on the land in Ohio failed due to a variety of reasons detailed in an 1822 report to Congress. The Moravians conveyed the land back to the U. S. in the 1820's.

The claim that “an act of legislation designated lands "for the sole use of Christian Indians and the Moravian Brethren missionaries for civilizing the Indians and promoting Christianity" is not supported by the historical evidence. The estate trust was granted because the Indians remained neutral during the American Revolution not because Congress intended to “propagate the Gospel among the heathen.”

End Notes:

[Note 1} See Michael Gaynor; The U.S. Supreme Court arbitrarily took separation of church and state much too far; July 19, 2005. Gaynor cites no source for the quotation "for the sole use of Christian Indians and the Moravian Brethren missionaries for civilizing the Indians and promoting Christianity" in his essay. The legal name of the Pennsylvania Corporation, organized by the Moravians and chartered by the State Assembly, that was granted the estate in trust for the benefit of the Indians was, “The Society of United Brethren for propagating the Gospel among the heathen.” http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/gaynor/050719

[Note 2] For a detailed history of the Moravians beginning in 1722 please see http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=038/llac038.db&recNum=113

[Note 3] For a Statement of facts from the President and directors of the Society of United Brethren for propagating the Gospel among the Heathers, established at Bethlehem, Northampton County, Pennsylvania, regarding the best information relative to certain Christian Indians and the lands intended for their benefit, on the Muskingum, in the State of Ohio, granted under an act of Congress of June 1, 1796, to the Society of United Brethren for propagating the Gospel among the Heathen. The report starts in 1742. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsp&fileName=008/llsp008.db&recNum=379