The Founding Fathers: Why the veneration?

[JustOneWay]

Well you bring up some intersecting points with different origins.

First, the Bible is not a political document for the US Constitution. When opponents of homosexual marriage argued their case, it was not from the Bible, Quran or any other religious book. They quoted from the 10th Amendment.

Now 'people' at CF will quote the Bible on moral issues...Alas the "C" for CF is Christian. They are exercising their right to free speech. Last I checked Christians do have a right to vote in this country and shape the public discourse. Just as people who disagree with Christians have a right to do. Both have the right for redress as well.



Marriage law since our founding has always been a state matter based on the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
​

Their right to exercise their right to free speech to use the Bible in political context. This is what I said from the start.

 

[redleghunter]

Their right to exercise their right to free speech to use the Bible in political context. This is what I said from the start.

You mean entering in moral opinions on laws? Sure everyone does that even if they don't believe morals exist and live by some ethical model of their choosing. Same way preachers, pastors, priests and rabbis all marched in the Civil Rights movement because based on their moral beliefs they saw discrimination as wrong. But they did not enter into legislation quotes from the Bible, Quran or Torah. They quoted the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

 

[JustOneWay]

You mean entering in moral opinions on laws?

No, entering in moral opinions to create laws based on Biblical beliefs. That is what I said.


The Constitution and DOI says nothing about gay marriage.

 

[redleghunter]

No, entering in moral opinions to create laws based on Biblical beliefs. That is what I said.

Then please show me the legislation submitted on behalf of such with wording from the Bible and also the oral arguments presented to SCOTUS based on the Bible. Don't look too hard as they don't exist.

 

[Cute Tink]

I confirmed this by seeing no posts in the Amish forum.

Thanks for that.

 

[JustOneWay]

Then please show me the legislation submitted on behalf of such with wording from the Bible and also the oral arguments presented to SCOTUS based on the Bible. Don't look too hard as they don't exist.

strawman


I never said there was legislation drafted. This happens when a discussion becomes long and the initial comments are forgotten.

I wrote:
"Then how come so many republican politicians use it as a basis for the laws they want?"

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Who doesn't like the idea of sticking your middle finger up to the king and starting your own country?

 

[ViaCrucis]

It's all part of the Cultus Americanus. The American national cult.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Gxg (G²)]

As a German, it is a bit hard for me to understand a certain aspect of the american psyche, as exhibited on this forum. I would like people who care to do so help me to understand this.

Why do americans venerate the founders of their nation? Why do they hold their perceived or explicit opinions sacrosanct and argue about changes of the law or interpretations of olders laws with those opinions? Why is it important to so many american people what a bunch of rich landowners in the late 18th century thought and said and did, and why do they make current decisions, or argue against current decisions, based on this?

There is a religious aspect to things that is often overlooked. Americanism is in and of itself a religion.

Many of the Founding Fathers were Unitarian in thought, including George Washington ) and yet we in the spirit of Americanism (a heresy ) will automatically celebrate all the ways God used the Founders to impact the world even though they are literally deified.

As said elsewhere, There are many good/revolutionary things that the Founding Fathers were about when it came to the development of our nation's history. Other scholars like David Barton have spoken on that before and I am glad for it:

Glenn Beck -5-28-2010- Founders' Fridays- Black American Founders​

I remembered where I checked out some of Barton's material before since we had to study it in highschool....specifically his book "Original Intent." The Founding Fathers were often noted for being FAR from representing the people since many times the people were outright ignored. Especially with slavery. Granted, there were indeed those who were Black Founding Fathers and even that much has often not been represented in history the way it was......despite what was present in the history of the nation. - as other scholars like David Barton speaking in-depth on the matter.

With Barton's interview, some of the other things I really enjoyed hearing from the man were near the end when it came to him noting why believers need to be involved in the Civil Arena in light of what Christ said in Luke 19:13 on learning to occupy till He comes. ...and showing the Founding Fathers who supported it. Moreover, there were plenty of nations around the world using Christian language since it was the national religion of many countries (i.e British Empire), even though what was done in the name of Christ (as with imperialism and colonialism, etc) was not godly.

Furthermore, one of the main things I had some serious concern with was the reality of where the Founding Fathers were clearly into a lot of things, despite all Christian references, that were not Biblical...and in showing Biblical references in what they did, I thought it'd be beneficial to show everything else at some point of where many things did contaminate much of what they did. Specifically, their focus on FreeMasonry and the other issues done such as mistreatment of American Indians in a myriad of cruel ways. I don't think there's ever any way that such things can be white-washed away as being less than evil/condemning....

Additionally, the treatment of Native Americans is something that can never be taken lightly when it comes to the ways that they were often dismissed/not respected or represented well (more here and here).


I have noted the same before to one of my friends when he was talking on how the U.S was originally "Christian" - and I have sharply disagreed for a myriad of ways that one cannot be historically honest/ignore the ways that a lot of history with the Founding Fathers was not godly (more shared in #75, #27 , #56 , #61 #63 and #110 ).



From the beginning of our nation's history, what has been occurring is others realizing what has been practiced within the world of Christianity has really been a combination of Christian concepts and other Non-Christian ideas. More so Moralistic Therapeutic Deism

In our times, there does seem to be a return to Deism by many and it's not surprising in light of how often those in the history of the U.S have been propped up by others as examples of Christianity when they were in fact opposite of that.

For reference:

• "Mystical Sites - U.S Captitol / Vigiliant Citizen" ( )
• "Educate Yourself /Vigiliant Citizen"
• THOUSAND LIES - THE NATIVE AMERICAN
• Sins against Native Americans - PoliticsInHeaven"
• -"The Hidden Hand that Shaped History | The Vigilant "( )
• Monumental Myth « The Centrality and Supremacy of Jesus Christ

Psywar: The Real Battlefield is the Mind

George Washington was a freemason and a deist. He wouldn’t take communion with his wife. ...and he was also what's known as a Unitarian ..and due to his Unitarian views, held stances that supported both Christian principles and non-Christian beliefs such as Deism and other things. For reference:

​

• Realistic Visionary: A Portrait of George Washington.
• George Washington, David Barton and Unitarianism
• American Revolution: "I Think, Therefore I Am...a Unitarian"

One can also go here and here. John Adams spoke harshly at times about Christianity and religion in general in his private correspondence. He was a Christian Unitarian that believed the church service was good for everyone because it promoted morals and values among the masses. Thomas Jefferson, as a Diest, went so far to deny the divinity of Christ. He even created his own compilation of Jesus’ life from the gospels, which he entitled, “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.” He removed all evidence of the “supernatural” for a presentation of Jesus as a good moral teacher who is only to be admired, not worshipped. And there are other examples of where things they did/began were FAR from being what the Lord had in mind with Biblical laws

In example, there are pictures showing the Founding Fathers as gods..which is not surprising seeing that most of the Founding Fathers were very much into Freemasonry. There was one statue I remember seeing of George Washington IN D.C that had him in the form of a Greek GOD when I was visiting the place back in 2009. Seemed like they were trying to express the regal nature the president seemed to have and take it to another level, just as others have done often..

Additionally, the dome of the Capitol features in its occulus an incredibly significant painting that reveals the philosophical, spiritual and political aims of the Founding Fathers. Right in the very centre of the cast iron dome in the U.S Capitol is a painting of George Washington, ascended to the pantheon of ancient greek deities.



​

Astonishingly poor theology for 'one nation under God', but evidence of the high esteem George was held in by his 19th century successors. The building was completed (from memory) in the 1820s.

And there are many others besides that.

It's not hidden. I'm surprised many more don't talk on the ways the Founding Fathers were often deified multiple times and no one said anything on it for centuries. I'd wager that many don't tend to look for it due to assumptions they've already accepted on the Founding Fathers being fully dedicated believers and soldiers for Christ as has often been said by others in the Religious Right and others who had an idea of Christianity in mind which they supported/felt the FOunders did as well ( with the use of Biblical Language/scripture in their speeches being what influences others to see the history of the nation as being Christian in origin ), thus causing confirmation bias and people seeing what they have already been trained to see/zoom in on....even when the other darker aspects of what were present in the nation's founding/consistently growing are out in the open...from the monuments of our capitol to the things presidents swear into before taking office (like Bohemian Grove, if not aware of it - very dark reality )...and a lot of other mess.

So the religious history and their success is what leads to them being venerated.​

 

[redleghunter]

Thanks for that.

LOL yeah figured we needed a laugh. I actually had a poster going for a while on the Amish forum deal on another site.

It was a sports site. Told them the Amish had not posted their picks for a few games.

 

[redleghunter]

strawman


I never said there was legislation drafted. This happens when a discussion becomes long and the initial comments are forgotten.

I wrote:
"Then how come so many republican politicians use it as a basis for the laws they want?"

I have to chuckle a bit at the straw man comment as you created it by generalizing litigation by Bible thumping.

"Then how come so many republican politicians use it as a basis for the laws they want?"

Again, which politicians and what parts of the Bible are they trying to legislate or litigate?

I hope you are not confusing the efforts for free exercise of religion. They don't need the Bible for that. They have the 1st Amendment.

 

[redleghunter]

Who doesn't like the idea of sticking your middle finger up to the king and starting your own country?

A crass way of putting it but the King and Parliament flipped off the colonials first. To make matters worse the king sent in ships and divisions of soldiers to purposely do a gun grab. Thus Lexington and Concord.

Interesting perspective here:

http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/american-revolution-against-british-gun-control.html

So some still remember their history and how despots love to grab private citizens' guns.

 

[redleghunter]

It's all part of the Cultus Americanus. The American national cult.

-CryptoLutheran

Only for those who forget the actual history of the American colonies and choose to believe a rehashed narrative devoid of context.

 

[redleghunter]

Many of the Founding Fathers were Unitarian in thought, including George Washington )

We can start there. Not true. Unless you believe people in the late 20th century and now in the 21st century conducting revisionism.

History is based on factual evidence. What we have to examine in the open. George Washington was Anglican and after the war by default Episcopalian. Which means he was Trinitarian.

The rest of the founders? Here are the facts:

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

 

[Thunder Peel]

I'm curious why so many Europeans, who spend a lot of their time talking about how much they hate America and don't care about us, keep starting threads about America. I find it confusing, that like that ex you claim you don't love anymore but keep talking about anyway. What's the deal?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

We can start there. Not true. Unless you believe people in the late 20th century and now in the 21st century conducting revisionism.

History is based on factual evidence. What we have to examine in the open. George Washington was Anglican and after the war by default Episcopalian. Which means he was Trinitarian.

The rest of the founders? Here are the facts:

View attachment 168349


http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

You didn't start with a primary source, so that's already an issue of revisionism you'd need to own since quoting a website doesn't deal with the actual quotes from the fathers nor is it fact. Being Episcopalian was but ONE church affiliation he had in his lifetime and it was not exclusive of Unitarian thought.

Washington states in his Farewell Address, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports... And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

And as said elsewhere on that subject, for a brief excerpt:

The roots of Unitarian doctrine, though deeply entrenched in the rationalism of the Enlightenment, can be best explained by one of its earliest supporters. The Reverend Charles Chauncy of Boston became one of the earliest proponents of rationalism and intellectualism. These beliefs ended up putting him at odds with one of the heroes of the Great Awakening, Jonathan Edwards, who supported a passionate and emotional communion with Deity. In his pamphlet,Seasonable Thoughts on the State of Religion in New England, Chauncy lays out the case for intellectualism in religion. In response to the explosion of emotionalism brought on by the Great Awakening, Chauncy writes:

“Men may open to us the Temper of their Minds, in a Relation of their Experiences: But even here, we are liable to be deceived. They may be mistaken about their own State; and what is worse, may represent Things different from what they really are: so at the best we only judge in this case upon Supposition. And as there is so much Hypocrisy in the World, it would be but Prudence to hear Men’s Declarations, respecting themselves with a heedful caution. It may perhaps be a Truth here, as well as in other Cases, Actions speak louder than Words.”​

...Even contemporary Christian Nationalists follow the same formula as earlier Christian zealots in their attacks on Unitarianism, which they see as nothing more than Deism in disguise. Unitarian doctrine, however, was not merely an infusion of Deist ideology, but was an incorporation of both Christian and Deist principles. As the Reverend William Ellery Channing stated:

Let us learn the distinction between Trinitarianism and Unitarianism. Many use these words without meaning, and are very zealous about sounds. Some suppose that Trinitarianism consists in believing in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. But we all believe in these; we all believe that the Father sent the Son, and gives, to those that ask, the Holy Spirit. We are all Trinitarians, if this is the belief in Trinitarianism. But it is not. The Trinitarian believes that the one God is three distinct persons, called Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and he believes that each is the only true God, and yet that the three are only one God. This is Trinitarianism. The Unitarian believes that there is but one person possessing supreme Divinity, even the Father. This is the great distinction; let it be kept steadily in view…I am persuaded, that under these classes of high Unitarians many Christians ought to be ranked who call themselves orthodox and are Trinitarians (Reverend William Channing, 1798. Quoted in Sydney Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People, 395).
​

Reverend Channing further explains the rationale of Unitarian thought when he writes:

It seems to me of singular importance that Christianity should be recognized and presented in its true character…The low views of our religion, which have prevailed too long, should give place to this highest one. They suited perhaps darker ages. But they have done their work, and should pass away. Christianity should now be disencumbered and set free…It should come forth from the darkness and corruption of the past in its own celestial splendour, and in its divine simplicity. It should be comprehended as having but one purpose, the perfection of human nature, the elevation of men into nobler beings (Reverend William Channing, The Essence of the Cristian Religion, 1798. Quoted in Sydney Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People, 399).
​

While Reverend Channing was a more Christian-leaning Unitarian, his statements help to illustrate the fact that Unitarianism was an incorporation of both Deist and Christian philosophy. The fact that Channing openly questions Trinitarian doctrine is of note because it illustrates the fact that Unitarianism relied heavily on the rationalism of enlightened Deism. This explains why Unitarians such as James Madison were so vehemantly opposed to orthodox Trinitarian Christianity, but not opposed to the doctrines of Christ. In his Memorial and Remonstrance, Madison openly attacks Christianity as it had been practiced, but also defends the “pure” religion of Christ:

experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation.During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?
​

This understanding of Unitarian doctrine also helps us to understand why George Washington refused to take Communion, but still regularly attended the Episcopal Church. As Sydney Ahlstrom states, “For the Unitarian…the Lord’s Supper was regarded more and more as neither a sacramental ‘means of grace’ nor a ‘converting ordinance,’ but as a simple memorial”(Religious History, 391).

For the orthodox Christian, however, Communion still remained an extremely important ordinance and expression of public faith and piety. For Washington to omit such a practice from his personal religious practices is a perfect illustration of his Unitarian leanings. In conclusion, it it important to note that each of our key founders -- Madison, Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Monroe, Hamilton, Adams -- were profoundly impacted by Unitarian philosophy. This explains why these men were able to both embrace AND reject Christian doctrines. Unitarianism was the key religion of our mainstream founders, and it allowed them the flexibility to believe -- or disbelieve -- as much or as little of the Christian faith as they personally saw fit.​

 

[Nithavela]

I'm curious why so many Europeans, who spend a lot of their time talking about how much they hate America and don't care about us, keep starting threads about America. I find it confusing, that like that ex you claim you don't love anymore but keep talking about anyway. What's the deal?

Maybe we are not a hivemind. I don't hate america, at least, and never said otherwise. I disagreed with some things some of your people or your government said or did, but I'm pretty sure that's something many americans do so, too.

And in my opinion, hate stems from a lack of understand and unfamiliarity, resulting in prejudice and inhumanisation. So, I try to understand and to learn.

Sorry to ruin your whole "gotcha" post here.

 

[JustOneWay]

I have to chuckle a bit at the straw man comment as you created it by generalizing litigation by Bible thumping.



Again, which politicians and what parts of the Bible are they trying to legislate or litigate?

I hope you are not confusing the efforts for free exercise of religion. They don't need the Bible for that. They have the 1st Amendment.

Google it. One of the Presidential candidates wants a Constitutional change denying gays.

Your comment was a strawman. You presented something which I never said then you proved it wrong. Do you understand a strawman fallacy?

 

[paul becke]

It seems the history of your country has been revealed very selectively in terms of the massive famine caused by the Great Depression, though John Steinbeck's novel, The Grapes of Wrath, give a strong indication of it, and the total heartlessness of the libertarian capitalist system, which offered no safety-net to those ruined by the banks, e.g. the 5 million farmers (a million families).

http://journal-neo.org/2016/01/05/holodomor-in-the-united-states/

 

[paul becke]

It seems the history of your country has been revealed very selectively in terms of the massive famine caused by the Great Depression, though John Steinbeck's novel, The Grapes of Wrath, give a strong indication of it, and the total heartlessness of the libertarian capitalist system, which offered no safety-net to those ruined by the banks, e.g. the 5 million farmers (a million families).

http://journal-neo.org/2016/01/05/holodomor-in-the-united-states/

Though, if I remember correctly, Benjamin Franklin or one of the others, maybe Washington, was more than wise to the potential harm the banks could wreak, and warned about it.