John Adams' Inaugural Address. March 4. 1797

[Voegelin]

aisy_Day.....sorry for my obscure sarcasm. There are posts on this forum on a regular basis explaining that Jefferson and others were *really* not Christians but deists. Atheists and gay sites have vast archives of carefully selected quotes which, given without context or with a distorted history, "prove" Christianity had nothing to do with the founding of America. These breathless posts are a regular feature in General Politics, as much a fixture of this forum as the posts every Christmas and Easter which explain to Christians that they don't know what their religious holidays are, that Christmas and Easter are not Christian at all but pagan ceremonies.

My use of "as everyone knows" is a Cold War allusion. So many editorials in the Soviet media began "As everyone knows" that the phrase became a joke among Russians and meant that what "everyone knows" was not true.

The link to the deist William Beadle was an attempt to show how absurd the "deist" theory of the founding of America is. Beadle was well known to many of the founders. His theology was not well received. A book was written, broadsides published and sermons given on Mr. Beadle.

 

[DaisyDay]

aisy_Day.....sorry for my obscure sarcasm. There are posts on this forum on a regular basis explaining that Jefferson and others were *really* not Christians but deists. Atheists and gay sites have vast archives of carefully selected quotes which, given without context or with a distorted history, "prove" Christianity had nothing to do with the founding of America. These breathless posts are a regular feature in General Politics, as much a fixture of this forum as the posts every Christmas and Easter which explain to Christians that they don't know what their religious holidays are, that Christmas and Easter are not Christian at all but pagan ceremonies.

My use of "as everyone knows" is a Cold War allusion. So many editorials in the Soviet media began "As everyone knows" that the phrase became a joke among Russians and meant that what "everyone knows" was not true.

The link to the deist William Beadle was an attempt to show how absurd the "deist" theory of the founding of America is. Beadle was well known to many of the founders. His theology was not well received. A book was written, broadsides published and sermons given on Mr. Beadle.

It isn't that Christians had nothing to do with the founding of American - that's patently untrue - but that America was not founded *as* a Christian Nation. Two different things.

Jefferson was an odd sort of Christian - he threw out all the parts of the Bible which were not directly attributable to Christ. I don't know if he worshipped God the Father or the Son or the Holy Ghost, although he obviously venerated His teachings.

 

[Ringo84]

I don't understand these endless debates about the faith of our founding fathers. Who cares?

One does not have to be "anti-Christian" or a non-Christian to recognize the value of preventing government intrusion in religion or religious intrusion in government. I am an example of that as much as the many people on this forum who are Christians and do not believe in government.state intrusion.

The founding fathers could have been Deists, Christians, Hindus, or worshipers of Wendy's Frostys. It doesn't matter. How they formed the basis of our government is what matters, and that basis is decidedly not Christian.
Ringo

 

[Voegelin]

It isn't that Christians had nothing to do with the founding of American - that's patently untrue - but that America was not founded *as* a Christian Nation. Two different things.

True. Constitutional amendments were offered all during the 19th century declaring America to be a Christian nation and all were, as we know rejected. 19th century "progressives" and members of "Ethical Societies" introduced amendments too--ones which separated church and state. They too were rejected (a fact which progressives today have trouble explaining when they tell us separation of church and state is in the constitution. If that is true, why did progressives try to amend the constitution to say that?)

However, to get back to the America founded as a Christian nation: the reason it wasn't is because most of the states had established churches. Church and state were not often separated. Fisher Ames, Patrick Henry, Roger Sherman, John Adams and others worried that if the Federal government did become involved in religion, it would take power way from state churches. That was the reason for the first amendment. Henry warned it would not work, he warned that lawyers would twist the words to mean the opposite of what they say. He warned lawyers would use the first amendment to repress the free exercise of religion. And he was right. They have.

Fisher Ames, who helped draft the first amendment, declared Federalism a failure in 1805. He said he and his fellow Federalist had overestimated the morality and virute of the people, he wrote that the vicious ( a reference to Jefferson) had joined forced with the ignorant and destroyed the vision of the founders.

Jefferson was an odd sort of Christian - he threw out all the parts of the Bible which were not directly attributable to Christ. I don't know if he worshipped God the Father or the Son or the Holy Ghost, although he obviously venerated His teachings.

I'm a cynic when it comes to Jefferson. I don't believe he agreed with most Unitarians even though he expressed the wish every person in the nation become a Unitarian. I don't think he believed in the ressurection as nearly all Unitarians of that time did.[sup]*[/sup] I believe he was what his Federalist enemies called him: a Jacobin. Probably an agnostic. Perhaps a deist. I believe he used religion solely for political purposes and, if he could have gotten away with it politically, would have promoted the views and policies toward religion which surfaced during the French Revolution. He certainly did all he could to smash New England Congregationalism. If he didn't need them as allies, I believe he would have turned on the Baptists and others next.

But all that is conjecture and opinion. Jefferson never spelled it out.

*Unitarians never had an official dogma but this by Channing comes closest to expressing what most of them thought regard Christ:

With regard to the great object which Jesus came to accomplish, there seems to be no possibility of mistake. We believe, that he was sent by the Father to effect a moral, or spiritual deliverance of mankind; that is, to rescue men from sin and its consequences, and to bring them to a state of everlasting purity and happiness. We believe, too, that he accomplishes this sublime purpose by a variety of methods; by his instructions respecting God's unity, parental character, and moral government, which are admirably fitted to reclaim the world from idolatry and impiety, to the knowledge, love, and obedience of the Creator; by his promises of pardon to the penitent, and of divine assistance to those who labor for progress in moral excellence; by the light which he has thrown on the path of duty; by his own spotless example, in which the loveliness and sublimity of virtue shine forth to warm and quicken, as well as guide us to perfection; by his threatenings against incorrigible guilt; by his glorious discoveries of immortality; by his sufferings and death; by that signal event, the resurrection, which powerfully bore witness to his divine mission . . .
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/detoc/religion/unitarian.html

 

[Ringo84]

They too were rejected (a fact which progressives today have trouble explaining when they tell us separation of church and state is in the constitution.

That's no problem at all. Church and state had been separated since the ratification of the Constitution. There was no need for redundant findings by the Supreme Court.

Separation of church and state is in the Constitution. You can deny whatever you like Voegelin. What you can't do is change clear history.

the reason it wasn't is because most of the states had established churches.

A matter which was resolved following "An Act for Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia, which said, in part:

"[T]hat no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no way diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

Once the state church in Virginia was disestablished, the state churches of the other twelve states soon followed. We have had no state churches since the ratification of the Constitution because it's never been constitutional.

Church and state were not often separated.

Not until the Constitution was ratified.

Fisher Ames, Patrick Henry, Roger Sherman, John Adams and others worried that if the Federal government did become involved in religion, it would take power way from state churches. That was the reason for the first amendment.

No it was not. Religious freedom was not some idea that was formed to protect state churches; that's a fairy tale. It was an idea that our founders debated quite a bit as they hammered out the amendments to the Constitution.

George Mason was asked in 1776 by Washington to draft the Virginia Declaration of Rights. He included in the first draft:

That as Religion, or the Duty which we owe to our divine and omnipotent Creator, and the Manner of discharging it, can governed only by Reason and Conviction, not by Force or violence; and therefore that all Men shou'd enjoy the fullest Toleration in the Exercise of Religion, according to the Dictates of Conscience, unpunished and unrestrained by the Magistrate, unless under Colour of Religion any man disturb the Peace, the Happiness, or safety of Society, or of Individuals. And it is the mutual Duty of all, to practice Christian forbearance, Love and Charity towards Each other.

The Virginia Declaration of Rights, which was adopted in 1786, was modeled after the Bill of Rights, which lends credence to the view that church and state separation was our founders' intent from the beginning.

Jefferson wrote an addition to the Act that reprimanded the magistrates and judges for not enforcing, upholding or creating laws that would coerce their own religious ideas upon others, calling their actions "sinful and tyrannical," even if they were forcing a person to follow their own beliefs. It read:

[T]hat no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no way diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

He warned lawyers would use the first amendment to repress the free exercise of religion. And he was right. They have.

There has been no repression of the free exercise of religion. Only church institution intrusions into our government have been struck down, and quite rightly.

Fisher Ames, who helped draft the first amendment

Not even in the Encyclopedia Brittanica is there any mention of Ames helping to draft the First Amendment. Wikipedia, too, is silent on the issue except to say that he "accepted the Bill of Rights".

He said he and his fellow Federalist had overestimated the morality and virute of the people, he wrote that the vicious ( a reference to Jefferson) had joined forced with the ignorant and destroyed the vision of the founders.

It's quite clear that the "vision of the founders" was not a vision of church and state intruding into the other's respective territories, but religious freedom that is protected through government non-support of religion.

Reality does seem to have a liberal bias after all.
Ringo

 

[Voegelin]

[/size][/color][/font]That's no problem at all. Church and state had been separated since the ratification of the Constitution. There was no need for redundant findings by the Supreme Court.

That doesn't respond to what I wrote. I didn't say anything about the Supreme Court. I referenced the drive by "progressives" and "ethical societies" to pass a constitutional amendment in the late 19th century separating church and state. If "separation of church and state" were in the constitution as you claim (which it isn't) they would not have needed to try to pass an amendment adding it to the constitution.

You can't change history Ringo84.

The fact the states had established religions in 1789 is a fact. The fact that "separation of church and state" does not appear in the constitution is a fact. The fact that Ames and others could and would have used the words "church and state shall be separated" or a similiar phrase if that is what they wanted the first amendment to mean is a fact.

The fact that, had they mandated a separation of church and state in the constitution, the constitution would never have been ratified is a fact.

The states were not about to hand over to the Federal government the power to abolish their state churches. They put "congress shall make no law" in the first amendment to ensure the Federal government did not mess with their established churches.

Adams drafted the MA constitution of 1780 which allowed the legislature to levy taxes to support Protestant churches. Do you really think he turned around and then supported the Federal government over-riding the state constitution he just helped write?
******

"What then does unite us? Certainly the common desire to be free and independent, but there is something more vital above and beyond that, and that is the common link that unites us - that distinguishes us from our enemies - a belief in God - in the life of the spirit as against the materialism and atheism that joins together the primitives who seek to destroy us and the things for which we stand"--John F. Kennedy.

 

[Ringo84]

You can't change history Ringo84.

Neither can you, Voegelin. And history does not support your arguments.

The fact the states had established religions in 1789 is a fact.

What's also a fact is that by the late 18th Century, the idea of state-established churches was losing popularity. Already Jefferson, Madison and Mason had argued for the separation of church and state, which would eliminate such abuses of state power. Part of the First Amendment's purpose was to prevent state-established churches, as the Massachusetts Bay colony and other settlements had previously had.

The Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom was designed specifically to defeat Patrick Henry's idea to force taxpayers to support Christianity. Once the bill was passed, the states began to disestablish their state churches one by one. We have no state churches today because of the First Amendment.

The fact that "separation of church and state" does not appear in the constitution is a fact.

It's also a fact that the word 'federalism' is not in the Constitution, and that the word 'trinity' is in the Bible. That does not mean that those things do not exist, but simply because the words themselves don't appear. We can still derive the ideas behind those two words by reading the Constitution and the Bible.

The fact that Ames and others could and would have used the words "church and state shall be separated" or a similiar phrase if that is what they wanted the first amendment to mean is a fact.

In fact, such wording was debated on the floor of Congress on August 20, 1789, when the following wording was approved by the House:

Congress shall name no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.

The wording was debated only in consideration of the Seventh Amendment, which gives special privileges to those of religious scruples in the provision for the right to bear arms. The question was not whether church and state should be separate, but the wording behind the Amendment which provided it.

The fact that, had they mandated a separation of church and state in the constitution, the constitution would never have been ratified is a fact.

Yet we still have a ratified Constitution. Imagine that.

The states were not about to hand over to the Federal government the power to abolish their state churches. They put "congress shall make no law" in the first amendment to ensure the Federal government did not mess with their established churches.

No. The "Congress shall make no law" clause was added due to concerns that the religion clause would abolish religion completely.

Adams drafted the MA constitution of 1780 which allowed the legislature to levy taxes to support Protestant churches. Do you really think he turned around and then supported the Federal government over-riding the state constitution he just helped write?

Massachusetts was one of several states that continued their state-established religions until 1833, when they were finally disestablished and the founding fathers' vision of no established religion was completed.
Ringo