Quote:
Originally Posted by smartmouthwoman
I didn't mean that YOU said that, DF. Actually, the whole point of my post to you was in regard to an earlier discussion we had where you explained how you were taught that the pilgrims came to American in search of economic gain... not religious freedom. That's where our educations differ considerably. Economic gain was never brought up in my studies. That exchange was a real eye-opener to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkfantasy96
Well, the Pilgrims were in search of economic freedom, but they weren't the only colonists - they weren't even the first. And religious pilgrims certainly didn't make up the majority of colonists. It is interesting that history classes have changed so much. Our tendency to whitewash things and make the past look great is definitely waning - just look at lessons about Columbus for evidence of that! I'm glad that students are now being taught the less biased truth. However, I'm still okay with whitewashing for small children. First graders don't need to know that all the Indians who ate with the Pilgrims at the first Thanksgiving were later murdered and/or oppressed and taken advantage of by the same people they helped and welcomed.

Been thinking about our discussion, DF. So much so, that I looked up some facts about the subject. Here's an introduction to a quote I'd like you to read and tell me if it was included in any of your American History lessons...

America's History & Christian Heritage

Despite what you may hear from the media and public school textbooks, America was founded as a Christian nation. In 1620, long before the United States won its independence from England, the Pilgrims came to America's shores with this mission statement,

“[W]e all came to these parts of America, with one and the same end and aim, namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ.” – New England Confederation of 1643

http://www.americanvision.org/christianheritage.asp

Lots of info out there about teaching without taking 'sides' on issues dealing with Christianity and I personally find the subject extremely interesting... and important.

What do you think?

:)
SMW

The actual document the quote was taken from:

New England Articles of Confederation (1643)

The Articles of Confederation between the Plantations under the Government of the Massachusetts, the Plantations under the Government of New Plymouth, the Plantations under the Government of Connecticut, and the Government of New Haven with the Plantations in Combination therewith:

Whereas we all came into these parts of America with one and the same end and aim, namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and to enjoy the liberties of the Gospel in purity with peace; and whereas in our settling (by a wise providence of God) we are further dispersed upon the sea coasts and rivers than was at first intended, so that we can not according to our desire with convenience communicate in one government and jurisdiction; and whereas we live encompassed with people of several nations and strange languages which hereafter may prove injurious to us or our posterity. And forasmuch as the natives have formerly committed sundry insolence and outrages upon several Plantations of the English and have of late of late combined themselves against us: and seeing by reason of those sad distractions in England which they have heard of, and by which they know we are hindered from that humble way of seeking advice, or reaping those comfortable fruits of protection, which at other times we might well expect. We therefore do conceive it our bounden duty, without delay to enter into a present Consociation amongst ourselves, for mutual help and strength in all our future concernments: That, as in nation and religion, so in other respects, we be and continue one according to the tenor and true meaning of the ensuing articles: Wherefore it is fully agreed and concluded by and between the parties or Jurisdictions above named, and they jointly and severally do by these presents agree and conclude that they all be and henceforth be called by the name of the United Colonies of New England.

The said United Colonies for themselves and their posterities do jointly and severally hereby enter into a firm and perpetual league of friendship and amity for offence and defence, mutual advice and succor upon all just occasions both for preserving and propagating the truth and liberties of the Gospel and for their own mutual safety and welfare.

It is further agreed that the Plantations which at present are or hereafter shall be settled within the limits of the Massachusetts shall be forever under the Massachusetts and shall have peculiar jurisdiction among themselves in all cases as an entire body, and that Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven shall each of them have like peculiar jurisdiction and government within their limits; and in reference to the Plantations which already are settled or shall hereafter be erected, or shall settle within their limits respectively; provided no other Jurisdiction shall hereafter be taken in as a distinct head or member of this Confederation, nor shall any other Plantation or Jurisdiction in present being, and not already in combination or under the jurisdiction of any of these Confederates, be received by any of them; nor shall any two of the Confederates join in one Jurisdiction without the consent of the rest, which consent to be interpreted as is expressed in the sixth article ensuing.

It is by these Confederates agreed that the charge of all just wars, whether offensive or defensive, upon what part or member of this Confederation soever they fall, shall both in men, provisions, and all other disbursements be borne by all the parts of this Confederation in different proportions according to their different ability in manner following, namely, that the Commissioners for each Jurisdiction from time to time, as there shall be occasion, bring a true account and number of all their males males in every Plantation, or any way belonging to or under their several Jurisdictions, of what quality or condition soever they be, from sixteen to threescore, being inhabitants there. And that according to the different numbers from which from time to time shall be found in each Jurisdiction upon a true and just account, the service of men and all charges of the war be borne by the poll: eachJurisdiction or Plantation being left to their own just course and custom of rating themselves and people according to their different estates with due respects to their qualities and exemptions amongst themselves though the Confederation take no notice of any such privilage: and that according to their different charge of each Jurisdiction and Plantation the whole advantage of the war (if it please God so to bless their endeavors) whether it be in lands, goods, or persons, shall be proportionately divided among the said Confederates.

It is further agreed, that if any of these Jurisdictions or any Plantation under or in combination with them, be invaded by any enemy whomsoever, upon notice and request of any three magistrates of that Jurisdiction so invaded, the rest of the Confederates without any further meeting or expostulation shall forthwith send aid to the Confederate in danger but in different proportions; namely, the Massachusetts an hundred men sufficiently armed and provided for such a service and journey, and each of the rest, forty five so armed and provided, or any less number, if less be required according to this proportion. But if such Confederate in danger may be supplied by their next Confederates, not exceeding the number hereby agreed, they may crave help there, and seek no further for the present: the charge to be borne as in this article is expressed: and at the return to be victualled and supplied with the powder and shot for their journey (if there be need) by that Jurisdiction which employed or sent for them; But none of the Jurisdictions to exceed these numbers until by a meeting of the Commissioners for this Confederation a greater aid appear necessary. And this proportion to continue till upon knowledge of greater numbers in each Jurisdiction which shall be brought to the next meeting, some other proportion be ordered. But in any such case of sending men for present aid, whether before or after such order or alteration, it is agreed that at the meeting of the Commissioners for this Confederation, the cause of such war or invasion be duly considered: and if it appear that the fault lay in the parties so invaded then that Jurisdiction or Plantation make just satisfaction, both to the invaders whom they have injured, and bear all the charges of the war themselves, without requiring any allowance from the rest of the Confederates towards the same. And further that if any Jurisdiction see any danger of invasion approaching,, and there be time for a meeting, that in such a case three magistrates of the Jurisdiction may summon a meeting at such convenient place as themselves shall think meet, to consider and provide against the threatened danger; provided when they are met they may remove to what place they please; only whilst any of these four Confederates have but three magistrates in their Jurisdiction, their requests, or summons, from any of them shalm be accounted of equal force with the three mentioned in both the clauses of this article, till there be an increase of magistrates there.

It is also agreed, that for the managing and concluding of all affairs proper, and concerning the whole Confederation two Commissioners shall be chosen by and out of each of these four Jurisdictions: namely, two for the Massachusetts, two for Plymouth, two for Connecticut, and two for New Haven, being all in Church fellowhip with us which shall bring full power from their several General Courts respectively to hear, examine, weigh and determine all affairs of our war, or peace, leagues, aids, charges, and numbers of men for war, division of spoils and whatsoever is gotten by conquest, receiving of more Confederates for Planatations into combination with any of the Confederates, and all things of like nature, which are the proper concomitants or consequents of such a Confederation for amity, offence, and defence: not intermeddling with the government of any of the Jurisclictions, which by the third article is preserved entirely, to themselves. But if these eight Commissioners when they meet shall not all agree yet it [is] concluded that any six of the eight agreeing shall have power to settle and determine the business in question. But if six do not agree, that then such propositions with their reasons so far as they have been debated, be sent and referred to the four General Courts; namely, the Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven; and if at all the said General Courts the business so referred be concluded, then to be prosecuted by the Conderferates and all their members. It is further agreed that these eight Commissioners shall meet once every year besides extraordinary meetings (accorcling to the fifth article) to consider, treat, and conclude of all affairs belonging to this Confederation, which meeting shall ever be the first Thursday in September. And that the next meeting after the date of these presents, which shall be accounted the second meeting, shall be at Boston in the Massachusetts, the third at Hartford, the fourth at New Haven, the fifth at Plvmouth, the sixth and seventh at Boston; and then Hartford, New Haven, and Plymouth, and so in course successively, if in the meantime some middle place be not found out and agreed on, which may be commodious for all the Jurisdictions

It is further agreed that at each meeting of these eight Commissioners, whether ordinary or extraordinary they or six of them agreeing as before, may choose their President out of themselves whose office and work shall be to take care and direct for order and a comely carrying on of all proceedings in the present meeting but he shall be invested with no such power or respect, which he shall hinder the propounding or progress of any business or any way cast the scales otherwise than in the precedent article is agreed.

It is also agreed that the. Commissioners for this Confederation hereafter a their meetings, whether ordinary or extraordinary as they may have commission or opportunity, do endeavor to frame and establish agreements and orders in general cases of a civil nature, wherein all the Plantations are interested, for preventing as much as may be all occasion of war or differences with others, as about the free and speedy pasage of justice in every Jurisdiction, to all the Confederates equally as to their own, receiving those that remove from one Plantation to another without due certificate, how all the Jurisdictions, may carry it towards the Indians, that they neither grow insolent nor be injured without due satisfaction, lest war break in upon the Confederates through such miscarriages. It is also agreed that if any servant run away from his master into any other of these confederated Jurisdictions, that in such case, upon the certificate of one magistrate in the Jurisdiction out of which the said servant fled or upon other due proof; the said servant shall be delivered, either to his master or any other that pursues and brings such certificate or proof. And that upon the escape of any prisoner whatsoever, or fugitive for any criminal cause, whether breaking prison, or getting from the officer, or otherwise escaping,, upon the certificate of two mag istrates of the Jurisdiction out of which the escape is made, that he was a prisoner, or such an offender at the time of the escape, the magistrates, or some of them of that Jurisdiction where for the present the said prisoner or fugitive abideth, shall forthwith grant such a warrant as the case will bear, for the apprehending of any such person, and the delivery of him into the hands of the officer or person who pursues him. And if there be help required for safe returning of any such offender, then it shall be granted to him that craves the same, paying the charges thereof.
And for that the justest wars may be of dangerous consequence, especially to the smaller Plantations in the United Colonies, it is agreed that neither the Massachetts, Plymouth, Connecticut, nor New Haven, nor any of the members of them, shall at any timehereafter begin, undertake, or engage themselves, or this Confederation,or any part thereof in any war whatsoever (sudden exigencies, with the necessary consequents thereof excepted), which are also to be moderated as much as the case will permit, without the consent and agreement of the formentioned eight Commissioners, or at least six of them. as in the sixth article is provided: and that no charge be required of any of the Confederates, in case of a defensive war, till the Commissioners have met, and approved the justice of the war, and have agreed upon the sum of money to be levid, which sum is then to be paid by the several Confederates in porporation according to the fourth article.

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/D/1601-1650/england/neartconf.htm

Easy to see how a motivated educator could take one or two sentences from that complex document and use it to prove his or her stance... regardless of which side of the issue they believe.

Originally Posted by darkfantasy96
First graders don't need to know that all the Indians who ate with the Pilgrims at the first Thanksgiving were later murdered and/or oppressed and taken advantage of by the same people they helped and welcomed.

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

DF, with all due respect, this statement is simply not correct.
King Phillip's War, the bloody conflict between white settlers and the natives of southern New England, began in 1675.

The Plymouth Colony was founded 1620. Few, if any of these original Pilgrims were alive when this conflict broke out--and there were numerous reasons for it as well.

Here's a very brief summary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Philip's_War

Try this link instead:

http://www.historyplace.com/specials/kingphilip.htm

Here's something interesting from the Library of Congress' exhibition--"Religion and the Founding of the American Republic":


America as a Religious Refuge:
The Seventeenth Century

"Many of the British North American colonies that eventually formed the United States of America were settled in the seventeenth century by men and women, who, in the face of European persecution, refused to compromise passionately held religious convictions and fled Europe. The New England colonies, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland were conceived and established "as plantations of religion." Some settlers who arrived in these areas came for secular motives--"to catch fish" as one New Englander put it--but the great majority left Europe to worship God in the way they believed to be correct. They enthusiastically supported the efforts of their leaders to create "a city on a hill" or a "holy experiment," whose success would prove that God's plan for his churches could be successfully realized in the American wilderness. Even colonies like Virginia, which were planned as commercial ventures, were led by entrepreneurs who considered themselves "militant Protestants" and who worked diligently to promote the prosperity of the church. "


Here's more:


http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/

Ren - I meant the group of Indians, not the individuals, but minor point... Of course I don't think the Indians were completely defenseless and innocent, but the way these things are taught will probably swing that way for a few years now to compensate for the pro-European whitewashing that's been going on. However, I also hope that eventually we will be able to find a minimally biased explanation. :)

Despite what you may hear from the media and public school textbooks, America was founded as a Christian nation. In 1620, long before the United States won its independence from England, the Pilgrims came to America's shores with this mission statement,

“[W]e all came to these parts of America, with one and the same end and aim, namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ.” – New England Confederation of 1643


I do not think America was "founded as a Christian nation". The founding of our nation happened about 150 years after the Pilgrims arrived, so I would question the validity of going back to them to see if it was indeed founded as a specifically Christian country, even more so because the Pilgrims were not the first North American colonists.

If you mean "founded as a Christian nation" in that most of the people in the nation were Christian, then yes, you are absolutely correct. However, I tend to take that phrase as implying slightly more, like a bit more of an official sanction. Our original government was careful not to give that official sanction to any religion, thinking that it could facilitate the later establishment of an official religion.

Ren - I meant the group of Indians, not the individuals, but minor point... Of course I don't think the Indians were completely defenseless and innocent, but the way these things are taught will probably swing that way for a few years now to compensate for the pro-European whitewashing that's been going on. However, I also hope that eventually we will be able to find a minimally biased explanation. :)



I do not think America was "founded as a Christian nation". The founding of our nation happened about 150 years after the Pilgrims arrived, so I would question the validity of going back to them to see if it was indeed founded as a specifically Christian country, even more so because the Pilgrims were not the first North American colonists.

If you mean "founded as a Christian nation" in that most of the people in the nation were Christian, then yes, you are absolutely correct. However, I tend to take that phrase as implying slightly more, like a bit more of an official sanction. Our original government was careful not to give that official sanction to any religion, thinking that it could facilitate the later establishment of an official religion.


Your original statement was the pilgrims came to America looking for economic rewards... not freedom of religion. It's that part of your education I'm the most interested in. Do you remember when you were taught to believe that fact? Grade school? High school? College?

:)
SMW

Your original statement was the pilgrims came to America looking for economic rewards... not freedom of religion. It's that part of your education I'm the most interested in. Do you remember when you were taught to believe that fact? Grade school? High school? College?

:)
SMW
I never said that. I said that the people in Virginia, the first colonists, were out for economic gain. If you can find me a post where I said the pilgrims were out for money I'll be extremely shocked.

Ren - I meant the group of Indians, not the individuals, but minor point... Of course I don't think the Indians were completely defenseless and innocent, but the way these things are taught will probably swing that way for a few years now to compensate for the pro-European whitewashing that's been going on. However, I also hope that eventually we will be able to find a minimally biased explanation. :)



I do not think America was "founded as a Christian nation". The founding of our nation happened about 150 years after the Pilgrims arrived, so I would question the validity of going back to them to see if it was indeed founded as a specifically Christian country, even more so because the Pilgrims were not the first North American colonists.

.

1. my bad--thought you meant the settlers of Plymouth.

2. That's correct--the FF's did not want ANY kind of state sponsored religion. However, they were, by and large, either Christians or theists. Few, if any, were athiest, excepting Paine and he's not a FF.

I never said that. I said that the people in Virginia, the first colonists, were out for economic gain. If you can find me a post where I said the pilgrims were out for money I'll be extremely shocked.

Unfortunately, it appears most of the old threads on the Religious forums have been deleted. And it doesn't really matter anyway. If you say you didn't mean the pilgrims, I'll take your word for it.

One thing that bothers me though.

You seem to be 100% sure that everything you've been taught so far is a 100% true representation of actual historic events and have hinted that you believe what me and my generation were taught was simply 'whitewashed' versions of the truth.

Please know that history has NOT changed and that what you learn is always 'colored' by the personal views of whoever is teaching the subject. The same was true for my generation and generations before me and will no doubt be true for your children and their children. There is no such thing as a 100% unbiased teacher nor 100% irrefutable 'facts' about things that happened hundreds of years ago.

Which boils down to this advice... take those 'facts' with a grain of salt and leave your mind open to the possibility that things may not always be quite as cut & dried as your textbooks say. The important lesson is to learn to appreciate the sacrifices people made to get us where we are today and understand that it's your responsibility to do the same for future generations.

I'm sure you're smart enough to already know that... but it makes me feel better to say it.

;)
SMW

Which is one of the many reasons an educated person needs to do most of their learning on their own!

And read a variety of books-- presenting a vriety of sides to a topic.

Take my grandpa. He was a Civil War dude all his life. He never stopped reading up on it. He read continously and studied continously--BOTH sides--for balance.

He was the greatest scholar and fairest historian i've ever known.

Interesting blog piece from RELIGION IN AMERICAN HISTORY...

A must-read: our contributing editor John Fea's piece "Is America a Christian Nation: What Both the Left and Right Get Wrong," from the History News Network. My favorite paragraph:

Thinking historically does not mean that people cannot learn from the past -- they should and must. But they should be careful how they use historical examples. Exploring the past requires a concern for what it was really like. The past is like a foreign country. Those who enter it as guests should try to understand its foreignness in a way that respects our dead ancestors who inhabit it. We must not invade the past with the goal of remaking it into our own image. The past may not always be useful when we want to invoke it. But only when we confront it head-on, without preconceived agendas, will we be able to learn from it and let it transform us.

http://usreligion.blogspot.com/search/label/christian%20nation

2. That's correct--the FF's did not want ANY kind of state sponsored religion. However, they were, by and large, either Christians or theists. Few, if any, were athiest, excepting Paine and he's not a FF.
Yep, I do know that.

SMW- I don't think that everything I've learned about history is absolute fact (it'd be pretty stupid of me to believe that, since I've heard so many things that contradict each other...) There is really no such thing as "absolute fact" with history. Since we can't go back in time and see what really happened, we will never really know. I do believe that history classes are more accurate now than they were 50 years ago, because we are always finding new things in history, old documents and physical evidence of things that changes the story.

Been thinking about our discussion, DF. So much so, that I looked up some facts about the subject. Here's an introduction to a quote I'd like you to read and tell me if it was included in any of your American History lessons...

America's History & Christian Heritage

Despite what you may hear from the media and public school textbooks, America was founded as a Christian nation. In 1620, long before the United States won its independence from England, the Pilgrims came to America's shores with this mission statement,

“[W]e all came to these parts of America, with one and the same end and aim, namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ.” – New England Confederation of 1643

http://www.americanvision.org/christianheritage.asp

Lots of info out there about teaching without taking 'sides' on issues dealing with Christianity and I personally find the subject extremely interesting... and important.

What do you think?

:)
SMW
If it's a matter of "who was here first", then we are a polytheistic nation following whatever religion the native Americans had.

If it's a matter of what the founding fathers thought, then we are a nation where we are free to be whatever faith we want to be, and the government is completely divorced from religion.

I do, however, find it rather amusing that the pilgrims came over here originally to avoid religious persecution...because they were too extreme and wanted to persecute everyone.

2. That's correct--the FF's did not want ANY kind of state sponsored religion. However, they were, by and large, either Christians or theists. Few, if any, were athiest, excepting Paine and he's not a FF.------------------------------------ More founding fathers were Deists and they are not Christians. The 1796 treaty of Tripoli states that the United States was"in no way founded on the Christians religion."

More founding fathers were Deists and they are not Christians.

Prove it.

Benjanmin Franklin was an atheist and a member of the Hellfire Club.

Ah, afinertouch, you're right that they were Deists. However, the definition of deist has changed since then. Back then, many Deists were (like Thomas Jefferson) Christians who accepted the teachings of Jesus without the supernatural aspect (e.g. no miracles, not the son of god, etc.). Go look up Thomas Jefferson's Bible - quite interesting!

Benjamin Franklin was not an atheist. From Wikipedia's article on him:
Although Franklin's parents had intended for him to have a career in the church, Franklin became disillusioned with organized religion after discovering Deism. "I soon became a thorough Deist."[29]

...

John Adams noted that Franklin was a mirror in which people saw their own religion: "The Catholics thought him almost a Catholic. The Church of England claimed him as one of them. The Presbyterians thought him half a Presbyterian, and the Friends believed him a wet Quaker." Whatever else Benjamin Franklin was, concludes Morgan, "he was a true champion of generic religion." Ben Franklin was noted to be "the spirit of the Enlightenment."

Walter Isaacson argues that Franklin became uncomfortable with an unenhanced version of deism and came up with his own conception of the Creator.[31] Franklin outlined his concept of deity in 1728, in his Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion.[33] From this, Isaacson compares Franklin's conception of deity to that of strict deists and orthodox Christians. He concludes that unlike most pure deists, Franklin believed that a faith in God should inform our daily actions, but that, like other deists, his faith was devoid of sectarian dogma.

Few, if any, were athiest, excepting Paine and he's not a FF.
Paine was a deist as well, actually.

Ah, afinertouch, you're right that they were Deists. However, the definition of deist has changed since then. Back then, many Deists were (like Thomas Jefferson) Christians who accepted the teachings of Jesus without the supernatural aspect (e.g. no miracles, not the son of god, etc.). Go look up Thomas Jefferson's Bible - quite interesting!

Benjamin Franklin was not an atheist. From Wikipedia's article on him:
Well, yes and no. Jefferson thought Jesus was a cool guy with some good moral teachings, but by no means was he a Christian.

Well, yes and no. Jefferson thought Jesus was a cool guy with some good moral teachings, but by no means was he a Christian. Exactly.

Christianity neither is,nor ever was a part of the Common Law. ---Thomas Jefferson

then were did common law come from?

then were did common law come from?
The concept? England.

Well, yes and no. Jefferson thought Jesus was a cool guy with some good moral teachings, but by no means was he a Christian.
I learned that he considered himself a Christian, as in a follower of Christ's teachings, not a member of the Christian church. I find this particular passage from Wikipedia to be very interesting:
Jefferson did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, but he had high esteem for Jesus' moral teachings, which he viewed as the "principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform [prior Jewish] moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice & philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state."

Paine was a deist as well, actually. I did not say that he was an atheist rendova did!!!

Ah, afinertouch, you're right that they were Deists. However, the definition of deist has changed since then. Back then, many Deists were (like Thomas Jefferson) Christians who accepted the teachings of Jesus without the supernatural aspect (e.g. no miracles, not the son of god, etc.). Go look up Thomas Jefferson's Bible - quite interesting!

Benjamin Franklin was not an atheist. From Wikipedia's article on him: Well I guess I thought he was since he was a member of the Hellfire club and they mocked religion. I guess he was not the only Deist that belonged to that group.

Well I guess I thought he was since he was a member of the Hellfire club and they mocked religion. I guess he was not the only Deist that belonged to that group.
Nope. Deists did not like the corruption of organized religion at all.

Nope. Deists did not like the corruption of organized religion at all. Well yes I realize that Deist don't believe in organized religion I just did not realize that there were Deist in the Hellfire club.

I did not say that he was an atheist rendova did!!!

So I did, yes. I've always considered him such. He had nothing good to say about ANY religion, if I recall his writings correctly.

I do, however, find it rather amusing that the pilgrims came over here originally to avoid religious persecution...because they were too extreme and wanted to persecute everyone.

Borg, do you mean the Seperatists, or the Puritans?
Two rather distinct groups there, and neither especially desired to persecute others. In their own Colony, it was accepted you were a fellow Puritan or you wouldn't be there.

Both groups really wanted to be left alone to worship as they saw fit, a favor they weren't granted in England.......They didn't go out of their way to persecute others. However, there were some who did try to convert the natives.

More founding fathers were Deists and they are not Christians. The 1796 treaty of Tripoli states that the United States was"in no way founded on the Christians religion."

I was meaning in their personal lives.

Here, these are quotes from the people you all are talking about, Diest is more or less considered to be a denomination of Christianity when these people said these things.

More like what DF is saying.

"I therefore beg leave to move--that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service."


"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God Governs the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?

"I never doubted, for instance, the existence of the Deity; that he made the world, and governed it by his Providence; that the most acceptable service of God was the doing good to man; that our souls are immortal; and that all crime will be punished, and virtue rewarded either here or hereafter.

"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.

"The pleasures of this world are rather from God's goodness than our own merit."

Ben Franklin


"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion.

To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to laud the more distinguished Character of Christian."

"No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States."

"Grant that I may hear it with reverence, receive it with meekness, mingle it with faith, and that it may accomplish in me gracious God, the good work for which Thou hast sent it.

"Bless my family, kindred, friends and country, be our God and guide this day and forever for His sake, who lay down in the grave and arose again for us, Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."

George Washington



"The only foundation for useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion."

"To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others..."

"I consider the doctrines of Jesus as delivered by himself to contain the outlines of the sublimest system of morality that has ever been taught but I hold in the most profound detestation and execration the corruptions of it which have been invented..."

"Earnestly recommended to all officers and soldiers, diligently to attend divine services."

Thomas Jefferson


Why would they say these things?

It's really hard to get a handle on Jefferson. He said so many conflicting things and his wrtings are numerous.

I know one thing--he talked a good game and was basically a polititician, nothing more.

He was not well thought of by many New Englanders of the time. They considered him the world's biggest phoney--good ole "Massa Tom".

So I did, yes. I've always considered him such. He had nothing good to say about ANY religion, if I recall his writings correctly. Well I'm sure your not the only one that thought he was an atheist. And he might as well have been to christians because they would believe he would go to hell for not believing in Christ. And even if he wasn't a founding father his writings sure influenced them.... He has some good quotes.. "Persecution is not an original feature in any religion:but is is alwasys the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law." Thomas Paine

Why would they say these things?
'Cause they're politicians?

John Adams was the only one who truly wanted to see Christianity in the government, as I recall. The rest hated the idea.

I'm not aware of a single FF who claimed that Paine was going to go to Hell, AFT. Remember how enlightened most of these men were.

A few of the commoners may have thought so but they had little to do with our Constitution and by that time Paine had skedaddled back to England anyway.
Yep, when the going got tough, he left.
He ain't my favorite guy in American history--over rated, IMO.

Well I'm sure your not the only one that thought he was an atheist. And he might as well have been to christians because they would believe he would go to hell for not believing in Christ. And even if he wasn't a founding father his writings sure influenced them.... He has some good quotes.. "Persecution is not an original feature in any religion:but is is alwasys the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law." Thomas Paine


"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."

"Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.

"What we obtain too cheaply, we esteem too lightly; 'tis dearness only that gives everything its value. Heaven knows how to put a price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.

"The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. Where, some say, is the king of America? I'll tell you, friend, He reigns above.

"Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be placed on the divine law, the Word of God; let a crown be placed thereon.

"The Almighty implanted in us these inextinguishable feelings for good and wise purposes. They are the guardians of His image in our heart. They distinguish us from the herd of common animals."

"I would give worlds, if I had them, if The Age of Reason had never been published. O Lord, help! Stay with me! It is hell to be left alone."


"I die in perfect composure and resignation to the will of my Creator, God."


He said a lot to.

John Adams was the only one who truly wanted to see Christianity in the government, as I recall. The rest hated the idea.

I think Hamilton may have desired this. He became quite religious after his son was shot in a duel, probably before that.

Christianity neither is,nor ever was a part of the Common Law. ---Thomas Jefferson

I have always assumed that, until the acceptance of the US Constitution, English Common Law was the basis of law in the US Colonies. Jefferson's quote seems to indicate my assumption was incorrect. To what Common Law was he referring?

The rest hated the idea.

Wheres the proof of that?

Before I head off to the old corralerino, I was talking with the local president of the SAR the other day and he said, "The FF's didn't desire to keep religion out of government. They wanted to keep government out of religion!"

Here, these are quotes from the people you all are talking about, Diest is more or less considered to be a denomination of Christianity when these people said these things.

More like what DF is saying.





Why would they say these things? Who knows why politicians say a lot of things. But Washington was not a Deist he was an Episcopalian.

I think Hamilton may have desired this. He became quite religious after his son was shot in a duel, probably before that.

"I now offer you the outline of the plan they have suggested. Let an association be formed to be denominated 'The Christian Constitutional Society,' its object to be first: The support of the Christian religion. second: The support of the United States.

"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man.

"A...virtuous citizen will regard his own country as a wife, to whom he is bound to be exclusively faithful and affectionate; and he will watch...every propensity of his heart to wander towards a foreign country, which he will regard as a mistress that may pervert his fidelity."

Quotes from Hamilton.

"Night to all----see, we can have nice discussions here! :)

Who knows why politicians say a lot of things. But Washington was not a Deist he was an Episcopalian.

What was a Episcopalian in the 1700's? I'd say it resembled Anglicanism a great deal.

What was a Episcopalian in the 1700's? I'd say it resembled Anglicanism a great deal.
The Epsicopalian Church STILL resembles the Anglican, because the former is technically a branch of the latter. Also, it broke with the Anglican church after the Revolution, so Washington would technically have been an Anglican at least for most of his life.

I'm not aware of a single FF who claimed that Paine was going to go to Hell, AFT. Remember how enlightened most of these men were.

A few of the commoners may have thought so but they had little to do with our Constitution and by that time Paine had skedaddled back to England anyway.
Yep, when the going got tough, he left.
He ain't my favorite guy in American history--over rated, IMO. I'm not aware of any of the FF that said he was going to hell either.

The Epsicopalian Church STILL resembles the Anglican, because the former is technically a branch of the latter. Also, it broke with the Anglican church after the Revolution, so Washington would technically have been an Anglican at least for most of his life.


Thank you DF.

Thank you DF.
No problem. :) I wasn't sure about when they actually broke away, but I suspected that it was not very long before the Revolution, if it was before, so I looked it up on Wikipedia.

I think Episcopalianism is a very interesting religion. I like the way they present themselves as a sort of compromise between Catholicism and Protestantism.

2. That's correct--the FF's did not want ANY kind of state sponsored religion. However, they were, by and large, either Christians or theists. Few, if any, were athiest, excepting Paine and he's not a FF.[/quote] Also Paine were certainly considered a Founding Father. They did not all sign the constitution. He certainly played a key role in rallying American support for Independence. To bad his contribution to the American Revolution has been all but erased due to his religious views!

No problem. :) I wasn't sure about when they actually broke away, but I suspected that it was not very long before the Revolution, if it was before, so I looked it up on Wikipedia.

I think Episcopalianism is a very interesting religion. I like the way they present themselves as a sort of compromise between Catholicism and Protestantism.

Yep you pretty much got it pegged... catholics without the sit,stand,kneel aerobics.

Yep you pretty much got it pegged... catholics without the sit,stand,kneel aerobics.
Yeah, my boyfriend and his mom and sister are Episcopalian (his dad is Methodist). So my Catholic relatives (half my family - the other half are pretty much nonreligious) pretty much accept him. I guess he's not that Protestant. LOL!

Anyways, I love the subject of religion, mostly because I was raised almost completely secularly. The only church I ever attended regularly while growing up was a Quaker meetinghouse, and that was only for a few years. My dad's side of the family are Irish Catholics and my mom's side are I suppose mostly Catholics as well but definitely not religious (as you can see, since I don't even know what religion they are). My maternal grandmother was raised as some sort of Protestant, I want to say Baptist or Methodist. She is now a Christian Scientist. The biggest influence of a religion in my life though is Judaism, since my step-mother is Jewish and my parents are raising my 6 year old half sister as a Jew. So I've been to the synagogue a few times in the past year or so.

2.To bad his contribution to the American Revolution has been all but erased due to his religious views!

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

I wouldn't say he has no influence, even now. And the schoolkids of today are taught extensively about him--they're all pretty familiar with him ( at least my kids are).

I dislike him mainly because he accepted a monetary gift that Washington had urged Congress to give him, then, later, he turned viciously against Washington. This made him none too popular with the ordinary fighting man--of which Paine was not.

(kinda like the deserters at Valley Forge--70 percent of which were foreign -born--like Paine).

Borg, do you mean the Seperatists, or the Puritans?
Two rather distinct groups there, and neither especially desired to persecute others. In their own Colony, it was accepted you were a fellow Puritan or you wouldn't be there.

Both groups really wanted to be left alone to worship as they saw fit, a favor they weren't granted in England.......They didn't go out of their way to persecute others. However, there were some who did try to convert the natives.

I wouldn't say they didn't go out of their way to persecute others. Considering they fled England largely to avoid religious persecution, they were remarkably intolerant themselves.

Although they were victims of religious persecution in Europe, the Puritans supported the Old World theory that sanctioned it: the need for uniformity of religion in the state.

Once in control in New England, they sought to break "the very neck of Schism and vile opinions." The "business" of the first settlers, a Puritan minister recalled in 1681, "was not Toleration, but [they] were professed enemies of it." Puritans expelled dissenters from their colonies, a fate that in 1636 befell Roger Williams and in 1638 Anne Hutchinson, America's first major female religious leader.

Those who defied the Puritans by persistently returning to their jurisdictions risked capital punishment, a penalty imposed on four Quakers between 1659 and 1661. Reflecting on the seventeenth century's intolerance, Thomas Jefferson was unwilling to concede to Virginians any moral superiority to the Puritans. Beginning in 1659, Virginia enacted anti-Quaker laws, including the death penalty for refractory Quakers. Jefferson surmised that "if no capital execution took place here, as did in New England, it was not owing to the moderation of the church, or the spirit of the legislature."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_history_of_the_United_States

yeah, america founded as a christian nation.

sure.

tell that to the slaves. tell that to the masses of first nations killed, poisoned, cheated, stolen from, lied to, and put into concentration camps (i.e.- reservations) , tell that to women denied equality, land raped for the benefit of the rich and screw the poor, etc.,etc.,etc. sure sounds like christianity to me.

I wouldn't say they didn't go out of their way to persecute others. Considering they fled England largely to avoid religious persecution, they were remarkably intolerant themselves.

Although they were victims of religious persecution in Europe, the Puritans supported the Old World theory that sanctioned it: the need for uniformity of religion in the state.

Once in control in New England, they sought to break "the very neck of Schism and vile opinions." The "business" of the first settlers, a Puritan minister recalled in 1681, "was not Toleration, but [they] were professed enemies of it." Puritans expelled dissenters from their colonies, a fate that in 1636 befell Roger Williams and in 1638 Anne Hutchinson, America's first major female religious leader.

Those who defied the Puritans by persistently returning to their jurisdictions risked capital punishment, a penalty imposed on four Quakers between 1659 and 1661. Reflecting on the seventeenth century's intolerance, Thomas Jefferson was unwilling to concede to Virginians any moral superiority to the Puritans. Beginning in 1659, Virginia enacted anti-Quaker laws, including the death penalty for refractory Quakers. Jefferson surmised that "if no capital execution took place here, as did in New England, it was not owing to the moderation of the church, or the spirit of the legislature."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_history_of_the_United_States


Vile, that is a one-sided take.

My statement concerned the Bay Colony and its settlers--Puritans and Separatists. It was understood that if you settled here, you were of their church and their covenant.

They did not go into other colonies, for example, the Virginia Commonwealth, or Maryland, or Pennsylvania, to try to impose their will on others. That idea is patently untrue.

During the Great Migration of the Puritans from England to the Bay colony, 1620-1633, approx 21, 000 men, women and children settled in the
Bay area. There are very very few cases of Puritans going elsewhere or actively persecuting those of varying faiths in other areas. But if you took their covenant and then broke it, yes, you were in trouble with their elders.

More:
************************************************** ***********************


In New England, in the Puritan “Holy Commonwealth,” some 35 churches had been formed by 1640. The Puritans in New England maintained the Calvinist distinction between the elect and the damned in their theory of the church, in which membership consisted only of the regenerate minority who publicly confessed their experience of conversion. Ministers had great political influence, and civil authorities exercised a large measure of control over church affairs. The Cambridge Platform (1648) expressed the Puritan position on matters of church government and discipline. To the Puritans, a person by nature was wholly sinful and could achieve good only by severe and unremitting discipline. Hard work was considered a religious duty and emphasis was laid on constant self-examination and self-discipline. Although profanation of the Sabbath day, blasphemy, fornication, drunkenness, playing games of chance, and participation in theatrical performances were penal offenses, ......the severity of the code of behavior of the early Puritans is often exaggerated.... (Emphasis mine--Ren)

In 1662 it was made easier for the unregenerate majority to become church members in Massachusetts by the adoption of the Half-Way Covenant. Clerical power was lessened by the expansion of New England and the opening of frontier settlements filled with colonists who were resourceful, secular, and engaged in a struggle to adapt to a difficult environment. ......In 1692 in Massachusetts a new charter expressed the change from a theocratic to a political, secular state; suffrage was stripped of religious qualifications................(emphasis mine--Ren)

After the 17th cent. the Puritans as a political entity largely disappeared, but Puritan attitudes and ethics continued to exert an influence on American society. They made a virtue of qualities that made for economic success—self-reliance, frugality, industry, and energy—and through them influenced modern social and economic life. Their concern for education was important in the development of the United States, and the idea of congregational democratic church government was carried into the political life of the state as a source of modern democracy. Prominent figures in New England Puritanism include Thomas Hooker, John Cotton, Roger Williams, Increase Mather, and Cotton Mather.
************************************************** ************************************************** ****

Note--so by 1692, 70 short years..... they had evolved. Pretty damn quick considering the climate of the times and the hard line attitudes of those of other faiths in Europe and in Colonial America.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0860591.html
edited to add link

Reflecting on the seventeenth century's intolerance, Thomas Jefferson was unwilling to concede to Virginians any moral superiority to the Puritans. Beginning in 1659, Virginia enacted anti-Quaker laws, including the death penalty for refractory Quakers. Jefferson surmised that "if no capital execution took place here, as did in New England, it was not owing to the moderation of the church, or the spirit of the legislature."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_history_of_the_United_States

Ha--the Virginian is right. His own colony was quite harsh towards the Scotch-Irish settlements there:

http://www.heritagecenter.com/Research/Articles/Scots-Ir.htm

But Washington was not a Deist he was an Episcopalian.One may be a member of an Episcopal church and still be a Deist. Washington was both. Deism is not a religion or sect, but rather a way to view the nature of God and His interaction in the affairs of mankind. (Sorry for the gender specific vocabulary, but you get the drift.)

Shiloh, I thought Deism meant by definition that one is NOT a member of an organized religion.

Shiloh, I thought Deism meant by definition that one is NOT a member of an organized religion.Some people may use the term that way, but it is not definitive as such. A great many so-called "liberal Christians" would fit under the definition of Deists, probably including me.

Aha, okay then.

awwww......shiloh's gonna burn in hell for that one. (what the hell was the name of that dana carey character, christian from hell lady?)

The Church Lady?

Vile, that is a one-sided take.

My statement concerned the Bay Colony and its settlers--Puritans and Separatists. It was understood that if you settled here, you were of their church and their covenant.

They did not go into other colonies, for example, the Virginia Commonwealth, or Maryland, or Pennsylvania, to try to impose their will on others. That idea is patently untrue.

During the Great Migration of the Puritans from England to the Bay colony, 1620-1633, approx 21, 000 men, women and children settled in the
Bay area. There are very very few cases of Puritans going elsewhere or actively persecuting those of varying faiths in other areas. But if you took their covenant and then broke it, yes, you were in trouble with their elders.

I wasn't suggesting that they exported their intolerance elsewhere, merely that they were remarkably intolerant themselves, at home. This idea of religious intolerance is in direct contravention to one of the true founding principles of this nation. In short, the Puritans and their beliefs had no influence on the founding of this nation, except perhaps serving as an example of how not to found a nation.

yeah, america founded as a christian nation.

sure.

tell that to the slaves. tell that to the masses of first nations killed, poisoned, cheated, stolen from, lied to, and put into concentration camps (i.e.- reservations) , tell that to women denied equality, land raped for the benefit of the rich and screw the poor, etc.,etc.,etc. sure sounds like christianity to me.

I understand the sarcasm in your statement Ivan, but you have to realize that the practice of slavery and the subjugation of women by the menfolk and powerful tribes waging war on and killing the "evil heathens" who happen to worship the "wrong" god are all qualities very much in tune with Biblical teachings and precepts.

EXAMPLE; Long ago when the first anti-slavery crusaders came forward to openly oppose slavery and speak out strongly against it, some of their staunchest opponents were people from the South who angrily and adamantly pointed out --quite correctly-- that slavery was sanctioned by the God of the Christian Bible himself.

EXAMPLE; Long ago when the first anti-slavery crusaders came forward to openly oppose slavery and speak out strongly against it, some of their staunchest opponents were people from the South who angrily and adamantly pointed out --quite correctly-- that slavery was sanctioned by the God of the Christian Bible himself.And if you care to be honest, you'll admit that the bulk of the anti-slavery movement were also people who took their understanding of things from the Bible.

The Bible is just a book, and, like any book, may be read many ways. It is human nature that reads it with certain self-serving interests in mind, a nature that often looks for passages to justify one's position rather than to discover what should be one's position.

That is a failing, not so much of Christianity, or of any specific religion, but rather of the human animal.

And if you care to be honest, you'll admit that the bulk of the anti-slavery movement were also people who took their understanding of things from the Bible.

?!?!

Admit??

I was not aware that anti-slavery advocates did so.

How could anyone read the Bad Book of the Christians and not see the sanctioning of slavery by BibleGod...?

Actually, yes, most abolitionists believed that slavery went against the teachings of Christianity, and it was a common argument used by the antislavery movement. :)

Actually, yes, most abolitionists believed that slavery went against the teachings of Christianity,.....


Buuuuut........how could anyone read the Holy Book of the Christians and not see where BibleGod sanctioned slavery......?

Buuuuut........how could anyone read the Holy Book of the Christians and not see where BibleGod sanctioned slavery......?

The same way I can look into a barrel of 100 apples and not just see the single rotten one?

?!?!

Admit??

I was not aware that anti-slavery advocates did so.

How could anyone read the Bad Book of the Christians and not see the sanctioning of slavery by BibleGod...?


DF is right again. There are monuments erected for anti slavery pastors who were at one time slaves themselves.

As a matter of fact one of those slaves wrote a sermon that was so moving it was published in the New York Times.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9403E3DB133EE233A25751C1A96F9C946997D6CF&oref=slogin

Written by a Rev. John Jasper. Former slave. Who's church is still active to this day.

Not to mention all the work the great Rev. Martin Luther King did for equal rights.

Buuuuut........how could anyone read the Holy Book of the Christians and not see where BibleGod sanctioned slavery......?
I don't believe the New Testament has much, if any, slavery. Many Christians don't really think much of the Old Testament. So, there you are.

I don't believe the New Testament has much, if any, slavery. Many Christians don't really think much of the Old Testament. So, there you are.


Ahhh.

So, one half says one thing and the other half says something different.

IOW, the entire book contradicts itself and is --thus-- a bit of superstitious foolishness that need not be taken seriously.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I was not aware that anti-slavery advocates did so.
Wow, I believe a lack of education is glaring!:cool:

Ahhh.

So, one half says one thing and the other half says something different.

IOW, the entire book contradicts itself and is --thus-- a bit of superstitious foolishness that need not be taken seriously.

Thanks for clearing that up.
Indeed, there are contradictions between the OT and the NT. Most Christians believe that Jesus' law supersedes Mosaic law. Therefore, if there is a contradiction, the Christian belief is always that of the New Testament.

IOW, the entire book contradicts itself and is --thus-- a bit of superstitious foolishness that need not be taken seriously.
It is a book which reflects the understandings and values of its time. The portions which speak of the slavery statutes accurately reflect the history of the people writing those sections.

Do you consider the US Constitution contradictory foolishness because it contradicts itself in the same ways?

Most Christians believe that Jesus' law supersedes Mosaic law. Therefore, if there is a contradiction, the Christian belief is always that of the New Testament.Jesus' entire message was subversive to the prevailing cultural standards of the day. So they killed him.

Most Christians believe that Jesus' law supersedes Mosaic law. Therefore, if there is a contradiction, ............

Therefore, there IS a contradiction. If the Mosaic law were the work of a supposedly "perfect" omnipotent being, it would not have needed to be changed.

IOW, the entire book contradicts itself and is --thus-- a bit of superstitious foolishness that need not be taken seriously.

Therefore, there IS a contradiction. If the Mosaic law were the work of a supposedly "perfect" omnipotent being, it would not have needed to be changed.
The Old Testament was not written by god. It was written by men. No reasonable Christian claims otherwise.

The Old Testament was not written by god. It was written by men. No reasonable Christian claims otherwise.
His agrument is commen. Claim the most rediculous position is the only one, show it to be rediculous, and voila, you're a smarty pants!

Sad really, that so many rediculous claims can, in fact, be made of Christianity. Oh, well...

Sad really, that so many rediculous claims can, in fact, be made of Christianity. Oh, well...In all fairness, some of the complaints are pretty close to true!

Unbelievable! I have been reading the last threads and you might as well debate if Bambi is real or not! C'mon it has already been proven that the Bible stories are just a retelling of old myths, folklores, and other pagan religions. It is just a religion as other religions now, before, and growing/future religions (take scientology for example).

Unbelievable! I have been reading the last threads and you might as well debate if Bambi is real or not! C'mon it has already been proven that the Bible stories are just a retelling of old myths, folklores, and other pagan religions. It is just a religion as other religions now, before, and growing/future religions (take scientology for example).
Does that mean it has no significance at all? I am not a Christian, but I have taken classes and studied the Bible, Christianity, and other religions.This is because religion, and Christianity especially, have had huge impacts on our society. The Bible is an amazing piece of literature. In my opinion, to completely discount the influence of the Bible and Christianity just because you don't believe in the supernatural aspect is unwise.

Shiloh, I thought Deism meant by definition that one is NOT a member of an organized religion. Well Deism accepts the concept of God without accecpting claims of divine revelations. Typically,Deist reject supernatural events such as miracles and prophecy. They say that God does not interfere with humans and the laws of the universe. They do not look upon "holy books" as divine revelation! But I thought that Deisim came about as a critique of christianity and organized religion.

The Old Testament was not written by god. It was written by men. No reasonable Christian claims otherwise.

If it is not considered to be divinely authored, then why would so many of these supposedly "reasonable" people revere it and worship its words and base their lives on what it says?

How did a man of that time sit down and recount exactly how the omnipotoent "creator" of the entire universe and all that ic contains went about that task? How would he have the slightest inkling of it? He wouldn't and he didn't. We both know that. We both ALSO know that it is a complete and total fabrication to concoct the entire myth of the creation of the world by some unseen being.

But Xtians cannot have it both ways. They cannot claim to have the "perfect" book of knowledge, that they insist everyone on this planet should base their lives upon, and then as soon as it is questioned, retreat to a position of --"Oh well, uhhh, it was just men who wrote that part, so don't take it too seriously or literally".

If it is not considered to be divinely authored, then why would so many of these supposedly "reasonable" people revere it and worship its words and base their lives on what it says?

How did a man of that time sit down and recount exactly how the omnipotoent "creator" of the entire universe and all that ic contains went about that task? How would he have the slightest inkling of it? He wouldn't and he didn't. We both know that. We both ALSO know that it is a complete and total fabrication to concoct the entire myth of the creation of the world by some unseen being.

But Xtians cannot have it both ways. They cannot claim to have the "perfect" book of knowledge, that they insist everyone on this planet should base their lives upon, and then as soon as it is questioned, retreat to a position of --"Oh well, uhhh, it was just men who wrote that part, so don't take it too seriously or literally".

You don't KNOW anything, FT. You only speculate. And it's easy to see you're so upset because you not only live in a capitalistic country... but nearly 80% of the population also believe in God and the First Amendment protects that right.

Poor baby... if I was as outnumbered as you are, I'd be pretty damned grumpy myself.

:mad:
SMW

And beautifully, I might add.

http://www.biblesociety.ca/free_scriptures/escriptures/ecclesiastes3/ecclesiastes3.html

In short, the Puritans and their beliefs had no influence on the founding of this nation, except perhaps serving as an example of how not to found a nation.

How can you possibly say that they have no influence, and if they do, then it is all bad?

Because they prized education, the children became educated adults who evolved, as we have seen via their Half-Covenant.

Because they believed that no one person should hold power, this established the system of checks and balances in our government.

Because they believed in hard work, this established the American work ethic which is well thought of to this very day.

The Puritans and their descendants remain the single most influential group in our history who have ever immigrated to our shores.

Like them or not, you must grant them this influence.

"Each according to their own conscience..."

The Massachusetts Bay Colony charter

How can you possibly say that they have no influence, and if they do, then it is all bad?

That's not exactly what I said, but I didn't choose my words very carefully either. :)

They undoubtedly had a lot of influence, but IMO, very little of the Puritans original beliefs or practices lasted until the time this country was actually founded, some 150 years after the Pilgrims landed.


Because they prized education, the children became educated adults who evolved, as we have seen via their Half-Covenant.

Can you point me to some info on this "Half-Covenant"?


Because they believed that no one person should hold power, this established the system of checks and balances in our government.

I've never heard this attributed to the Puritans before.


Because they believed in hard work, this established the American work ethic which is well thought of to this very day.

My dad always told me that our family had a good, strong, German work ethic.


The Puritans and their descendants remain the single most influential group in our history who have ever immigrated to our shores.

Like them or not, you must grant them this influence.

I've never thought of history as something to like or dislike...it just is.

As I said earlier, I didn't intend to say that they had no influence, just that their influence in the creation of our country is great to the extent that they were among the first organized white settlers, but in large part, their intolerance was an example to the founders of this nation that wasn't a positive one.

I guess I should also say that when I speak of the "founders" of this nation, I mean that group of enlightened men and women who moved this country to declare its independence from England in 1776.

" It is impossible for a creative artist to be either a Puritan
or a Fascist,because both are a negation of the creative urge.
The only things the creative artist can be opposed to are
ugliness and injustice. "

-- Liam O'Flaherty

Vile, here's something on the Half-Way Covenant:

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

In 1662 it was made easier for the unregenerate majority to become church members in Massachusetts by the adoption of the Half-Way Covenant. Clerical power was lessened by the expansion of New England and the opening of frontier settlements filled with colonists who were resourceful, secular, and engaged in a struggle to adapt to a difficult environment. ......In 1692 in Massachusetts a new charter expressed the change from a theocratic to a political, secular state; suffrage was stripped of religious qualifications.

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

I will of course concede that many Puritans were intolerant. My own ancestor Ensign Gerrard Spencer, a church elder, had a lady fined a MULE because she didn't attend church. Yep, Gramps was a fun lovin dude.... He was a hardliner. And so were other groups and men of the day and age, both here and of course, in Europe.

The thing is, the Puritans evolved and they evolved quickly, unlike many many other groups, sects, or congregations. For that they have my admiration, and the fact they were brave, strong and tough folk besides.

It's too easy to judge people or groups outside the times they lived in. The times themselves were harsh and intolerant. Should they have been more tolerant?
Of course--from our viewpoint of 350 odd years later.

And then again, maybe 350 years from now, people will look at OUR society and laugh. :)

......many Puritans were intolerant. My own ancestor Ensign Gerrard Spencer, a church elder, had a lady fined a MULE because she didn't attend church. Yep, Gramps......was a hardliner.

Ahhhh....it all becomes clearer now.


And then again, maybe 350 years from now, people will look at OUR society and laugh. :)

True. Especially at that segment of society who believed in invisible, supernatural spirits.

Ahhhh....it all becomes clearer now.




True. Especially at that segment of society who believed in invisible, supernatural spirits.

1. What do you mean?
Pray explain yourself. If you think I'm partial to them because they're my kin, you're correct on that point, and i'm not going to apologize for that. I've done extensive reading on them and their colony and background.


2. not at all what I meant.

Should they have been more tolerant?
Of course--from our viewpoint of 350 odd years later.

And then again, maybe 350 years from now, people will look at OUR society and laugh. :)

No doubt that's true, but the people that did draw up the documents that founded this nation did look back on the experience of the Puritans from a much closer historical perspective than 350 years, and they saw a lot of examples of practices they didn't wish to emulate, indeed they saw practices they wished to outlaw. As an example, our Constitution specifically prohibits religious tests from being used as a qualifier to hold public office, something the Puritans practiced.

The people who drew up our founding documents looked back on the Puritans and didn't like a lot of what they saw.

That's true up to a point, vile---and they could have said the same about the Episcopals, Anabaptists, and, of course, the Catholics.

There is tremendous Puritan/Separatist symbology in our very Capitol:

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~cap/puritan/purrot.html

PS the Puritans THEMSELVES didn't like a lot of what they saw. How many of them do you think actually attended their 4 hour long church services?
How many actually tithed?

Even their singing at their services was described as an "ungodly" howl and the little boys and young men in the back of the building were talked to for nonstop fidgeting. They were human like you and I....
How many brides were pregnant at the time of their marriage?

The figures would surprise you..and of course, by 1692, 60 short years after the first wave of the Great Migration, they were changing and evolving on their own by decreeing that church membership was NOT a qualification to hold office.

Can we say the same in Virginia?
ENGLAND?????

Afghanistan??????

One may be a member of an Episcopal church and still be a Deist. Washington was both. Deism is not a religion or sect, but rather a way to view the nature of God and His interaction in the affairs of mankind. (Sorry for the gender specific vocabulary, but you get the drift.)
Deism is a religion. They believe in God but it is a natural religion!

Deism is a religion. They believe in God but it is a natural religion!
Deism is a way of viewing one's religion. Many Christians of many Liberal Chistian denominations could be described as deists. The point is this: being a member of any specific Christian church in Colonial America did not mean one was not a Deist.

deism

Main Entry: de·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈdē-ˌi-zəm, ˈdā-\
Function: noun
Usage: often capitalized
Date: 1682
: a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe