Friday, July 11, 2008

Gary Nash on "Conservative-Culture Warriors" and Historical "Revision"

Historian Gary Nash of UCLA is not only one of the most respected historians on early American history, but has also received praise for the fact that his scholarship has breathed new life into America's sense of historical appreciation. In recent years, Nash's work has challenged many of the traditional assumptions surrounding America' founding. Everything from the role of slavery and women to the influence of religion on America's 18th century revolution has been a part of Nash's "assault" on traditional early American historiography.

In his most recent book, The Unknown American Revolution: The Unruly Birth of Democracy and the Struggle to Create America, Nash challenges the idea that the American Revolution was merely a conflict between rival elites in Britain and America. Instead, Nash boldly proclaims the revolution as being inspired and led by the masses.

In addition, Nash challenges a number of the beliefs held by Christian Nationalists in regards to America's founding. Nash proclaims America's establishment and success as being the result of enlightened secularist ideology, which caused the American populace to challenge the social, political and religious norms of their day. In so doing, America became not a "Christian" government but a secular institution, which sought to keep religion and government separate from one another.

Naturally, the scholarship of Gary Nash does not sit well with hard-core Christian apologists such as David Barton and others. In response, Christian zealots have sought to label historians like Nash as being "unpatriotic" or as "secular revisionists" that are bent on eliminating any and all remnants of America's "Christian heritage."

Gary Nash was not ignorant of the fact that his work would stir up hostilities. In his introduction, Nash addresses his critics by writing the following:

When historians fix their gaze downward or write a warts-and-all American history, they often offend people who cherish what they remember as a more coherent, worshipful, and supposedly annealing rendition of the past. In the history of the 1990s, many conservative-culture warriors called historians offering new interpretations of the American Revolution – or any other part of American history – “history bandits,” “history pirates,” or, sneeringly, “revisionists” intent on kidnapping history with no respect for a dignified rendition of the past. Yet the explosion of historical knowledge has invigorated history and increased its popularity...

Unsurprisingly, those of the old school do not like to hear the question "whose history?" It is unsettling for them to see the intellectual property of the American Revolution, once firmly in the hands of a smaller and more homogeneous historians' guild, taken out of their safe boxes, put on the table, and redivided. Yet what could be more democratic than to reopen questions about the Revolution's sources, conduct, and results? And what is the lasting value of a "coherent" history if the coherence is obtained by eliminating the jagged edges, where much of the vitality of the people is to be found? How can we expect people to think of the American Revolution as their own when they can see no trace of their forbears in it?
Then Nash puts the smack down on those who favor a "traditional" interpretation of the American Revolution as being exclusively a conflict of the elite:

A history of inclusion has another claim to make. Only a history that gives play to all the constituent parts of society can overcome the defeatist notion that the past was inevitably determined...Honest history can impart a sense of how the lone individual counts, how the possibilities of choice are infinite, how human capacity for both good and evil is ever present, and how dreams of a better society are in the hands of the dispossessed as much as in the possession of the putative brokers of our society's future.
If this is "secular revisionism," or "historical piracy" then count me in!

34 comments:

Raven said...

Yeah, I agree here. Overdramatic efforts have been made by defenders of Christianity to explain why they are right. America didn't start out as a christian nation but it sure has become one today, which really buggs me.

Tom Van Dyke said...

If we may quote Jefferson's beloved Mr Locke here:

"Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human
society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God,
though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a
toleration."---A Letter Concerning Toleration[1689]

These are sentiments that would have been uncontroversial at the time of the Founding [they're echoed in Washington's storied Farewell Address], but when Mitt Romney alluded to something similar, the secular left had a high holy cow.

Not that I blame them, necessarily, but Dr. Nash's prologue to his thesis is rife with such modern-day sentiments. The sentiments are acceptable in this day and age, but such polemicism is unsuitable for an aspiring historian of the Founding. I'm unfamiliar with his work, but Gary Nash has got off on the wrong foot with me, as he pissily lays out his agenda before he makes his argument.

[Yes, I did receive the blogger invitiation, and thank y'all. Since things are already lively around here, I'll be along in good time; however, as I favor dialogue over monograph, I wouldn't want to short the comments sections. Mr. Rowe and I have done our best work together in them, I believe. Cheers.]

bpabbott said...

While I'd love to think the founders were plainly committed secularists, I'm with Jonathan Rowe in concluding they were theists (although not conventional Christians ... in their day, or ours).

Even so they had much to say, with regards, to the negative influence of religious dogma (not to single out the dogma of the religious kind).

Those who claim that the founders intended to form a Christian Nation are much further from the truth than those who claim they intended a secular one.

The founders intended to form a nation where its people were at liberty to make their own religious choices, but whose government would be dominated on principle of reason.

Wikipedia: "Secularism is generally the assertion that governmental practices or institutions should exist separately from religion or religious belief."

Having a secular government does not mean that religion suffers. Each individual is free to seek inspiration, motivate, and purpose from any where he/she sees fit. Individuals are free to organize themselves and share in their spiritual philosophies and philosophies for living their lives.

However, a secular government does not accept religious claims as justification for its actions.

Thus, while these men were religious individuals, they intended to form a nation governed on secular principles (reason, liberty, justice, etc).

Tom Van Dyke said...

Those who claim that the founders intended to form a Christian Nation are much further from the truth than those who claim they intended a secular one.

This would be a judgment call. Might be 51-49, might be 60-40. I go 80-20 the other way, that although there was no Jesus-as-God in the Founding, there was plenty of "Judeo-" and quite a bit of Christian philosophy.

"God" as opposed to "no God" decisively tilts the scale.

Until secularists can get around human rights as God-given instead of simply claimed and asserted, I think they must stand mute.

Reason alone has failed as their foundation---and liberty's---and so has history. Utilitarianism is far more reasonable.

Our Founding Truth said...

In addition, Nash challenges a number of the beliefs held by Christian Nationalists in regards to America's founding. Nash proclaims America's establishment and success as being the result of enlightened secularist ideology, which caused the American populace to challenge the social, political and religious norms of their day. In so doing, America became not a "Christian" government but a secular institution, which sought to keep religion and government separate from one another.>

I believe my blog has satisfactorily refuted this post. Political Liberty is in the Bible.
http://ourfoundingtruth.blogspot.com/2008/04/political-liberty-is-in-bible.html

It's quite amazing how much deceit is out there, Locke was a rationalist, etc. Locke read his bible everyday; was not a product of the enlightenment, but was a reformer at heart, who rejected rationalism(enlightenment)

Nash, is another author who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. It is an indisputable fact religion is left to the states and those states established Christianity as their religion, how Nash could miss that is amazing.

I could post a quote by all three-hundred framers affirming Christianity, and "scholars" like Rowe or Bpabbott, if Bp claims he's a "scholar", and they would still call them theists.

OTF

Our Founding Truth said...

I go 80-20 the other way, that although there was no Jesus-as-God in the Founding, there was plenty of "Judeo-" and quite a bit of Christian philosophy.>

That figures.

Without any doubt whatsoever, The Law of Nature is Jesus Christ, The image of the invisible God(Yahweh, the God of Israel). The Founding Fathers made this very clear before they made the Declaration of Independence. William Livingston(Yale 1741) prepared a Congressional proclamation for a national day of prayer and fasting, which Congress designated May 17, 1776, as the day of its observance. The proclamation declared:

"The Congress...desirous...to have people of all ranks and degrees duly impressed with a solemn sense of God's superintending providence, and of their duty devoutly to rely.... on His aid and direction... do earnestly recommend...a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that we may with united hearts confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions and, by a sincere repentance and amendment of life,...and through the Merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain His pardon and forgiveness."
Journals of Congress (1905), Vol. IV, pp. 208-209, May 17, 1776.

It is clear, Jesus Christ is the God in the DOI.

Jonathan said...

OFT:

Thank you for providing a text book example of how the Christian Nation crowd reads things into America's Founding documents that aren't there.

"To him who believes in the Existence and Attributes physical and moral of a God, there can be no obscurity or perplexity in defining the Law of Nature to be his wise benign and all powerful Will, discovered by Reason."

-- John Adams to Thomas Boylston Adams, March 19, 1794.

bpabbott said...

Tom: ""God" as opposed to "no God" decisively tilts the scale."

I do not agree. Secularism does not equate to "no God".

Tom, that is a false dichotomy and a strawman all it one :-(

Secularism equates to reason trumping dogma ... in my opinion any way.

Further, in my opinion, the only way secularism conflicts with religion is if someone is unable to translate their desire into a compelling and reasoned testimony and instead plays a religious trump card.

Tom: "Until secularists can get around human rights as God-given instead of simply claimed and asserted, I think they must stand mute."

Have you ever read the original draft of the DOI. There is no mention of rights being endowed by a creator (written by Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin).

The only mention of God is associated with nature.

"When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for a people to advance from that subordination in which they have hitherto remained, and to assume among powers of the earth the equal and independent station to which the laws of nature and of nature's god entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the change."

Notice there is no mention of "rights" as being God given.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed; [...]"

Certainly there were sufficient numbers who objected to the original wording of the DIO, and it was changed (although not substantially). However, the words stating that rights are "self-evident" implies that men are able to judge such.

In any event, the Constitution was ratified as a secular document. Not only does it not include sectarian content, it forbids sectarian tests for public office, and its first amendment protects against sectarian persecution.

Secularism does not speak as to what inspires people. It requires that they reason out their positions and judgements and not act upon faith in the words of religious authorities.

There is no reasoned claim that the founders/framers were non-religious. The claim is that they framed a nation to be governed upon secular principles ... they did this even though they were religious and thought future generations would embrace such a philosophy.

In my opinion, that only part of "religion" that the framers were at odds with was authority. They intended each man to free his mind and reason for himself.

I've gone on at quite some length. If I'm implied an intent on your part that was unintended. Please correct me.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Ben, the original draft of the D of It didn't work is because human rights and liberty are ungrounded unless you make them God-given. That's why they changed it.

They have no force, along the philosophical lines of no law without a lawgiver. And of course, law requires a punishment for transgressing the law, which is where "natural law" comes in. The Founders recognized "natural law."

Let's keep in mind that Jefferson wanted rights to be "sacred." Instead [per Franklin?] the US was founded not on that unalienable rights are sacred, but thatwe hold them to be "self-evident," a sophistry that they're "self-evident," but primarily that we start our revolution on the shared belief that they are. A shared value.

Can you follow me here? It's a bit ethereal, but I think that's what they meant, I really do.

bpabbott said...

Tom, the following is an attempt a humor :-)

Tom: "the original draft of the D of It didn't work is because human rights and liberty are ungrounded unless you make them God-given. That's why they changed it."

quote: "This would be a judgment call." ;-)

God may exist. God may not exist. If God exists he may favor the DOI or he may not. In either event, there is no evidence that God intervened.

We are each free to believe as we desire. If God exists he permits us this individual liberty of conscience.

The founders did not seek protection behind God's authority. They sought a compelling and reasoned solution to their dilemma. They may have prayed, and sought inspiration from their faith, but in the end they relied upon their reason and their judgement.

I tend to be skeptical of quotes ... although I tend to offer them without end ;-)

I'm skeptical because they are so often out of context.

With that said, here's one you're not doubt familiar with.

The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
-- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88), from Adrienne Koch, ed, The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society (1965) p. 258, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner.

What I take from this is not that Adams or other founders rejected God and/or religion. Rather that Adams (and others) rejected any authority over his religious opinion as well as rejecting authority over the religious opinion of others.

It appears to me that we differ on the founders reliance upon religious authority, but what evidence is there that the founders thought that God's opinion was beyond the mind of any individual? If God exists he must share particular values with all of us (I'm making an inference here). If he does not, we are generally share particular values among ourselves (I'm making a personal observation here).

It is those shared values upon which our government should be founded. In fact, it is my understanding that it was.

Brad Hart said...

OFT stated:

Nash, is another author who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. It is an indisputable fact religion is left to the states and those states established Christianity as their religion, how Nash could miss that is amazing."

It never ceases to amaze me when Christian Nationalists will completely ignore the credibility of a PROFESSIONAL historian who has spent more time researching the primary documents of this era than the rest of us combined. Nash is not only an exceptional historian, but his facts leave Christian zealots with nothing to stand on.

Nash is not saying that religion played an insignificant during the Revolution. I don't think that anyone on this blog would make such a ridiculous claim. Instead what Nash is trying to do is to shake off the blinders of religious fanaticism, which have clouded early American historiography for decades. What Christian Nationalists call "unpatriotic revision" Nash would call "responsible scholarship." Again, Nash is not disregarding religion in any way. Instead he is putting it in the right context.

As far as the secular v. Christian nation argument, I think the best way to categorize this issue -- and I believe the founders would see it this way as well -- is not to weigh which cause (secularism or Christianity) played a greater role, but to see the two as completely separate from one another. Our founders worked hard to ensure that the government of the United States was a secular institution, free from the chains of religious tyranny, while religion was -- for the most part -- given the freedom to exist and worship as it saw fit.

Brad Hart said...

OFT writes:

"Without any doubt whatsoever, The Law of Nature is Jesus Christ, The image of the invisible God(Yahweh, the God of Israel). The Founding Fathers made this very clear before they made the Declaration of Independence. William Livingston(Yale 1741) prepared a Congressional proclamation for a national day of prayer and fasting, which Congress designated May 17, 1776, as the day of its observance. The proclamation declared:

"The Congress...desirous...to have people of all ranks and degrees duly impressed with a solemn sense of God's superintending providence, and of their duty devoutly to rely.... on His aid and direction... do earnestly recommend...a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that we may with united hearts confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions and, by a sincere repentance and amendment of life,...and through the Merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain His pardon and forgiveness."
Journals of Congress (1905), Vol. IV, pp. 208-209, May 17, 1776.

It is clear, Jesus Christ is the God in the DOI."


Bold claims to say the least. To say that Jesus Christ is clearly "The God of Nature" is about as conclusive as saying that Allah is the God of Nature. This fasting proclamation does not tie Jesus IN ANY WAY to the God of Nature. The God of the DOI -- which by the way was written by a man who did not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ -- is no more Jesus Christ than it is any other God.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Brad,

OFT's claim is even worse than that: He claims Jesus Christ is the "law of nature." Now when we die, we might find out that orthodox Trinitarian Christians really are right and the the Triune God really did dictate the law of nature to perfectly conform with the Bible, and the orthodox interpretation thereof.

However that doesn't change the fact that the law of nature is defined, according to Founding era terminology as what is discovered by reason alone, unassisted by scripture. So when the Founders used the term "nature" they meant "discoverable by reason," period.

This is Founding era terminology 101 and if someone can't accept it, it's impossible to move on with them in the debate.

Tom Van Dyke said...

I do agree with OFT that religion was left to the states, and that was an objection I myself had to Nash's thesis, and many theses of the modern secular revisionists. Some states were quite orthodox, and religious tests and blasphemy laws survived well into the 1800s.

As for Jesus Christ being nature, well, OFT'll have to argue that one on his own.

Our Founding Truth said...

"To him who believes in the Existence and Attributes physical and moral of a God, there can be no obscurity or perplexity in defining the Law of Nature to be his wise benign and all powerful Will, discovered by Reason."

-- John Adams to Thomas Boylston Adams, March 19, 1794.>

What was I thinking, John Adams is the only Framer, I should get a life.

Again, Nash is not disregarding religion in any way. Instead he is putting it in the right context.>

Either did I, I said he was wrong, and my blog proves it. That the framers formed Christian States is an undisputed fact of history.

They may have prayed, and sought inspiration from their faith, but in the end they relied upon their reason and their judgement.>

This is bogus. The State Constitutions affirm the Bible, not reason.
Our founders worked hard to ensure that the government of the United States was a secular institution,>

This is bogus as well, not only the Christian State Constitutions, but that the Federal Govt. promoted Christianity, Madison promoted the Bible, Jefferson, with the Indians.

"The Congress...desirous...to have people of all ranks and degrees duly impressed with a solemn sense of GOD'S superintending providence, and of their duty devoutly to rely.... on HIS aid and direction... do earnestly recommend...a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that we may with united hearts confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions and, by a sincere repentance and amendment of life,...and through the Merits and mediation of JESUS CHRIST, obtain HIS pardon and forgiveness."
Journals of Congress (1905), Vol. IV, pp. 208-209, May 17, 1776.

I capitalized the "key" words, I think you can figure it out.

If you've read the Bible, you will understand, in a about one hundred verses, that Jesus Christ is God. Allow me to show you the Law of Nature:

Rom 2:14-15

Romans 2:14-15 (King James Version)
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

Who put the conscience in your heart? God, is the Law of Nature, physical law, and moral law. Jesus is the Word, John 1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2The same was in the beginning with God.

3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
13 And the Word WAS MADE FLESH, and DWELT AMONG US, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

However that doesn't change the fact that the law of nature is defined, according to Founding era terminology as what is discovered by reason alone, unassisted by scripture. So when the Founders used the term "nature" they meant "discoverable by reason," period.>

It's not reason alone, that is what you can't understand. The Law of Nature is everything from God, and you can't find one quote eliminating revelation. James Wilson makes it clear, reason, the Moral Law(ten commandments) are all from God. You will NEVER find one quote supporting what you say, not one! The framers knew God's Word was supreme, the State Constitution's prove it. Reason is never mentioned, only the Bible.

Reason is the conscience written down. Something not written down cannot be superior to something that is.

Hamilton and the framers made this clear "All human laws(written down) are null and void if contrary to the Divine Law. There would be no standard if the Divine Law wasn't written down, because man is a sinner, and his reason is corrupted, God's Word is not Corrupted.

To know the Divine Law, it must be written down. Reason is general revelation, not specific revelation, which is God's Word. Read my blog for these subjects.

The Lord Jesus is a merciful God, longsuffering, not willing that any should perish. Jesus Christ can save you, praise Him!

OTF

Jonathan Rowe said...

Rowe: "However that doesn't change the fact that the law of nature is defined, according to Founding era terminology as what is discovered by reason alone, unassisted by scripture."

OFT: It's not reason alone, that is what you can't understand....You will NEVER find one quote supporting what you say, not one!"

Rowe: Imagine how foolish you look in that I've already offered a smoking gun quotation that proves my case:

"To him who believes in the Existence and Attributes physical and moral of a God, there can be no obscurity or perplexity in defining the Law of Nature to be his wise benign and all powerful Will, discovered by Reason."

-- John Adams to Thomas Boylston Adams, March 19, 1794.

I never said they intended to eliminate revelation, rather that "nature" means what's discoverable by reason unaided by scripture. Perhaps scripture perfectly confirms what man's reason discovers; perhaps it partially confirms (what the key Founders believed), or perhaps revelation confirms nothing that man's reason discovers. All irrelevant to the point that "nature" = what man discovers through reason period.

Our Founding Truth said...

I never said they intended to eliminate revelation, rather that "nature" means what's discoverable by reason unaided by scripture. Perhaps scripture perfectly confirms what man's reason discovers; perhaps it partially confirms (what the key Founders believed), or perhaps revelation confirms nothing that man's reason discovers. All irrelevant to the point that "nature" = what man discovers through reason period.>

That isn't the point I'm making, and I already know reason is a part of "nature"

The point is the Law of Nature and of Nature's God is a contraction of The Law of Nature and The Law of Nature's God. The Law of Nature is a God, and that God is Yahweh.

So the God of the DOI and the Founding Fathers is Yahweh, period.

Your Adams quote doesn't affirm reason as superior, only reason is a part of God's supreme will. Reason cannot be superior to God's Word; that would be irrational, illogical, and the framers weren't that ignorant.

OTF

Jonathan Rowe said...

"Reason cannot be superior to God's Word; that would be irrational, illogical, and the framers weren't that ignorant."

What you don't understand is America's key Founders believed the Bible as only "partially inspired" and thus, man's reason the ultimate determiner of which parts were true, which false.

Our Founding Truth said...

What you don't understand is America's key Founders believed the Bible as only "partially inspired" and thus, man's reason the ultimate determiner of which parts were true, which false.>

What you don't understand is only 2 to 5 of the 300 or so founders believed what you say. Even Story believed the entire Bible inspired.

OTF

Jonathan Rowe said...

You have no proof that 200+ Founders believed the Bible infallible. It's something that exists only in your mind.

Our Founding Truth said...

You have no proof that 200+ Founders believed the Bible infallible. It's something that exists only in your mind.>

I could post all the State Constitutions which affirm the Bible(both Old and New Testaments), unless you can post quotes from the drafters and ratifiers supporting heterodoxy, which isn't there.

Here is a short list of orthodox framers: Wilson, Rush, Jay, JQ Adams, S. Adams, Rutledge, Iredell, Patterson, Duvall, Pinckney, Von Steuben, John Paul Jones, Hamilton, Stockton, Henry, Gerry, St. Clair, Huntington, Hancock, Miflin, Greene, R. Morris, Gates, and on and on.

Just to get into a college you had to believe the tenets of the Anglican Church, or orthodoxy.

Our Founding Truth said...

Here are some more orthodox framers:

Witherspoon, Gorham, Wolcott, Williams, D. Webster, N. Webster, Vining, Vroom, Trumbull, Troup, Treadwell, Tompkins, Swift, Smith, Sherman, Sylvester, Rodney, Roberdeau, Reed, Ramsay, Putnam, Pickering, Otis, Treat Paine, Paca, John Muhlenberg, Frederick Muhlenberg, Moylan, Morton, King, McHenry, Mckean, Mason, Ellsworth, Fitzsimmons, etc.

The most important point is: Law is a public act, meaning each individual only has one vote, therefore the majority is supreme, and form the Law.

With certainty, during the framing of the nation only Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, were proven infidels. Madison and Washington are too inconclusive. Those men formed nothing, law is formed by the public, not individuals.

Jonathan Rowe said...

You are just throwing spaghetti against the wall and seeing what sticks. There is no evidence that long list of Founders are all "orthodox Christians." All that can be shown for the group as a whole is they have the same formal or nominal connections to orthodox Churches as did Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, G. Morris, etc.

Our Founding Truth said...

You are just throwing spaghetti against the wall and seeing what sticks. There is no evidence that long list of Founders are all "orthodox Christians." All that can be shown for the group as a whole is they have the same formal or nominal connections to orthodox Churches as did Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, G. Morris, etc.>>

Since they claimed to be Christians, it is your job to prove they were not orthodox, instead of assuming, promoting irresponsible inquiry.

What scholar assume facts like that without evidence? Do you assume other aspects of your practical life as fact without evidence?

To assume the framers were infidels, and they never admitted such is absurd.

I could never assume someone believed something, without their words affirming so.

OFT

Jonathan Rowe said...

They didn't claim to be Christians in any sense different than Jefferson, or G. Morris claimed to be Christians. Your own Bible teaches that regeneration is a narrow path. Further you understand that most folks sitting in orthodox Churches are not regenerate but nominal Christians. So sorry the burden is not on me to prove they were not orthodox regenerate Christians.

And you are right, it is bad scholarship to assume without evidence which is exactly what you you do in asserting them to be orthodox, regenerate (or the term you have used before "born-again") Christians.

I have never said they were all "infidels" rather that the key Founders were and until we do a meticulous study of each and every one of their faiths [pouring through their writings as has been done with Jefferson, J. Adams, & Franklin, etc.] all we can say for sure is they were formally or nominally connected to orthodox Christians just as both Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson were. Whether they were "orthodox" like Henry or "nominal/infidel" like Jefferson is a question I remain agnostic on until I see the proof.

Our Founding Truth said...

They didn't claim to be Christians in any sense different than Jefferson, or G. Morris claimed to be Christians.>

Wow!

So sorry the burden is not on me to prove they were not orthodox regenerate Christians.>

Then let's assume they were all universalists. Dude, why would I assume they weren't Christians, when they claimed they were? I have their writings, so do you.

I have never said they were all "infidels" rather that the key Founders were and until we do a meticulous study of each and every one of their faiths [pouring through their writings as has been done with Jefferson, J. Adams, & Franklin, etc.] all we can say for sure is they were formally or nominally connected to orthodox Christians just as both Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson were. Whether they were "orthodox" like Henry or "nominal/infidel" like Jefferson is a question I remain agnostic on until I see the proof.>

Um, let's see if these guys were orthodox:
Sherman, yes, King, yes, Mason, yes, Von Steuben, yes, Patterson, yes, JQ Adams, yes, S Adams, yes, Ames, yes, Boudinot, yes, Jay, yes, Witherspoon, yes, Wilson, yes, D. Webster, yes, J. Madison(while forming the nation), yes, Henry, yes, Rush, yes, Read, yes, Pinckney, yes, F. Muhlenberg, yes, J. Muhlenberg, yes, McKean, yes, McHenry, yes, Johnston, yes, Kent, yes, Huntington, yes, Hamilton, yes, Gorham, yes, Ellsworth, yes, Chase, yes, Bassett, yes, Bedford, yes, Carroll, yes, Barry, yes, Baldwin, yes, Lee, yes, Dickinson, yes. Hancock, yes, St. Clair, yes

Your post was just a cop out, you have all the quotes these men claim to be Christians, look up their Last Will and Testaments; if you can't find quotes to refute their orthodoxy, the record stands! They are Christians, because they claimed so! You would also have to prove their Christianity abandoned the Westminster Confession, and catechism, which they learned in school, the denominational creeds, etc.

I'll wait for your quotes on them. Maybe you will be the first to tell the world all those guys denied orthodoxy.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Again you are just throwing spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks, assuming these men were orthodox when no evidence (at least none yet uncovered or offered by you, shows they were (for some of them, sure, but for the whole group, no). I have their writings and no you don't see them, as a whole, claiming to be Christians in any different sense than Jefferson, J. Adams, G. Morris and the other "infidels" claimed to be Christians. Rather all you have is formal or nominal associations with orthodox Churches.

We need more than just your assertions but proof of which none you have offered.

No evidence shows that Hamilton, Wilson or Madison were "orthodox" when Founding the nation. And as you know, Hamilton didn't become orthodox until after his son died in a duel. Find me Hamilton claiming to be a Christian before his son died; he doesn't and never even joined a church. Rather we have him making jokes about whoring ministers during that era and having an adulterous affair.

Further, Rush was a theological universalist and Von Steuben was probably a homosexual.

Some group of "Christians."

Jonathan Rowe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brad Hart said...

OFT said:

"Then let's assume they were all universalists. Dude, why would I assume they weren't Christians, when they claimed they were? I have their writings, so do you."

In my time as a police officer, I met a number of people that claimed they were 100% innocent of any crime, however, the evidence against them said otherwise. So is the case with the founders. One may call themselves whatever they want, but it is the EVIDENCE that is important. If you are judging the founders as Christians, simply because they said they were, you are making a HUGE mistake.

Jonathan Rowe said...

From the best evidence we have we know for sure that J. Adams, Jefferson and Franklin were theistic rationalists, that Washington, Madison, Wilson, G. Morris, and Hamilton before the end of his life PROBABLY were theistic rationalists.

Secondary Founders like John Witherspoon, Patrick Henry, Elias Boudinat, Samuel Adams were all orthodox Christians.

For the third rate Founders like Von Steuben, again, who was probably homosexual, we just don't know until someone does meticulous research, pouring through his private writings. So what we assume is that we don't know, that all that can be said is they had formal or nominal connections to Churches that taught orthodoxy, just like Thomas Jefferson the infidel or Patrick Henry the orthodox did.

Again if you want to claim their orthodoxy, you are going to have to do so Founder by Founder with explicit evidence. If it's in their wills, as you say, then show us the money, show the proof with links to the primary sources. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke as most of us here know you are.

Jonathan Rowe said...

And it's not even true that all of them said they were "Christians." This is something OFT is making up out of whole cloth. Some of them did, but could have been nominal, deistic or unitarian "Christians." Some did call themselves Christians and were indeed orthodox. But some on OFT's list didn't even say they were "Christians." For instance, there is no evidence that of Hamilton describing himself as a Christian until the end of his life. Likewise Hamilton never even joined a Church.

Our Founding Truth said...

They didn't claim to be Christians in any sense different than Jefferson, or G. Morris claimed to be Christians.>

Your ignorance is almost that of Jefferson, because you used (they) which proves you're a liar, only one quote is needed to refute your pos. This from the greatest Founding Father:

Roger Sherman


SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION; SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; “MASTER BUILDER OF THE CONSTITUTION”; JUDGE; FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; U. S. SENATOR

I believe that there is one only liv¬ing and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the same in substance, equal in power and glory. That the Scriptures of the Old and New Tes¬taments are a revelation from God, and a complete rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him

Roger Sherman
Lewis Henry Boutell, The Life of Roger Sherman (Chicago: A. C. McClurg and Company, 1896), pp. 271-273.

Further you understand that most folks sitting in orthodox Churches are not regenerate but nominal Christians.>

This is what liberals say, when they don't have a clue what they're talking about.

So sorry the burden is not on me to prove they were not orthodox regenerate Christians.>

Then why don't you call them all unitarians?

And you are right, it is bad scholarship to assume without evidence which is exactly what you you do in asserting them to be orthodox, regenerate (or the term you have used before "born-again") Christians.>

Then prove me wrong.

Rather all you have is formal or nominal associations with orthodox Churches.>

Straw man, bad scholarship.

No evidence shows that Hamilton, Wilson or Madison were "orthodox" when Founding the nation.>

This is because you will not learn.
Here, Madison rejects rationalism:
"To adjust the clashing pretensions of the large and small States. Each of these objects was pregnant with difficulties. The whole of them together formed a task more difficult than can be well conceived by those who were not concerned in the execution of it. Adding to these considerations the natural diversity of human opinions on all new and complicated subjects, it is impossible to consider the degree of concord which ultimately prevailed as less than a miracle."
To Thomas Jefferson.NEW YORK, Octr 24th, 1787.Writings of Madison, Volume 1: 1769-1793, p.343.

Wilson believed in a literal six day creation and affirmed punishment in levitical law:

In 1824, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (in a decision subsequently invoked authoritatively and endorsed by the U. S. Supreme Court ) reaffirmed that the civil laws against blasphemy were derived from divine law. The court then noted that its State's laws against blasphemy had been drawn up by James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution and original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court: The late Judge Wilson, of the Supreme Court of the United States, Professor of Law in the College in Philadelphia, was appointed in 1791, unanimously by the House of Representatives of this State to "revise and digest the laws of this commonwealth. . . . " He had just risen from his seat in the Convention which formed the Constitution of the United States, and of this State; and it is well known that for our present form of government we are greatly indebted to his exertions and influence. With his fresh recollection of both constitutions, in his course of Lectures (3d vol. of his works, 112), he states that profaneness and blasphemy are offences punishable by fine and imprisonment, and that Christianity is part of the common law. It is vain to object that the law is obsolete; this is not so; it has seldom been called into operation because this, like some other offences, has been rare. It has been retained in our recollection of laws now in force, made by the direction of the legislature, and it has not been a dead letter.

Herc Mulligan has already proved on his blog Hamilton was a Christian while forming the nation.
One may call themselves whatever they want, but it is the EVIDENCE that is important. If you are judging the founders as Christians, simply because they said they were, you are making a HUGE mistake.>

Thank God we have their words to refute this blog.

For the third rate Founders like Von Steuben, again, who was probably homosexual,>

You're a poor historian as well as "scholar"

The leading scholar on Von Steuben Jim Palmer says it's a bogus charge because the Prince of Hohenzollern-Hechingen, believed the charge was false and restored him to his position. This bogus charge was put on him because he was a protestant in a catholic court, as well as the Congress didn't allow open fairies in the army.

Again if you want to claim their orthodoxy, you are going to have to do so Founder by Founder with explicit evidence. If it's in their wills, as you say, then show us the money, show the proof with links to the primary sources. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke as most of us here know you are.>

I have their writings, and they claim to be Christians, you have to show their words are false, which you cannot ever do.

Some of them did, but could have been nominal, deistic or unitarian "Christians.">

The key word is COULD, which shows what kind of "scholar" you are. YOU FORGOT ALL THESE GUYS, BUT KNOWING HOW DISINGENUOUS YOU ARE, YOU PROBABLY THINK I MADE THEM UP:

Another contradiction from an infidel, maybe Adams wasn't a universalist:

The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost. . . . There is no authority, civil or religious – there can be no legitimate government but what is administered by this Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it. All without it is rebellion and perdition, or in more orthodox words damnation.

Letter from John Adams to Benjamin Rush, from Quincy, Massachusetts, dated December 21, 1809, from the original in our possession.

My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ and I cannot cavil or quibble away [evade or object to]. . . . the whole tenor of His conduct by which He sometimes positively asserted and at others countenances [permits] His disciples in asserting that He was God.
John Quincy Adams
SIXTH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; DIPLOMAT; SECRETARY OF STATE; U. S. SENATOR; U. S. REPRESENTATIVE; “OLD MAN ELOQUENT”; “HELL-HOUND OF ABOLITION”

Called on the people of New Hampshire . . . to confess before God their aggravated transgressions and to implore His pardon and forgiveness through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ . . . [t]hat the knowledge of the Gospel of Jesus Christ may be made known to all nations, pure and undefiled religion universally prevail, and the earth be fill with the glory of the Lord.
Josiah Bartlett
MILITARY OFFICER; SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; JUDGE; GOVERNOR OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

To the triune God – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost – be ascribed all honor and dominion, forevermore – Amen.
Gunning Bedford
MILITARY OFFICER; MEMBER OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS; SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; FEDERAL JUDGE

I, Charles Carroll. . . . give and bequeath my soul to God who gave it, my body to the earth, hoping that through and by the merits, sufferings, and mediation of my only Savior and Jesus Christ, I may be admitted into the Kingdom prepared by God for those who love, fear and truly serve Him.
Charles Carroll
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; SELECTED AS DELEGATE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION; FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; U. S. SENATOR

Rendering thanks to my Creator for my existence and station among His works, for my birth in a country enlightened by the Gospel and enjoying freedom, and for all His other kindnesses, to Him I resign myself, humbly confiding in His goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the events of eternity.
John Dickinson
SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA; GOVERNOR OF DELAWARE; GENERAL IN THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

I resign my soul into the hands of the Almighty Who gave it, in humble hopes of His mercy through our Savior Jesus Christ.
Gabriel Duvall
SOLDIER; JUDGE; SELECTED AS DELEGATE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION; COMPTROLLER OF THE U. S. TREASURY; U. S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE

And for our unparalleled ingratitude to that Adorable Being Who has seated us in a land irradiated by the cheering beams of the Gospel of Jesus Christ . . . let us fall prostrate before offended Deity, confess sincerely and penitently our manifold sins and our unworthiness of the least of His Divine favors, fervently implore His pardon through the merits of our mediator.
Elbridge Gerry
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; MEMBER OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION; FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS, GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

"to confess their sins before God and implore His forgiveness through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior."
John Hancock
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS; REVOLUTIONARY GENERAL; GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS
John Hancock, Proclamation for a Day of Fasting and Prayer, February 11, 1791, from a proclamation in our possession, Evans #23549.

[T]hanks be given unto Almighty God therefore, and knowing that it is appointed for all men once to die and after that the judgment [Hebrews 9:27] . . . principally, I give and recommend my soul into the hands of Almighty God who gave it and my body to the earth to be buried in a decent and Christian like manner . . . to receive the same again at the general resurrection by the mighty power of God.
John Hart
JUDGE; LEGISLATOR; SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION

It becomes a people publicly to acknowledge the over-ruling hand of Divine Providence and their dependence upon the Supreme Being as their Creator and Merciful Preserver . . . and with becoming humility and sincere repentance to supplicate the pardon that we may obtain forgiveness through the merits and mediation of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Samuel Huntington
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS; JUDGE; GOVERNOR OF CONNECTICUT

For my part, I am free and ready enough to declare that I think the Christian religion is a Divine institution; and I pray to God that I may never forget the precepts of His religion or suffer the appearance of an inconsistency in my principles and practice.
James Iredell
RATIFIER OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA; U. S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT GEORGE WASHINGTON

The Bible will also inform them that our gracious Creator has provided for us a Redeemer in whom all the nations of the earth should be blessed – that this Redeemer has made atonement “for the sins of the whole world,” and thereby reconciling the Divine justice with the Divine mercy, has opened a way for our redemption and salvation; and that these inestimable benefits are of the free gift and grace of God, not of our deserving, nor in our power to deserve. The Bible will also [encourage] them with many explicit and consoling assurances of the Divine mercy to our fallen race, and with repeated invitations to accept the offers of pardon and reconciliation
John Jay
PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS; DIPLOMAT; AUTHOR OF THE FEDERALIST PAPERS; ORIGINAL CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE U. S. SUPREME COURT; GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK

Your first great duties, you are sensible, are those you owe to Heaven, to your Creator and Redeemer. Let these be ever present to your minds, and exemplified in your lives and conduct. Imprint deep upon your minds the principles of piety towards God, and a reverence and fear of His holy name. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom and its [practice] is everlasting [happiness] . . . . Reflect deeply and often upon [your] relations [with God]. Remember that it is in God you live and move and have your being, – that, in the language of David, He is about your bed and about your path and spieth out all your ways – that there is not a thought in your hearts, nor a word upon your tongues, but lo! He knoweth them al¬together, and that He will one day call you to a strict account for all your conduct in this mortal life. Remember, too, that you are the redeemed of the Lord, that you are bought with a price, even the inestimable price of the precious blood of the Son of God.
William Samuel Johnson
JUDGE; MEMBER OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS; SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; PRESIDENT OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE; U. S. SENATOR

My children, I wish to talk to you. During my early and middle life I was, perhaps, rather skeptical with regard to some of the truths of Christianity. Not that I did not have the utmost respect for religion and always read my Bible, but the doctrine of the atonement was one I never could understand, and I felt inclined to consider as impossible to be received in the way Divines taught it. I believe I was rather inclined to Unitarianism; but of late years my views have altered. I believe in the doctrines of the prayer books as I understand them, and hope to be saved through the merits of Jesus Christ. . . . My object in telling you this is that if anything happens to me, you might know, and perhaps it would console you to remember, that on this point my mind is clear: I rest my hopes of salvation on the Lord Jesus Christ.
James Kent
JUDGE; LAW PROFESSOR; “FATHER OF AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE”

[M]ay I always hear that you are following the guidance of that blessed Spirit that will lead you into all truth, leaning on that Almighty arm that has been extended to deliver you, trusting only in the only Savior, and going on in your way to Him rejoicing.
Francis Scott Key
U. S. ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; AUTHOR OF THE “STAR SPANGLED BANNER”

I rejoice that the religion of Jesus prevails in your parts; I can tell you the same agreeable news from this quarter. Yesterday I returned from Piscataway in East Jersey, where was held a Baptist annual meeting (I think the largest I ever saw) but much more remarkable still for the Divine influences which God was pleased to grant. Fifteen were baptized; a number during the three days professed to experience a change of heart. Christians were remarkably quickened; multitudes appeared.
James Manning
MEMBER OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS; PRESIDENT OF BROWN UNIVERSITY

KNOWING YOU, BROWN TAUGHT UNITARIANISM!

Remember that God made you, that God keeps you alive and preserves you from all harm, and gives you all the powers and the capacity whereby you are able to read of Him and of Jesus Christ, your Savior and Redeemer, and to do every other needful business of life. And while you look around you and see the great privileges and advantages you have above what other children have (of learning to read and write, of being taught the meaning of the great truths of the Bible), you must remember not to be proud on that account but to bless God and be thankful and endeavor in your turn to assist others with the knowledge you may gain.
Henry Marchant
MEMBER OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF RHODE ISLAND; RATIFIER OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION; FEDERAL JUDGE APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT GEORGE WASHINGTON

cont.

Our Founding Truth said...

I give and bequeath my soul to Almighty God that gave it me, hoping that through the meritorious death and passion of our Savior and Redeemer Jesus Christ to receive absolution and remission for all my sins.
George Mason
DELEGATE AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION; “FATHER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS”

[P]ublic utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. Without the Bible, in vain do we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions.
James McHenry
REVOLUTIONARY OFFICER; SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; RATIFIER OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION; SECRETARY OF WAR UNDER PRESIDENTS GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JOHN ADAMS

You will probably have but a short time to live. Before you launch into eternity, it be¬hooves you to improve the time that may be allowed you in this world: it behooves you most seriously to reflect upon your past conduct; to repent of your evil deeds; to be incessant in prayers to the great and merciful God to forgive your manifold transgressions and sins; to teach you to rely upon the merit and passion of a dear Redeemer, and thereby to avoid those regions of sorrow – those doleful shades where peace and rest can never dwell, where even hope cannot enter. It behooves you to seek the [fellowship], advice, and prayers of pious and good men; to be [persistent] at the Throne of Grace, and to learn the way that leadeth to happiness. May you, reflecting upon these things, and pursuing the will of the great Father of light and life, be received into [the] company and society of angels and archangels and the spirits of just men made perfect; and may you be qualified to enter into the joys of Heaven – joys unspeakable and full of glory!
Thomas McKean
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS; RATIFIER OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION; CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA; GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA; GOVERNOR OF DELAWARE

I HAVE COUNTLESS MORE QUOTES, BUT I WILL LEAVE THEM FOR MY BOOK WHICH WILL PUT THE ENTIRE SECULAR ORDER OUT OF BUSINESS!

The Gospel of Jesus Christ prescribes the wisest rules for just conduct in every situation of life. Happy they who are enabled to obey them in all situations! . . . My only hope of salvation is in the infinite tran¬scendent love of God manifested to the world by the death of His Son upon the Cross. Noth¬ing but His blood will wash away my sins [Acts 22:16]. I rely exclusively upon it. Come, Lord Jesus! Come quickly! [Revelation 22:20]
Benjamin Rush
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; SURGEON GENERAL OF THE CONTINENTAL ARMY; RATIFIER OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION; “FATHER OF AMERICAN MEDICINE”; TREASURER OF THE U. S. MINT; “FATHER OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION”

I have thrown myself, reeking with sin, on the mercy of God, through Jesus Christ His blessed Son and our (yes, my friend, our) precious Redeemer; and I have assurances as strong as that I now owe nothing to your rank that the debt is paid and now I love God – and with reason. I once hated him – and with reason, too, for I knew not Christ. The only cause why I should love God is His goodness and mercy to me through Christ.
John Randolph of Roanoke
CONGRESSMAN UNDER PRESIDENTS JOHN ADAMS, THOMAS JEFFERSON, JAMES MADISON, JAMES MONROE, JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, ANDREW JACKSON; U. S. SENATOR; DIPLOMAT

Pardon, we beseech Thee, all our offences of omission and commission; and grant that in all our thoughts, words, and actions, we may conform to Thy known will manifested in our consciences and in the revelations of Jesus Christ, our Savior.
Timothy Pickering
REVOLUTIONARY GENERAL; JUDGE; RATIFIER OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION; POSTMASTER GENERAL UNDER PRESIDENT GEORGE WASHINGTON; SECRETARY OF WAR UNDER PRESIDENTS GEORGE WASHINGTON AND JOHN ADAMS; SECRETARY OF STATE UNDER PRESIDENT JOHN ADAMS

When the righteous rule, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan. [invoking Proverbs 29:2 to instruct a grand jury].
William Paterson
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY; SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; U. S. SENATOR; GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY; U. S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE

All efforts made to destroy the foundations of our Holy Religion ultimately tend to the subversion also of our political freedom and happiness. In proportion as the genuine effects of Christianity are diminished in any nation… in the same proportion will the people of that nation recede from the blessings of genuine freedom… Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government – and all the blessings which flow from them – must fall with them.
Jedidiah Morse
HISTORIAN OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION; EDUCATOR; “FATHER OF AMERICAN GEOGRAPHY”; APPOINTED BY SECRETARY OF STATE TO DOCUMENT CONDITION OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

I believe the Bible to be the written word of God and to contain in it the whole rule of faith and manners.
Robert Treat Paine
MILITARY CHAPLAIN; SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS; JUDGE

I think it proper here not only to subscribe to the entire belief of the great and leading doctrines of the Christian religion, such as the being of God; the universal defection and depravity of human nature; the Divinity of the person and the completeness of the redemption purchased by the blessed Savior; the necessity of the opera¬tions of the Divine Spirit; of Divine faith accompanied with an habitual virtuous life; and the universality of the Divine Providence: but also, in the bowels of a father’s affection, to exhort and charge [my children] that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, that the way of life held up in the Christian system is calculated for the most complete happiness that can be enjoyed in this mortal state, [and] that all occasions of vice and immorality is injurious either im¬mediately or consequentially – even in this life.
Richard Stockton-Taught John Jay law.
JUDGE; SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

He called on the State of Massachusetts to pray that . . . all nations may know and be obedient to that grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ.
Caleb Strong
DELEGATE AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION TO FRAME THE U. S. CONSTITUTION; RATIFIER OF THE CONSTITUTION; U. S. SENATOR; GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS

Jesus Christ has in the clearest manner inculcated those duties which are productive of the highest moral felicity and consistent with all the innocent enjoyments, to which we are impelled by the dictates of nature. Religion, when fairly considered in its genuine simplicity and uncorrupted state, is the source of endless rapture and delight.
Zephaniah Swift
U. S. CONGRESSMAN; DIPLOMAT; JUDGE; AUTHOR OF AMERICA’S FIRST LEGAL TEXT (1795)

I am a Christian. I believe only in the Scriptures, and in Jesus Christ my Savior.
Charles Thomson
SECRETARY OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS; DESIGNER OF THE GREAT SEAL OF THE UNITED STATES; ALONG WITH JOHN HANCOCK, THOMSON WAS ONE OF ONLY TWO FOUNDERS TO SIGN THE INITIAL DRAFT OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE APPROVED BY CONGRESS

The examples of holy men teach us that we should seek Him with fasting and prayer, with penitent confession of our sins, and hope in His mercy through Jesus Christ the Great Redeemer.
Jonathan Trumbull
JUDGE; LEGISLATOR; GOVERNOR OF CONNECTICUT; CONFIDANT OF GEORGE WASHINGTON AND CALLED “BROTHER JONATHAN” BY HIM

[T]he Christian religion – its general principles – must ever be regarded among us as the foundation of civil society.
Daniel Webster
U. S. SENATOR; SECRETARY OF STATE; “DEFENDER OF THE CONSTITUTION”

[T]he religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles… This is genuine Christianity and to this we owe our free constitutions of government.
Noah Webster
REVOLUTIONARY SOLDIER; JUDGE; LEGISLATOR; EDUCATOR; “SCHOOLMASTER TO AMERICA”

May we then turn our eyes to the bright objects above, and may God give us strength to travel the upward road. May the Divine Redeemer conduct us to that seat of bliss which He himself has prepared for His friends;
Oliver Wolcott
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; MILITARY GENERAL; GOVERNOR OF CONNECTICUT

THE OTHER ONES I LISTED ARE JUST AS ORTHODOX, I HAVE COUNTLESS MORE QUOTES.

OTF

Lindsey Shuman said...

Our Founding Truth said:

"Blah, blah, blah. Rabble, rabble rabble."