tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post2984258320374433329..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: America Was PLANTED as a Christian Nation, but not FOUNDED as OneBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-78712202239251311712009-02-10T17:36:00.000-07:002009-02-10T17:36:00.000-07:00Well, a great many John Adams supporters accused J...Well, a great many John Adams supporters accused Jefferson of being an atheist. Just as many Jefferson supporters called Adams a monarchist.Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-47724591240822307532009-02-09T18:52:00.000-07:002009-02-09T18:52:00.000-07:00Most, if not all the population, knew Jefferson wa...Most, if not all the population, knew Jefferson was a deist.><BR/><BR/>I meant, did not know Jefferson was a deist.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-83202216086123301402009-02-09T18:51:00.000-07:002009-02-09T18:51:00.000-07:00Brian:And in light of this, he's making the argume...Brian:<I>And in light of this, he's making the argument that their UNDERSTANDING of Jefferson's language (and you can insert whatever Founder you wish) is how we should interpret the language of the founding era. <BR/><BR/>OFT, correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems to be what you're saying. And it seems to be your strongest argument for the "Christian Nation" premise</I>.<BR/><BR/>I think that conclusion has to be correct, no? If Jefferson was an atheist, would it change anything? Most, if not all the population, knew Jefferson was a deist.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-65728081285551453642009-02-09T13:54:00.000-07:002009-02-09T13:54:00.000-07:00One of the main points I see OFT making in this th...One of the main points I see OFT making in this thread (and in others) is that, while Jefferson and some of the other key Founders were Deist or Unitarian or semi-Christian in their leanings, the average American was a professing Christian. Perhaps not a Bible-thumpin' evangelical. But someone who professed belief in God, Jesus, and the Scriptures. And who, at least to SOME extent, attended church. <BR/><BR/>And in light of this, he's making the argument that their UNDERSTANDING of Jefferson's language (and you can insert whatever Founder you wish) is how we should interpret the language of the founding era. <BR/><BR/>OFT, correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems to be what you're saying. And it seems to be your strongest argument for the "Christian Nation" premise.<BR/><BR/>Now, for my own part, I'm partly sympathetic to OFT. I think the above argument has some merit, and shouldn't be dismissed. <BR/><BR/>That said, I also believe that the Founding Fathers were considered "fathers" for a reason. There's a reason why some people emerge as leaders. It's the leaders that shape and help direct the current of history. <BR/><BR/>Joseph Ellis makes this point very convincingly in "Founding Brothers."<BR/><BR/>And, thus, while a majority of the people were professing Christians, this doesn't mean that their leaders intended to found the United States as a "Christian" nation. <BR/><BR/>I think there's a balance here. The national government was intended to be secular with Deistic undertones (and, in some cases, overtones). But the culture and society of America was most certainly "Christian" and has largely remained so over its history.Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-84465105338438472992009-02-09T13:45:00.000-07:002009-02-09T13:45:00.000-07:00Lori, you're right about the Puritans, BUT.....I c...Lori, you're right about the Puritans, BUT.....<BR/><BR/>I can cut them some slack. It's easy to judge people looking BACK from the 21st century. To be fair, we should put ourselves in THEIR shoes, looking forward from the 1600s. <BR/><BR/>They were a mere century removed from the Protestant Reformation, and were accustomed to a culture and society in which Church and State were united. The idea that Church and State should be institutionally separate was not at all mainstream in the 1600s.Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-13056194945219218832009-02-08T08:53:00.000-07:002009-02-08T08:53:00.000-07:00I'll split the difference between Tom & Br...I'll split the difference between Tom & Brad on OFT. I agree with Brad that OFT very often just throws a lot of spaghetti against the wall and tries to see what sticks. Sometimes something useful or relevant sticks. But it's done in the context of a lot of mess.<BR/><BR/>Yet, I agree with Tom that OFT works hard on cooking his spaghetti up.<BR/><BR/>His biggest problem is too many non-sequiturs (making conclusions that don't follow from the facts presented). Overstatement, often done in the context of insult. And unwarranted presumptions, not based on fact, but based on the fact that he is "married" to this monster in which he has faith.<BR/><BR/>Many evangelicals believe God speaks to them. And if they are convinced God told them X, no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise. The "Christian Nation" thesis is not required belief for orthodox Christians, evangelical or otherwise. Indeed, as we know many orthodox Christians are the primary debunkers of this thesis. And the Bible/Christian religion predates America by some 1700 + years.<BR/><BR/>I don't know everything about evangelical or fundamentalist Christianity, but one thing I do know is it teaches a "narrow path" and that even in Christian demographic nations, the unregenerate will always be among you and perhaps will always outnumber "real" Christians. Roger Williams understood this and this is why he thought the idea of a "Christian Nation" to be blasphemous.<BR/><BR/>It could be that a statistical majority of the population (which defines as 50% +) were not only orthodox Christians but thought of themselves as "born again" and believed the Bible the infallible word of God. We just don't know that however. One study shows only 17% of Americans members of churches, that they were liklier to be found in taverns on Saturday nights than churches on Sunday mornings. <BR/><BR/>Given that reality and the fact that evangelicalism teaches the narrow path, it's no wonder that so many evangelicals reject the "Christian Nation" thesis.<BR/><BR/>But the "Christian Nation" tale goes well beyond believing a statistical majority were orthodox and teaches that the orthodox biblical God so touched America that the overwhelming MAJORITY were "born again" Christians. That claim is utterly unsubstantiated by the record and is unprovable. Believing in that takes as much FAITH as believing in the book of revelation.<BR/><BR/>Yet, I believe with folks like Barton and OFT, they heard God tell them this was true and that's why they are so stubborn in the fact of contrary evidence.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-84353431663235971652009-02-08T08:47:00.000-07:002009-02-08T08:47:00.000-07:00I'll reinsert the Puritans here by saying they had...I'll reinsert the Puritans here by saying they had no intention to and did not establish a state that offered religious freedom. They created a state that protected Congregational/Reformed Anglicanism--their religion. The whole point of their removal from England was to create a state where Reformed Anglicanism could thrive, thus creating a colony of righteous people who could fulfill the commission from God that they felt England had betrayed and abandoned.<BR/><BR/>So they would have hated the contemporary U.S., with its toleration of all faiths. <BR/><BR/>The author also seems to conflate the Massachusetts Bay Colony and Connecticut.Lori Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15564577844724131369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-29014848180806655102009-02-08T07:50:00.000-07:002009-02-08T07:50:00.000-07:00"a href=, etc."When typing posts in blogger, they ..."a href=, etc."<BR/><BR/>When typing posts in blogger, they offer a button that obviates the need to type all that out. Do you use it?Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-11818779061090449972009-02-08T07:47:00.000-07:002009-02-08T07:47:00.000-07:00You can stick up for Goswick if you want, Tom, but...You can stick up for Goswick if you want, Tom, but I am not buying it. And to call what he does "research" is a bit much. He just throws out quotes...nothing more.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-13381756452370965542009-02-08T02:33:00.000-07:002009-02-08T02:33:00.000-07:00Brad, unfortunately, besides Jonathan Rowe, around...Brad, unfortunately, besides Jonathan Rowe, around here I learn the most from James Goswick/AKA Our Founding Truth/perhaps AAKA "Ray."<BR/><BR/>He does research. I often disagree with the arguments he makes based on his research, but I can handle that. I make my own conclusions based on his spadework.<BR/><BR/>But unlike some of our commenters, James Goswick---I urge him to use his real name instead of "Our Founding Truth"---does genuine research into the founding documents, and presents no more opinion than those who don't do a goddam lick of work, but shoot of opinion in no lesser quantity than does Mr. Goswick.<BR/><BR/>So, Brad, I think he shouldn't go away or be urged to go away until the rest of our colloquy here does as much research <I>and</I> makes sounder arguments.<BR/><BR/>On a personal note, he's the only one who shows evidence he's clicked on the links that I so painstakingly type out as footnotes around here, read them, and responds to them. a href=, etc. It's a pain in the ass, quite frankly. I don't ask for much, just an honest hearing.<BR/><BR/>If you don't like Mr. Goswick's opinions, ignore them, don't respond to them. I don't like a lot of his opinions either, but I give him a thumbs-up when he makes a good point and backs it up with research. Which he does often enough to be of value to this blog. To bury him completely is a disservice to the truth, whatever that might be...Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-77544755776476369342009-02-08T02:08:00.000-07:002009-02-08T02:08:00.000-07:00These are only the familiar words of President Was...<I>These are only the familiar words of President Washington, but they do belie the notion that religious establishment was intended to be delegated to the states:<BR/><BR/>"All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. </I><BR/><BR/>Unfortunately for your argument, Mr. Sweeney, religious establishment <I>was</I> delegated---reserved---to the states. Liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship are not at issue here. <BR/><BR/>This is pure historical fact, not opinion. You could look it up, in the constitutions of the several states. [Many states other than Washington's Virginia did impose religious tests for statewide public office, even Pennsylvania, which although it weakened its tests in the Founding era, still required a belief in God.]<BR/><BR/>As for OFT and Jonathan Rowe's discussion---OFT is wrong on several counts, and Jonathan, we cannot take Jefferson's account of why "Jesus Christ" was omitted from the Virginia statute as gospel truth. If there is corroboration, of course I would drop my objection.<BR/><BR/>So too your assertion that <BR/><BR/><I>Thus it is more of a naturalistic or rationalistic God that grants the rights in the VA Statute than a biblical God.</I><BR/><BR/>That may be true. I prefer to not let the discussion be defined by Virginia. There were at least 10 or 12 other states.<BR/><BR/>And so, our Mr. Goswick's quote---quotation---from Pennsylvanian and key Founder John Dickinson, <BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dickinson_(delegate)<BR/><BR/>that man's rights come from the King of Kings, should not be ignored, even if it was from 1776. We're trying to get into their heads.<BR/><BR/>Neither should the phrase "Holy Author of Our Religion" in the Virginia statute be necessarily read as someone other than Jesus Christ.<BR/><BR/>I'm not arguing this way or that because I really don't know, but I'm unsatisfied with the arguments presented both for and against so far. I'm willing to back off and kick the evidence around.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-67279389398040991812009-02-07T21:34:00.000-07:002009-02-07T21:34:00.000-07:00OFT:Your arguments are boring and predictable. Th...OFT:<BR/><BR/>Your arguments are boring and predictable. The founders themselves could come back to life and tell the world that they didn't establish a Christian nation and you still wouldn't believe them. You've married yourself to a monster that you cannot escape from.<BR/><BR/>How about you go bother different people for a change!Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-23073685885309723912009-02-07T20:14:00.000-07:002009-02-07T20:14:00.000-07:00These are only the familiar words of President Was...These are only the familiar words of President Washington, but they do belie the notion that religious establishment was intended to be delegated to the states:<BR/><BR/>"All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. <BR/><BR/>"It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no factions, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-62178605960881832162009-02-07T20:05:00.000-07:002009-02-07T20:05:00.000-07:00"No historian is buying that."OFT, when you make s..."No historian is buying that."<BR/><BR/>OFT, when you make such broad and erroneous statements like this you come off as moronic. Remember I'm to the right of most "historians." Very few historians buy the nonsense that David Barton peddles and most professional historians make claims that are more secular, leftist and deistic than mine.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-11649535094466935942009-02-07T20:04:00.000-07:002009-02-07T20:04:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-35893604886801508402009-02-07T19:49:00.000-07:002009-02-07T19:49:00.000-07:00The "Holy Author of Our Religion" is not...The "Holy Author of Our Religion" is not necessarily the Jesus of the orthodox because Jefferson didn't believe Jesus divine.><BR/><BR/>That's cool. I figured that. It's the only place you can go. You have to take the people of Virginia out of the equation and use the subjection intention of an individual to speak for the entire people. No historian is buying that.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-41495839605435902482009-02-07T17:56:00.000-07:002009-02-07T17:56:00.000-07:00So now OFT/Ray knows better than Jefferson what a ...So now OFT/Ray knows better than Jefferson what a majority of legislators who passed Jefferson's VA Statute meant.><BR/><BR/>Unbelievable is right! Notice the word "protection," that is referring to who and what is protected, not who the identity of the God is; which is Jesus Christ. The words by the orthodox Virginians is just a matter of semantics, using Jesus' name or just Lord is makes no difference.<BR/><BR/> If some did believe only Christianity should be protected, that makes no difference who the God is giving the protection.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-19441125125227008912009-02-07T17:42:00.000-07:002009-02-07T17:42:00.000-07:00The "Holy Author of Our Religion" is not necessari...The "Holy Author of Our Religion" is not necessarily the Jesus of the orthodox because Jefferson didn't believe Jesus divine. <BR/><BR/>And the "almighty God" who created the mind free certainly isn't necessarily Jesus Christ because, again Jefferson fervently rejected the Trinity. <BR/><BR/>The God of the VA statute in some <B>broad</B> way derives from the "Judeo-Christian" tradition, emphasis on "broad."<BR/><BR/>Jefferson's "Almightly God" was a theological unitarian who created the mind free, partially inspired the Bible and didn't perform miracles. Even if that weren't the God of most VA legislators at the time, it doesn't matter: Jefferson's VA Statute was written to be 100% compatible with his own views. If they are compatible with the orthodoxy that was more common, then the God of the VA Statute must be broad enough to accomodate both Jefferson's heterodoxy as well as the orthodoxy that was more common. This is what it means to appeal to a broadly defined "Providence" as the guarantor of natural rights.<BR/><BR/>Finally, since natural rights are not at all a biblical concept, it is not necessary to invoke the orthodox God as the grantor of them. The stuff in the VA Statute sounds nice and may be true in a metaphysical sense. But if so, those principles were not discovered in the Bible, but rather in "nature" through man's reason. Thus it is more of a naturalistic or rationalistic God that grants the rights in the VA Statute than a biblical God.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-51799704058344067962009-02-07T17:16:00.000-07:002009-02-07T17:16:00.000-07:00Pinky,Brian is a small o orthodox Christian, not a...Pinky,<BR/><BR/>Brian is a small o orthodox Christian, not a capital O Orthodox Christian. Small o orthodox Christianity refers to that common ground of theological orthodoxy that unites Roman Catholics, evangelical and reformed Protestants and the capital O Orthodox Church.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-50661205299556993912009-02-07T17:15:00.000-07:002009-02-07T17:15:00.000-07:00Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a de...<I>Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" <B>the insertion was rejected by a great majority,</B> in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.</I> [Bold mine.]<BR/><BR/>So now OFT/Ray knows better than Jefferson what a majority of legislators who passed Jefferson's VA Statute meant. Unfreakin believable.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-14288821395787946282009-02-07T16:00:00.000-07:002009-02-07T16:00:00.000-07:00Brian: "Have enjoyed skimming this debate. Over 10...Brian: "Have enjoyed skimming this debate. Over 100 posts. Wow. I'll say this for OFT. He knows how to stimulate a good discussion! :-)"<BR/><BR/>Ray: "Hey Brian, thanks for the props, I was hopeing (sp) for 100 posts. Thanks to Jon, Tom, BP, and everyone else for the participation! Let's try to get some more people involved, and hit 200 posts!"<BR/><BR/>Tom: "Oh, and Ray, I do hope you're not the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_sock_puppet" REL="nofollow">sockpuppet</A> of one of our regular commenters ..."<BR/><BR/>Nice deduciton Tom. Based upon this exchange there is good reason to infer that Ray is Jim Goswick himself ... I also noticed that <I>Ray</I> has <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/profile/04781268582972529356" REL="nofollow">no public profile</A>.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-60906667371685542542009-02-07T15:35:00.000-07:002009-02-07T15:35:00.000-07:00Oh, and Ray, I do hope you're not the sockpupp...Oh, and Ray, I do hope you're not the sockpuppet of one of our regular commenters...><BR/><BR/>Who is Ray? Cyberspace got crossed up.<BR/><BR/>OFT:<I>"It is impossible to not identify the God of the Virginia Statute as Jesus Christ. So "The Lord" HAS to be Jesus Christ, as well as "The Holy Author of Our Holy Religion" is always Jesus Christ. Buddha, or anyone else, cannot be "The Lord." It is common knowlegdge Jesus Christ is the grantor of our natural rights</I>."<BR/><BR/>Brad:<I>Nope</I>!<BR/><BR/>Talk about ignorance! What an ignorant statement in light of the post by Frankl Lambert. <BR/><BR/>Brad would be the first one in history to claim "The Lord" and The Holy Author of Our Religion" is not Jesus Christ, but Buddha or Mohammed, or whoever. Are you the Lord, Brad, or is it Jon? Unbelievable!<BR/><BR/>Jesus Christ is the grantor of our Natural Rights:<BR/><BR/> “Our liberties do not come from the charters; for these are only declarations of preexisting rights. They do not depend on parchment or seals; but come from the <B>King of Kings and the Lord of all the earth</B>.” [bold face mine]<BR/><BR/> - John Dickinson, 1776. Penman of the Revolution. <BR/><BR/>Yeah, Dickinson was talking about Buddha! May the truth set you free.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-31576192008776831772009-02-07T14:17:00.000-07:002009-02-07T14:17:00.000-07:00Ray writes:"It is impossible to not identify the G...Ray writes:<BR/><BR/><EM>"It is impossible to not identify the God of the Virginia Statute as Jesus Christ. So "The Lord" HAS to be Jesus Christ, as well as "The Holy Author of Our Holy Religion" is always Jesus Christ. Buddha, or anyone else, cannot be "The Lord." It is common knowlegdge Jesus Christ is the grantor of our natural rights."</EM><BR/><BR/>Nope!Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-15913796043656931772009-02-07T14:15:00.000-07:002009-02-07T14:15:00.000-07:00Brian:What Anderson calls an "imagined community" ...Brian:<BR/><BR/>What Anderson calls an "imagined community" simply refers to the components which make up a nation, in other words, whatever a society consideres to be paramount to their sense of nationhood. It is imagined because it is not tangible nor exclusive. All nations are based on a large number of shared beliefs, but this commonality is, in the end, imagined.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-56146258886574541212009-02-07T13:59:00.000-07:002009-02-07T13:59:00.000-07:00Oh, and Ray, I do hope you're not the sockpuppet o...Oh, and Ray, I do hope you're not the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_sock_puppet" REL="nofollow"><I>sockpuppet</I></A> of one of our regular commenters...Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com