Americas Christian Foundations : Part 1

Men have done and will continue to do things in the name of religion, greed and hatred for their own benefit.

Right, regardless of their religious principles. Religion has little to do with it other than to claim our god says we are in the right.

Denying history will not change it all we can hope for is to learn form history and not repeat those same tragic mistakes.

Sadly Xtians are still repeating the same mistakes, whether it trying to intorduce the mythology of creationism in schools or a politician playing to the indoctrinated by claiming god is on his side.

Whether you want to believe it or not does not change the facts.

Ditto.

This country was founded on Judeo-Christian values.

I'm still loking for any reference in the US Constitution. Perhaps you could point it out?

It is a shame that we see the constant need to change that history as it is an integral part of who we are and where we came from.

The irony of your statement completely floors me. Perhaps you've never heard of Texas?

I will not address this to any extent here

That, I've seen. All claims, no substance.

As for the last comment you make I have not seen anything in the Texas educational board that changes our history.

Enough said. Detracking.

Whether you want to believe it or not does not change the facts. This country was founded on Judeo-Christian values.

What "facts" are you talking about? This country was most certainly NOT founded on judeo-christian values.

It is a shame that we see the constant need to change that history as it is an integral part of who we are and where we came from.

And you seem to be presenting christian revisionist history.

It is however still built upon the same Judeo-Christian principles that the early people of this country held so dear. I will not address this to any extent here as it will be covered in a future installation of this series.

You won't need to cover it any further, either now or later, as John Adams already did in his publication "A Defence (sic) of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America," (emphasis mine, with credit to fellow NV'r Proud Pagan for the reference)

It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had any interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of heaven, any more than those at work upon ships or houses, or labouring in merchandize or agriculture: it will for ever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

Oh, but this is no mere mention, no random thought; he goes on:

As Copley painted Chatham, West, Wolf, and Trumbull, Warren and Montgomery; as Dwight, Barlow, Trumbull, and Humphries composed their verse, and Belknap and Ramzay history; as Godfrey invented his quadrant, and Rittenhouse his planetarium; as Boylston practised inoculation, and Franklin electricity; as Paine exposed the mistakes of Raynal, and Jefferson those of Buffon, so unphilosophically borrowed from the Recherches Philosophiques sur les Américains those despicable dreams of De Paw — neither the people, nor their conventions, committees, or sub-committees, considered legislation in any other light than ordinary arts and sciences, only as of more importance.

And he continues to emphasize his point:

Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind.

Here, John Adams is speaking clearly and specifically to the conditions under which the U.S. Constitution and the law was written. Besides, stating the Constitution is a secular document (which it is) and saying it's based on judeo-christian principles is a contradiction in terms.

This is a disservice to our children as we are denying them the entire truth of who founded and what our country was founded upon.

And saying this country is founded on judeo-christian principles is demonstratably false and an outright lie, perpetuated by people like David Barton, who either are ignorant of actual history or have an agenda. By all means, provide one piece of valid, original documentation which states this country or its constitution was founded on judeo christian principles! So far, all you've provided is your own opinion of things.

...with credit to fellow NV'r Proud Pagan for the reference

Thank you, Gordy. :-)

This article, and it's premise, is littered with half-truths and fallacious arguments. To wit:

Christopher Columbus who is accredited...

Christopher Columbus has absolutely nothing to do with the scope, purpose, and/or effect of the foundation of this nation whatsoever. His inclusion in this article is the epitome of superfluous.

The pilgrims when they came to flee religious persecution indeed. Yet if you read what they wrote in the Mayflower Compact we can see that they came here with a firm Biblical worldview and a purpose beyond just fleeing persecution.

It is a demonstrable and historic facts that the Pilgrims did not come to America to establish freedom of religion, they came to establish freedom to practice their religion. Seventeenth century Puritans were as religiously intolerant as their contemporaries in England.

In 1643 the New England Confederation established a constitution as the colonies grew and became united again shows the strong Christian values of the original founders.

This Confederation lasted less than five years, and proved itself a failure. To refer to this as an influence to the foundation of the U.S. is not unlike attributing alchemy as the basis for modern-day chemistry.

Each of the early state constitutions reflected many of the same principles and values.

Indeed, as is displayed by the letter from the Danbury Baptists to Thomas Jefferson in 1801:

• Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen.

Those "early state constitutions" were frequently used as justification for religious discrimination. These are no more an example of the principles on which this nation is founded than the Articles of Confederation.

The people we call our founding fathers were raised, educated and lived in this same society. We would be greatly amiss to say that they were not strongly influenced by this same society, that they were not strongly influenced by the Judeo-Christian principles that this nations was founded upon.

This is entirely fallacious, as it calls for assumptions and speculation in the absence of facts. The Founding Fathers of this nation made their feelings well-known:

• The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man. (Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to J. Moor, 1800).
• History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes. (Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to von Humboldt, 1813).
• In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. (Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to H. Spafford, 1814).
• Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute threepence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever? (James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance," 1785)
• Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation. (James Madison, Ibid)
• Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. (James Madison, Detached Memoranda, ca. 1820)
• Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society. (George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792)

Every single one of these sentiments is in direct contradiction with the concept of founding a government, or a nation, upon the principles of any one specific religion.

And you, Hiram, have yet to provide even one verifiable quote from a framer of the U.S. Constitution, wherein it claims the nation, or the government, was founded on Christian principles.

Not one.

Regards

Pagan, You might consider reading the article again. It's not about the constitution or the founding fathers that wrote it.

That fact is religion was at the heart of what motivated the early settlers. The both settlements were run by Christian law. They brought that with them and it ruled for more than 100 years. The settlements were religiously set up with the same situation the settlers came to American trying to avoid. No place in the article is there a denial of religious intolerance. It was that intolerance that brought about the constitution.

I've seen you around other articles of this nature. It seems your intent is not to discuss, but to be down right argumentative and hateful toward Christians. Try using some civility, it's a much more acceptable form of discussion.

Pilgrims did not come to America to establish freedom of religion, they came to establish freedom to practice their religion.

Tomato, Tomoto. Please prove your comment with something more substantial than simply unveiling your own religious intolerance. AND Try to remember this article is not about the constitution. America was founded more than 100 years before we declared independence or wrote the constitution.

Pagan, You might consider reading the article again. It's not about the constitution or the founding fathers that wrote it.

In effect, it is. The Constitution is what articulates the foundation of our government.

That fact is religion was at the heart of what motivated the early settlers. The both settlements were run by Christian law. They brought that with them and it ruled for more than 100 years.

And that method of government failed.

No place in the article is there a denial of religious intolerance. It was that intolerance that brought about the constitution.

That religious intolerance of which you speak was established and supported by the state governments of that time period. The Constitution was not an extension of the original religion-based systems of government, the Constitution was written to abolish such a government.

I've seen you around other articles of this nature. It seems your intent is not to discuss, but to be down right argumentative and hateful toward Christians.

That would be impossible. It violates the tenets of my religion to be hateful toward Christians.

Pilgrims did not come to America to establish freedom of religion, they came to establish freedom to practice their religion.

Tomato, Tomoto. Please prove your comment with something more substantial than simply unveiling your own religious intolerance.

Go back and read my previous post. Where it says "Seventeenth century Puritans," it is also a link to an article which discusses religious intolerance, both in England, and in the American colonies.

The religious intolerance practiced by American colonists is well-known and well-documented. Trying to deny it. or water it down, is simply ignoring facts.

AND Try to remember this article is not about the constitution. America was founded more than 100 years before we declared independence or wrote the constitution.

No. The U.S. Constitution forms the rightful foundation of this nation.

And the next time you accuse me of being religiously intolerant, I strongly suggest that you back it up with an actual example so that you don't come off looking like you're an outright liar.

Regards

However there is one thing we have to take into consideration as masheely pointed out. Out country is more than the founding fathers it is about the people.

That is all good and well, but if you wish to speak to the foundation of this nation, and whether that foundation is specifically based on Judeo-Christian principles, you're going to have to be much more precise. Otherwise, it's just a fallacious argument called "Appeal to Anonymous Authority."

Yet they were not the only ones, there were many more and even some that if we wert grade them on a scale of 1-10 as being religious would fall under a 3, and they still realized the importance of religion and God in the making of this nation.

Again, you are free to name those people and bring their contributions into the discussion, else you fall into the same fallacious argument.

If one removes all references to religion or God from our history they are removing our history.

And here, let's discuss any one specific Christian principle which, if removed, would have changed how the foundation of this nation was established.

I will in future installations be looking others that founded this country many in very prominent positions and show that the Judeo-Christian values were predominant in the formation of this nation.

I look forward to it.

Regards

In effect, it is. The Constitution is what articulates the foundation of our government.

No, Pagan. You want to make it about the constitution, but it's not.

Hiram said this is his first paragraph. "Our government is a secular government and I am very content with that ideology." And this"We often look back at those we call our founding fathers. They were indeed instrumental in building a new nation, in establishing its constitution and its freedoms. They were also only a few of the millions of people that lived, worked and prayed here. If look back past the revolution, to the real founding of this nation to the very beginning we cannot in good conscience deny that the foundation of this nations was indeed built upon a strong belief in God."

Hiram also talked about the mayflower compact, which was written in 1620. The constitution was written in 1787. The foundation of America was established in 1607 when the first settlement succeeded. To say America was not established until the adoption of the constitution is to dismiss 180 years of American History.

No, Pagan. You want to make it about the constitution, but it's not.

And playing willfully ignorant is neither impressive nor persuasive. You think you can pick and choose from history that which represents the nation, and that which does not, is purely grade school semantics.

It works like this: A company builds a ship. On its maiden voyage, it sinks. So the company builds a second ship. This one also sinks. So now they change how they build ships, and the third ship sails beautifully. So are the building plans for the first ship the "foundation" for building a sea-worthy ship? Hell no, it's the foundation for a failure.

It's the same with the U.S. government. Religiously established states failed; the Articles of Confederation failed; The U.S. Constitution was one first of its kind, unique from anything the world had seen before, and has become one of the oldest Constitutions in the world.

Hiram said this is his first paragraph...

I addressed Hiram's comments. Ignoring those comments tells me that you're not looking for a discussion, you're looking for an audience.

Hiram also talked about the mayflower compact, which was written in 1620.

And which also pledged loyalty to King James. If we are to remain faithful to this document, then we should consider ourselves still a British colony.

The constitution was written in 1787. The foundation of America was established in 1607 when the first settlement succeeded.

Your opinion. There simply is nothing factual to support this.

To say America was not established until the adoption of the constitution is to dismiss 180 years of American History.

By and large, we learned from our mistakes. Repeating those mistakes is hardly a worthwhile practice, or worthy of being called a "foundation."

Regards

The U.S. Constitution was one first of its kind, unique from anything the world had seen before, and has become one of the oldest Constitutions in the world.

Sorry it's not. Read up on San Marino.

Your opinion. There simply is nothing factual to support this.

Wow, when do you think Jamestown was settled? When did you think the constitution was adopted?

Religiously established states failed

Yes that is true, I'm glad you acknowledge that Christianity was part of America before it was not. We could go on like this all day. Pagan the history of the settlers is clear. It's influence on America is also clear, good or bad it influenced the next generation and the next and the next, until we finally got to a place where a constitution was written to establish a law for all the colonies. We're talking about people, not failed ships. What you perceive as failure could be perceived as success from another point of vies. Was Hitler a failure or success?

Ignoring those comments tells me that you're not looking for a discussion, you're looking for an audience.

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm pointing out that he is not talking about the constitution. Why do you want to argue about this? He clearly went back further than the constitution and you're still trying to say his article is about the constitution. Point out the part that leads to you believe this.

That would be impossible. It violates the tenets of my religion to be hateful toward Christians.

It's against the tenets of Christians to be hateful too, but as we look through history we see tenets don't always stop people from being hateful. We also see people often use their beliefs to control, demean and govern others.

Hiram, I'm sorry to contribute to an argument on your column. For obvious reasons, I'm going to back off for a bit.

The U.S. Constitution was one first of its kind, unique from anything the world had seen before, and has become one of the oldest Constitutions in the world.

Sorry it's not. Read up on San Marino.

The U.S. Constitution has little in common with the Constitution of San Marino. 1) By what faulty logic do you contend that the U.S. Constitution was not unique for its time?

Whether or not the Constitution of San Marino came first, the U.S. Constitution is still, as I said, "one of the oldest." 2) By what faulty logic do you dispute this?

3) Or are you arguing just for the sake of arguing? Because your contention here makes no sense.

Your opinion. There simply is nothing factual to support this.

Wow, when do you think Jamestown was settled?

4) What does Jamestown have to do with our tripartite system of government? Our bicameral legislation? Our judiciary? Jamestown may have been settled prior to the Constitution, but what did Jamestown contribute to the foundation of this nation?

Religiously established states failed

Yes that is true, I'm glad you acknowledge that Christianity was part of America before it was not.

I never said otherwise, and it's dishonest of you to imply that I did.

We could go on like this all day.

No, we won't, because you're going to quit posting replies very soon, as your claims are being consistently rebutted.

Pagan the history of the settlers is clear. It's influence on America is also clear...

But your perception of that influence is apparently lacking for facts, thus, it is NOT so clear, and you SHOULD explain yourself.

We're talking about people, not failed ships.

I see, so the concept of a hypothetical is lost on you?

What you perceive as failure could be perceived as success from another point of vies. Was Hitler a failure or success?

That depends: 5) If Hitler succeeded, is Germany still a Nazi state? 6) If Hitler failed, is Germany still a Nazi state?

Ignoring those comments tells me that you're not looking for a discussion, you're looking for an audience.

I'm not ignoring anything.

Really? 7) Did you reply to a comment I made on Hiram's post? Yes or no?

I'm pointing out that he is not talking about the constitution. Why do you want to argue about this?

Willful ignorance on your part. The United States being founded on the U.S Constitution is third-year high school U.S. History. You are playing semantics, and it is anything but impressive.

That would be impossible. It violates the tenets of my religion to be hateful toward Christians.

It's against the tenets of Christians to be hateful too, but as we look through history we see tenets don't always stop people from being hateful.

I tell you what, just say the word, I'll email tyler, or one of the other site admins, and ask their opinion on whether or not your personal attack against me is justified. 8) You go look up that example of me being hateful to Christians, okay?

And by the way, I numbered the questions, in this post, for which I expect an answer. It will make it easier to reference them if/when you ignore them.

Regards

Thank you, Gordy. :-)

You're welcome Pagan. :)

The information you have given is indeed food for thought.

It is also verifiable fact.

and they still realized the importance of religion and God in the making of this nation.

They recognized the importance of allowing the individual the freedom to follow god or religion as they wished. But they did not include nor reference god or religion once in the Constitution, save for the freedom of.

If one removes all references to religion or God from our history they are removing our history.

No one is suggesting that. But it is dishonest or igorant of facts to say god or religion had a hand in founding this nation, to say nothing of the claims that this nation is based on religious principles, when that is demonstratably not the case.

and show that the Judeo-Christian values were predominant in the formation of this nation.

Yeah, good luck with that.

You want to make it about the constitution, but it's not.

What do you think is the founding document of this nation and its system of laws and government?

If look back past the revolution, to the real founding of this nation

This nation wasn't "founded" until the ratification of the Constitution. Prior to the American Revolution and drafting of the Declaration of Independence, we were merely British colonies. Certainly not a sovereign nation at that point in history.

The foundation of America was established in 1607 when the first settlement succeeded. To say America was not established until the adoption of the constitution is to dismiss 180 years of American History.

You're kidding, right? A settlement does not a nation make. The ratification of the Constitution is considered the point at which this nation was "founded," as a singular entity under an established, uniform government and law. To say otherwise is to display a profound ignorance of American history, and quite possibly an outright lie.

when do you think Jamestown was settled?

1607.

When did you think the constitution was adopted?

1787.

Do you have a point? What does Jamestown have to do with the Constitution?

We could go on like this all day

You could. But in the end, Pagan will prove you wrong. Oh wait, he just did!

until we finally got to a place where a constitution was written to establish a law for all the colonies.

And yet, religion doesn't factor into the Constitution or its intentions with regards to the esytem of government and law.

I'm pointing out that he is not talking about the constitution.

Again, what do you think is the founding document of this nation?

He clearly went back further than the constitution and you're still trying to say his article is about the constitution.

It's been pointed out that mostly anything before the constitution is largely irrelevant and/or not applicable to the founding of this nation, its governemnt, or laws.

The United States being founded on the U.S Constitution is third-year high school U.S. History.

It was second year HS for me. :P

What do you think is the founding document of this nation and its system of laws and government?

This is not about the constitution. Read the article again.

And yet, religion doesn't factor into the Constitution or its intentions with regards to the esytem of government and law.

And I nor Hiram ever said it did.

Again, what do you think is the founding document of this nation?

As I have said, this isn't about the constitution. This is article is about the impact of Christianity on America. Not weather or not Christians wrote the constitution or if the writers were Christian. He did in fact make himself very clear on that.

Our government is a secular government and I am very content with that ideology.

One of our oldest forms of government established here on this soil for the purpose of advancing the Christian faith.

The U.S. Constitution was one first of its kind, unique from anything the world had seen before, and has become one of the oldest Constitutions in the world.

Sorry it's not. Read up on San Marino.

The U.S. Constitution has little in common with the Constitution of San Marino. 1) By what faulty logic do you contend that the U.S. Constitution was not unique for its time?

Is our Constitution Unique, yes. Although San Marino's does establish a republic government, freedom of speech and there are other similarities like rights and separation of powers. Is our Constitution the oldest. No. And again, this article was not about the U.S constitution even though you have successfully made it so.

Pagan the history of the settlers is clear. It's influence on America is also clear...

But your perception of that influence is apparently lacking for facts, thus, it is NOT so clear, and you SHOULD explain yourself.

I never said anything about Pagan history and the settlers. You have me confused with someone else.

That depends: 5) If Hitler succeeded, is Germany still a Nazi state? 6) If Hitler failed, is Germany still a Nazi state?

And this is the point Pagan. Were the first states and settlers and failure and in what sense? Hitler had a lot to do with some of the great things about Germany today. Does his dictatorship eliminate his contribution? Same as the Christians/ early settlers, they may have had it the wrong ideals, but they did contribute to the country America has become. That's not about the constitution.

Really? 7) Did you reply to a comment I made on Hiram's post? Yes or no?

I believe I have.

Willful ignorance on your part. The United States being founded on the U.S Constitution is third-year high school U.S. History. You are playing semantics, and it is anything but impressive.

This is your personal issue not mine. I do not believe this article is about the constitution. The author has told you it's not.

I tell you what, just say the word, I'll email tyler, or one of the other site admins, and ask their opinion on whether or not your personal attack against me is justified. 8) You go look up that example of me being hateful to Christians, okay?

Personal attack Pagan, that's your perception just like mine about your hateful manner toward Christians. I'm alright with you contacting tyler. I do have those examples for you. Would you like me to e-mail to Tyler, or just post them here? Although I don't think it's fair to Hiram or the other people on this thread to have to read through them. Still, I'm happy to do it if that's what you want.

This is not about the constitution. Read the article again.

Read mine and Pagan's posts again.

And I nor Hiram ever said it did.

Hiram did say the constitution "is however still built upon the same Judeo-Christian principles that the early people of this country held so dear."

Or did you miss that part? And yes, that brings the Constitution into the issue as well.

This is article is about the impact of Christianity on America. Not weather or not Christians wrote the constitution or if the writers were Christian.

Let's see: the government is secular, and promotion of christianity was not the intention of the government or the constitution. Christianity's impact, while more significant during early settlement, seems to have waned as time went on.

I do not believe this article is about the constitution. The author has told you it's not.

The author has brought up and mentioned the Constitution himself. You seem to be avoiding that particular issue.

Personal attack Pagan, that's your perception just like mine about your hateful manner toward Christians.

I find nothing hateful about Pagan's comments, nor do I recall him ever posting a hateful comment. Perhaps his comments seem hateful from your perspective since he refutes all your points and arguments. Must be frustrating for you.

And yet, religion doesn't factor into the Constitution or its intentions with regards to the esytem of government and law.

And I nor Hiram ever said it did.

Guess again:

However to deny that this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles is to deny history. We often look back at those we call our founding fathers. They were indeed instrumental in building a new nation, in establishing its constitution and its freedoms. They were also only a few of the millions of people that lived, worked and prayed here.

By the way, mashelley, there are eight questions from my previous post you have failed to address.

Regards

No Pagan I did not fail. I answered all you questions I intend to answer.You however failed to answer my question.

Gordy. Since you and Pagan support one another, I hardly think you are in a position to say what my perception of hateful and argumentative might be. My reference was a general statement of the way he treats Christians on the vine. Still Pagan, I have the examples ready and I'm just waiting on you.

I've seen you around other articles of this nature. It seems your intent is not to discuss, but to be down right argumentative and hateful toward Christians. Try using some civility, it's a much more acceptable form of discussion.

No Pagan I did not fail. I answered all you questions I intend to answer.

In other words, you did fail and are avoiding challenges put forth. That pretty musc ruins any credibility you may have had and shows you are in over your head.

Gordy. Since you and Pagan support one another, I hardly think you are in a position to say what my perception of hateful and argumentative might be.

I support him because he's right! Sounds to me like you're just whining about it now. I wonder, if I had supported you, would you think my perceptions are right? But if I don't support you, then mine must be wrong, is that it?

My reference was a general statement of the way he treats Christians on the vine.

And my response addressed that. Oh, but you think my perception of things is wrong so my response doesn't matter, right?

Gordy, I answered all his questions. Some of my answers are combined, it you bothered reading you would know that.

Oh, but you think my perception of things is wrong so my response doesn't matter, right?

Acutally on the this you are right. Your perception about hateful does not matter unless you are on the receiving end of it. That's what perception is about.

Still Pagan, I have the examples ready and I'm just waiting on you.

It has already been forwarded to Newsvine administration. You're not waiting on me, you're waiting on them.

Regards

Your perception about hateful does not matter unless you are on the receiving end of it. That's what perception is about.

I am neither on the giving or receiving end. So I am effectively neutral and objective in my observations and I still say Pagan has not written anything construed as hateful, either here or on any other post.

Gordy, I answered all his questions.

Apparently, Pagan disagrees. But I'll let him be the judge of that.

Actually many of the early state constitutions saw the need to write religious freedom into their documents.

... and were written around or after the Declaration of Independence (they really had to declare independence before they could establish themselves). So, the same people who ratified the Federal Constitution probably had a hand in many of those State Constitutions.

The Act Concerning Religion passed in 1649 in Maryland is an example of such freedom.

... the act sentenced anybody who denied the divinity of Jesus to death.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions5.html

That whatsoever pson or psons within this Province and the Islands thereunto belonging shall from henceforth blaspheme God, that is Curse him, or deny our Saviour Jesus Christ to bee the sonne of God, or shall deny the holy Trinity the ffather sonne and holy Ghost, or the Godhead of any of the said Three psons of the Trinity or the Vnity of the Godhead, or shall use or utter any reproachfull Speeches, words or language concerning the said Holy Trinity, or any of the said three psons thereof, shalbe punished with death and confiscaton or forfeiture of all his or her lands and goods to the Lord Proprietary and his heires,

I'll pull out the relevant bit...

That whatsoever pson or psons within this Province ... deny our Saviour Jesus Christ to bee the sonne of God, or shall deny the holy Trinity the ffather sonne and holy Ghost, ... shalbe punished with death

There is no mention of any death penalty or intolerance in this document.

It is the same document.

Read the Second Paragraph.

That whatsoever person or persons within this Province and the Islands thereunto helonging shall from henceforth blaspheme God, that is Curse him, or deny our Saviour Jesus Christ to be the son of God, or shall deny the holy Trinity the father son and holy Ghost, or the Godhead of any of the said three persons of the Trinity or the Unity of the Godhead, or shall use or utter any reproachfull speeches, words or language concerning the said Holy Trinity, or any of the said three persons thereof, shall be punished with death and confiscation or forfeiture of all his or her lands and goods to the Lord Proprietary and his heires.

"shall be punished with death"

For merely denying Jesus to be the son of God.

If this is an example of the "Christian Heritage" of the nation... I don't think you're presenting something worth cherishing.

he act sentenced anybody who denied the divinity of Jesus to death.

That's harsh.

However, it's that Christian Heritage that caused our founding fathers to take the course and actions they did. Right or wrong, it's given us the freedom from a state religion.

Thank you for your input, however if we read further in the document.

Is this your way of saying, "I was wrong" ?

Although not perfect it did lay some of the ground work towards religious tolerance.

Right - you have a freedom of religion, as long as you pick Christianity.

Otherwise you die. So tolerant.

The Pennsylvania Charter of Privileges

Did you actually read it?

That no Person or Persons, inhabiting in this Province or Territories, who shall confess and acknowledge One almighty God, the Creator, Upholder and Ruler of the World; and profess him or themselves obliged to live quietly under the Civil Government, shall be in any Case molested or prejudiced, in his or their Person or Estate, because of his or their conscientious Persuasion or Practice, nor be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious Worship, Place or Ministry, contrary to his or their Mind, or to do or suffer any other Act or Thing, contrary to their religious Persuasion.

You are only protected for your freedom of religious conscious if you already acknowledge and confess to "One almighty God."

It is again - you are free to worship as you please, so long as it is a monotheistic (theoretically Christian) worship.

So, if you don't confess to the One almighty God, you are not protected from being prejudiced or molested. And anybody who didn't believe in that God could be compelled to Worship contrary to his or their mind.

These were the founding principles of the First Amendment.

The founding principles of the First Amendment were that you were only protected in your free expression if it was sanctioned by the government?

The point of these is that our founders were well rooted in Christianity and it was one of the major forces behind everything they did.

Yes - the people of the colonies were intolerantly Christian.

The reality of the times was that the majority of the people living here were Christian and they help their faith above anything else. We as a nation recognized some of the flaws in this thinking and did wisely establish the First Amendment. One thing that is pointed out in these documents is the tolerance of all forms of Christianity and thus made them stepping stones to open tolerance of all peoples.

I guess I see it from a different angle. The writing of the Constitution rejected the thinking of the earlier documents. The Christian pseudo-theocracies were deemed wrong for the founding of the nation as a whole.

So, the influence those documents gave was what was wrong with the Christian thinking. So, they went secular.

To summarize I am not saying our founders were right the whole point of this series is to establish the fact that this nations was founded on Judeo-Christian precepts

What "Judo-Christian precepts" are you trying to point at, exactly?

to obscure our true history for what reason I cannot speculate.

To some extent, I agree that this should be taught.

Maryland's "Act Concerning Religion" should have many fingers pointed at it to identify how recently American Christians wanted to put non-Christians to death. Pennsylvania's document should be brought forth to identify the inequality of religious groups before the Foundation of America.

Yes they were, the point I am making is that they were Christian and this is the same environment that our founders were raised in.

And they rejected the referenced part of that Christian environment.

It was believed that morality and virtue arose from the precepts of Christianity

What specific precepts are you trying to point at, exactly?

"Christian tolerance"? In the fact of "punished by death" ?

or bible reading in school

School wasn't public at the time.

What they called for was religious freedom

Unfortunately, only at the federal level.

and the rights of people to worship as they saw fit.

People cannot be free to worship as they see fit if their government promotes any given religious thought.

Nice article

How ironic, considering it was SCJ Warren who outlawed prayer in public schools (Engel v. Vitale, 1962)

Regards

It's a false quote. Patrick Henry never said this.

Regards

See here: Study Guide: Problematical Religious Right Quotes And Arguments

(Item 2)

Sorry, This one fails too.

Regards