Americas's Christian Foundations Part III

There are those, however, that would try to make our past our present and do to the sacred Consitution what they've done to other sacred historical scripture...twist it to their will and interpretation to achieve their personal goals...not the will of God.

There's the flaw in your argument: god has nothing to do with the constitution. Nor is he or his will referenced in it.

Like our government and the Consitution, so many who swear allegiance to God, pick and choose what is relevant in sacred scripture.

The Constituton conspicuously omits god or scripture.

little good comes from it and there is usually bloodshed.

Lots of that bloodshed seems to stem from peoples ideas over which god or beliefs practices are more applicaple or valid. Fortunately, the government is neutral in such matters, as required by the Constitution.

I am not reading into it anything that is not there. If you we look at the time period it was written if you were to ask practically anyone who their Creator was I most certain they would say the God of the Bible.

Which, by and large, is my entire point; it was left free for each and every individual to decide, for themselves, that which defined "Creator," without declaring, defining, or expounding on a singular universal concept.

It would be ludicrous to imply that Jefferson intended to exclude Atheists from this statement, giving the impression that non-Theists are without rights, or worse yet, imposing on the Atheist the concept that his/her rights are a "gift from God" in opposition to their personal beliefs. Neither is remotely consistent with all the known writings of Jefferson.

It is not a matter of re-interpretation but a matter of historical context of the writing.

Oh, I don't think so. You're trying to impose a general context, while wholly ignoring any personal context. I'll touch on this more further down.

I am also aware of Jefferson's writing criticizing Blackstone and Coke that however does not negate the facts as to he knew what he was saying when he wrote those words.

You're rationalizing. You would contend that modern-day understanding is out-of-context due to the span of two hundred years having passed, yet you ignore the one hundred-fifty year span between Sir Coke, and the writing of the Declaration. Not to mention, you cannot admit that Jefferson was critical of these men's work, and then imply Jefferson emulated them in any way. It is wholly disingenuous.

AT that time in history those words had specific meaning and no matter how we want to re-interpret them to fit our more modern needs we cannot change that.

And yet, that is exactly what you are doing; you are demanding Jefferson MUST have been influenced by Blackwell and Coke, despite a wealth of information which shows Jefferson was influenced by Spinoza, Lock, Hume, Montesquieu and Isaac Newton. You demand that 18th century America MUST have been overtly influenced by 17th century England, with nothing more than assumptions on you part to support it.

You also fail to consider Jefferson's personal context in all of this. In Jefferson's letter to Major John Cartwright on June 5, 1824, he spoke of Common Law as such:

• I was glad to find in your book a formal contradition (sic), at length, of the judiciary usurpation of legislative powers; for such the judges have usurped in their repeated decisions, that Christianity is a part of the common law. The proof of the contrary, which you have adduced, is incontrovertible; to wit, that the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet Pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character had ever existed.

Further on in the letter, he says:

• And thus we find this chain of authorities hanging link by link, one upon another, and all ultimately on one and the same hook, and that a mistranslation of the words _`ancien scripture,'— used by Prisot. Finch quotes Prisot; Wingate does the same. Sheppard quotes Prisot, Finch and Wingate. Hale cites nobody. The court in Woolston's case, cite Hale. Wood cites Woolston's case. Blackstone quotes Woolston's case and Hale. And Lord Mansfield, like Hale, ventures it on his own authority. Here I might defy the best read lawyer to produce another scrip of authority for this judiciary forgery; and I might go on further to shew, how some of the Anglo-Saxon priests interpolated into the text of Alfred's laws, the 20th, 21st, 22nd and 23rd chapters of Exodus, and the 15th of the Acts of the Apostles, from the 23rd to the 29th verses. But this would lead my pen and your patience too far. What a conspiracy this, between Church and State! Sing Tantarara, rogues all, rogues all, Sing Tantarara, rogues all!

So now, we have a picture-perfect example of Jefferson taking an opinion in direct contradiction with some of the most well-regarded British lawyers, and clearly stating his understanding of the source of Common Law, despite a popular and established legal understanding to the contrary.

In view of this revelation, it is ludicrous to suggest that Jefferson must have assumed a meaning behind his words from people with which he clearly held no regard for their opinion in such matters.

Lastly I dare point out that the majority of the men and women that found this country were of religious sentiment.

Which I have not disputed, but which has *nothing* to do with the foundation of this nation.

Over and over again we see that they tie morality and virtue closely with religion.

...on a personal level. There is nothing stated which declares a Christian foundation to the government, the principles of government (whether Executive, Legislative, or Judicial), nor a single mention of the foundation of this nation being based on Christian principles.

And drawing on one of my previous posts, you have not brought up one single Christian principle which, had it not existed (hypothetically, of course), would have prevented the Philadelphia Convention and First Congress from establishing the foundation for this nation.

One of the main points of this article series is to show that we have neglected and or purposely removed theses aspects of our history. An important part of our history as it help form who we are as a nation.

Bull@!$%#. This comes off sounding like paranoid delusion. Nothing has been neglected or removed from the history of the foundation of this nation, it is simply a fact that nothing overtly religious was included in the first place.

We have such an incredible wealth of of information in the way of original documents, notes, letters, etc., from the people who founded and established this country as a nation. We have the records of every session of Congress that has ever been held. And yet not one of these documents makes an affirmative declaration of the United States being based on Christian principles.

You have proved that *people* were influenced by religion, and that *people* supported Christian values as a basis for morality for themselves. That is all.

As I stated in the end of the article "I am also a firm believer that unless we remember from whence we came that the things we fled from to come here and start a new nation will once again haunt us and then where will we run." When the state starts to wheeled the sword of morality, when the state starts to decide what is good and what is bad just by its own power holding itself above any other authority we are headed for some very dangerous times.

"Where we fled from..." was a nation that freely blended Christianity with government.

Or did you forget that part?

Regards

I believe that you are putting to much emphasis on Jefferson alone...

I intended no particular emphasis on Jefferson, only that the evidence contrary to your claims exists in some abundance.

...yes he was the primary author of the Declaration it however had to be approved and signed by no more than 53 other individuals. Jefferson knew the meaning of the words he wrote and how they would be perceived by the intended audience.

"Jefferson knew..." please substantiate that. Right now, it is a claim, a conjecture, a guess, an opinion. You have not presented one shred of empirical evidence to support that he "knew" anything you claimed, and the greatest fallacy you can present, now, is "he must have known because..." Either you can prove his belief, or you cannot. It's just that simple.

To say otherwise is to be dishonest to history.

You can't be dishonest about that which has never been proved.

The word Creator in the context of that particular document is not really open to interpretation unless you consider it in modern times.

By all means, you post RIGHT NOW the grammatical analysis for comparing and contrasting 18th century English with 20th century English.

It meant for all intents and purposes God.

So you say. Now address the comment I made in my last post:

• It would be ludicrous to imply that Jefferson intended to exclude Atheists from this statement, giving the impression that non-Theists are without rights, or worse yet, imposing on the Atheist the concept that his/her rights are a "gift from God" in opposition to their personal beliefs. Neither is remotely consistent with all the known writings of Jefferson.

I see many people such as yourself quoting a small minority of founders

As opposed to you having quoted ... three?

...when in fact there were hundreds of people in government that help establish this nation, many of which you will never see in a history book because of their religious values...

"Because of their religious values?" Again, you'll have a hard time convincing anyone of that without sounding paranoid.

You cannot possibly claim the "Christian" foundation of this nation, while simultaneously contending that Christian voices are being unjustly silenced. It's fully contradictory.

You are right in that we have wealth of information and writings and yet we choose to ignore any of those writingg that make any reference to God.

Those religious references aren't being ignored, they're being kept in context.

When in truth God was very important to the majority of the people of the time.

Which does NOT, by default, support your claims of a Christian foundation.

What you are inferring...

Correction: A listener infers. A speaker implies.

...is that these people left what they believe to be the basis for morality virtue at the door when they stepped into congress.

I disagree. Does a carpenter leave the basis of his morality at the door when he begins to build a house? Does an auto mechanic leave the basis for his morality at the door when he when he begins to repair cars? Does an artist leave the basis of his morality at the door when he chooses to paint a still-life instead of a cathedral? I expect no more or less from any government representative.

... when congress openly began with prayer...

Given

...when the US government printed bibles...

Fiction

...when these people woudl pray and hold church in the capital building.

Because there was not another single church in Washington (um, duh).

Tothat none of this influenced the creation of the nation is absurd.

Hardly. You are proving that people are religious people, you are not proving that a nation formed by religious people, must be religious by default, the same as a Ford Focus must be a religious car.

Thank you for your input

You're welcome.

Regards

I believe I answered this in when I made the point that we are not just talking about Jefferson beliefs but the beliefs of the people as whole. The document he wrote has to be approved and ratified by 53 other people. He did not do this on his own.

You are the one who spent two paragraphs, in your article, discussing Jefferson's role in writing the Declaration, and the motivation for his choice of words. There's nothing impressive about 'moving the goalposts.'

I do not believe that they were worried about upsetting the Atheist or any other religious sect.

Again, this goes back to your own words:

• Thomas Jefferson was a lawyer and wordsmith he chose his words very carefully and when he wrote he wrote with authority and elegance.

This has absolutely nothing with "upsetting the Atheist..." but goes right to the heart of whether Jefferson was addressing the beliefs of all, or only the beliefs of Christians. As I said before, the latter interpretation is clearly opposed to all of Jefferson's known writings.

That is imposing modern political correctness on a society where that concept did not exist.

Strawman argument. Cut it out.

Regards

I believe I answered this in when I made the point that we are not just talking about Jefferson beliefs but the beliefs of the people as whole.

You also make the implication that the beliefs of the people as a whole automatically defines or established the beliefs or foundations of this country by default. Such an implication is proven false.

It is also not unreasonable to think that as Christians that God gave the rights to all men to do with as they please.

That might be their individual beliefs. It in no way applies to all people, nor is such a concept a given.

I do not believe that they were worried about upsetting the Atheist or any other religious sect.

But they were concerned about allowing the individual to believe as they wish. If they wanted to believe that their rights come from god, that is their right. If others did not believe that, that was also their right. Both had equal weight and validity. They were not making an all inclusive declaration of such an intent to all people. They were allowing people to believe as they wished.

It is not a contest to see who can quote the most I use the resources I deemed necessary to make the point that historically the nation was founded by Judeo-Chrsitian values.

And all your points have been refuted. You have only provided the values of individuals, not for the nation as a whole. It is quite clear that the US was not founded on judeo-christian values. Since the Constitution is considered the founding document of this country, with respect to its laws and government, as a representative and applicable to ALL citizens, point out ONE unique and specific judeo-christian value in the Constitution right now and I'll concede to you! Bet you can't.

History is what it is and I feel I have presented the facts as written in our history interpret it as you may.

You may have presented the facts as you interpreted them, but Pagan has clearly pointed out, here and on your other articles in the series, that your interpretations are erroneous. You've presented nothing which even remotely states that the US was founded on judeo-christian values.