Thursday, August 9, 2007

Deceit of the "key founders" doctine...again:

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Jon Rowe continues to believe the distortion of five people whose beliefs are to be the only beliefs the two hundred-fifty Founding Fathers of the United States had, as well as being the only relevant view. Initially, this sounds incredible, but people actually believe this doctrine, neglecting the will of the most important framers, the men who ratified the founding documents. The views of James Madison:

He believed, as he repeatedly affirmed, that the meaning of a statute must be sought in the intentions of those who ratified it, not of those who drafted it--in the case of the First Amendment in the minds of the members of the state legislatures, not of the members of the First Federal Congress.James Hutson-Library of Congresshttp://www.loc.gov/loc/madison/hutson-paper.htm

Doesn't common sense say the "key founders" should be the people who ratify a doctrine, the Constitution, etc? Is James Madison correct or no?

the chief architect of the Constitution (Madison)>>
http://www.positiveliberty.com/index.php

Explain how is Madison the chief architect? He isn't.

the author of the Declaration (Jefferson)>>
Jefferson wrote the rough draft, the principles of which were already known by Congress according to John Adams. Explain how and why Jefferson is the author? He isn't.

and the majority of the drafting board of the Declaration (Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson).>>

Jefferson called himself a Christian, where is the evidence he believed God was every religions god? Adams was a Christian while forming the nation:

But still I dread the Consequences...of my Honour, my Conscience, my Friends, my Country, my God, as the Scriptures inform us must be punished with nothing less than Hell Fire, eternal Torment. And this is so unequal a Price to pay for the Honours and Emoluments in the Power of a Minister or Governor, that I cannot prevail upon myself to think of it. The Duration of future Punishment terrifies me. If I could but deceive myself so far as to think Eternity a Moment only, I could comply, and be promoted.
http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/aea/cfm/doc.cfm?id=D16

Gregg Frazer adds Hamilton, Wilson, and G. Morris as theistic rationalists.>>

It seems the poster agrees with Frazer but what do these people have to say about the label? Alexander Hamilton was not a theistic rationalist! (emphasis added)

Alexander Hamilton wrote most likely in 1790-94 after the French Revolution: Opinions, for along time, have been gradually gaining ground, which threatens the foundations of religion, morality and society. An attack was first made upon the Christian revelation; for which natural religion was offered as the substitute. The Gospel was to be discarded as a gross imposture; but the being and attributes of a GOD, the obligations of piety, even the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments were to be retained and cherished.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1385&chapter=92676&layout=html

I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man.
http://books.google.com/books?id=y1_R-rjdcb0C&pg=PA660&lpg=PA660&dq=have+carefully+examined+the+evidences+of+the+by+hamilton&source=web&ots=TsmAYliko9&sig=tOOp2kl0c5OnO_ONpNNnSOSgNrg
http://www.faithofourfathers.net/hamilton.html

He posts no references regarding Wilson and Morris.

But what does it then say that when Washington, Madison, G. Morris, Hamilton, and Wilson talked about God, they purposefully did so in such a vague and generic way that you couldn’t distinguish their creed from either the orthodox Christians’ or the theistic rationalists’ like Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin?>>

The Born Again Christian framers spoke in those terms, all of them did.

and when it was widely known that many in elite Whig circles secretly trafficked in “infidel principles.”]>>

References please, for all the states.

Their systematic generic way of speaking about God certainly does nothing to forward the “Christian Nation” thesis as posited by Barton, Federer, and Kennedy.>>

It does if the born again Christians used the same terms. It shows that is the way they referred to God, no matter how they believed. The evidence is some of the terms are definitely biblical.

Regarding what the 200 and some odd Founding Fathers believed in as a whole, whether orthodox Christians or theistic rationalists constituted a statistical majority of the Founders is unknown>>

An absolute marvel! Consider what the ratifiers of the first amendment believed about religion:

Constitution of the State of North Carolina (1776), stated: There shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State in preference to any other. Article XXXII That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State. (until 1876)

In 1835 the word “Protestant” was changed to “Christian.” [p.482]

Constitution of the State of Maryland (August 14, 1776), stated: Article XXXV That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention, or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.” That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God is such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested… on account of his religious practice; unless, under the color [pretense] of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality… yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion. (until 1851) [pp.420-421]

The Constitution of the State of Massachusetts (1780) stated: The Governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election… he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion. Chapter VI, Article I [All persons elected to State office or to the Legislature must] make and subscribe the following declaration, viz. “I, _______, do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth.” Part I, Article III And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.” [p.429]

Constitution of the State of Vermont (1786), stated: Frame of Government, Section 9. And each member [of the Legislature], before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: “I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scripture of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the [Christian] religion. And no further or other religious test shall ever, hereafter, be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.” [p.623]

The Constitution of the State of Connecticut (until 1818), contained the wording: The People of this State… by the Providence of God… hath the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State… and forasmuch as the free fruition of such liberties and privileges as humanity, civility, and Christianity call for, as is due to every man in his place and proportion… hath ever been, and will be the tranquility and stability of Churches and Commonwealth; and the denial thereof, the disturbances, if not the ruin of both. [p.179]

The ratifiers make it clear, the First Amendment granted freedom of conscience but the establishment clause only referred to Christianity.

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

If you want to live in a theocracy, move to Iran.

Jeb, FCD

Anonymous said...

what the heck is a "doctine"?

plunge said...

So, wait, you've decided that the generic belief expressed by some of the founders is inherently in line with born again fundamentalism, a century before that movement was even a gleam in the eye of anyone, simply because born again rhetoric often claims to be non-secretarian (and is in fact, to the contrary, extremely secretarian in the sense that it only accepts a very narrow version of christianity is true).

Our Founding Truth said...

Jeb, FCD from Ed Brayton's blog wrote: If you want to live in a theocracy, move to Iran.>>

The United States is currently a democratic oligarchy, Iran is a islamic republic based on sharia law.

Our Founding Truth said...

Anonymous said, "what the heck is a "doctine"?"

A doctrine is a set of beliefs and guidelines written down.

Our Founding Truth said...

plunge said, "So, wait, you've decided that the generic belief expressed by some of the founders is inherently in line with born again fundamentalism.>>

The terms referring to the Deity(Law of Nature), Ruler of the Universe, Governor of the Universe, etc. that ALL the framers and Christian philosophers used may not be generic, because it referred only to Yahweh, the God of Israel.

plunge said, "a century before that movement was even a gleam in the eye of anyone>>

Actually, the born again movement was started by Jesus of Nazareth in John 3.

plunge continues: simply because born again rhetoric often claims to be non-secretarian (and is in fact, to the contrary, extremely secretarian in the sense that it only accepts a very narrow version of christianity is true).>>

Tell that to Jesus, He said the way to salvation is narrow, and few find it, bit the way to destruction is wide.
"I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life, no one comes to the Father but by me."
John 14:6

Anonymous said...

I realize what our form of government is, as well as Iran's, which is why I said if you want to live in a theocracy, move to Iran.

You do realize you are advocating a theocratic form of government, don't you?

Jeb, FCD

Our Founding Truth said...

Jeb, FCD wrote:

You do realize you are advocating a theocratic form of government, don't you?>>

How am I advocating a theocratic form of govt.? Explain.

Anonymous said...

In an nutshell, your entire blog purports to show that the Framers really were Xtians, and that the wall of separation is a myth.

Jeb, FCD

Our Founding Truth said...

Jeb, FCD wrote:

In an nutshell, your entire blog purports to show that the Framers really were Xtians, and that the wall of separation is a myth.>>

Besides Franklin, Washington, Allen, a couple others, yes they were Christians.

The separation is DEFINITELY a myth, and here is one instance by Jefferson proving he ONLY meant a an establishment of a national church.

In an 1803 federal Indian treaty, Jefferson willingly agreed to provide $300 to “assist the said Kaskaskia tribe in the erection of a church” and to provide “annually for seven years $100 towards the support of a Catholic priest.” He also signed three separate acts setting aside government lands for the sole use of religious groups and setting aside government lands so that Moravian missionaries might be assisted in “promoting Christianity.”
American State Papers, Walter Lowrie and Matthew St. Claire Clarke, editors (Washington, D. C.: Gales and Seaton, 1832), Vol. IV, p. 687; see also Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U. S. 38, at 103 (1985), Rehnquist, J. (dissenting); see also, The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America, Richard Peters, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1846), Vol. VII, p. 79, Article III, “A Treaty Between the United States and the Kaskaskia Tribe of Indians,” December 23, 1803; Vol. VII, p. 88, Article IV, “Treaty with the Wyandots, etc.,” 1805; Vol. VII, p. 102, Article II, “Treaty with the Cherokees,” 1806.

You've already seen the state constitutions.

Jonathan said...

If you are interested, Chris Rodda refuted the Jefferson & the Indians stories here.

Our Founding Truth said...

Jonathon said:

If you are interested, Chris Rodda refuted the Jefferson & the Indians stories here.>>

I am interested, thank you. But it doesn't do a very good job of making the case. You could have did a better job than that. You and I both know ANY GOVT. SUPPORT FOR RELIGION is what separation of church and state is all about. Jefferson and Madison made several other violations of this mandate.

Rodda says they were ALL catholic, which isn't true, the foreign nation excuse is just an excuse. Any co-mingling with govt. funds should be wrong in his eyes.

The following is the third article from the 1803 treaty with the Kaskaskia.

And whereas the greater part of the said tribe have been baptized and received into the Catholic Church, to which they are much attached, the United States will give annually, for seven years, one hundred dollars toward the support of a priest of that religion, who will engage to perform for said tribe the duties of his office, and also to instruct as many of their children as possible, in the rudiments of literature, and the United States will further give the sum of three hundred dollars, to assist the said tribe in the erection of a church.(1)>>

It wouldn't matter if these were people in Samoa, it is still a violation, Madison wrote extensively on the abuses of co-mingling church and state. The evidence shows Madison was against govt. support of a particular sect as he gave money to a bible society to print bibles in 1812.

This shows Madison may only have been concerned with supporting a particular sect, although I am not an expert on his Detached Miranda?

Why would Madison believe we were a xtian nation and believe a buddhist church could be the established church? Also, why would Madison believe two different religions could join together and persecute the others in a Christian nation?

Rob Scot said...

Interesting bolg; I like your links section.

Our Founding Truth said...

Rob Scot said...
Interesting bolg; I like your links section.

August 20, 2007 7:11 PM

Thanks,

I will add yours and Hercules' in a minute.

Our Founding Truth said...

My feelings are I should take back something I said in this post:

Adams was a Christian while forming the nation>>

Before 1800, it seems Adams was as orthodox as can be, but there is a later quote from him affirming he's been a unitarian his entire career.

If that was the case, and he believed Jesus was not God incarnate, it doesn't matter how many times he called himself a Christian, the Bible, countless times teaches the contrary.

Anonymous said...

I found this site using [url=http://google.com]google.com[/url] And i want to thank you for your work. You have done really very good site. Great work, great site! Thank you!

Sorry for offtopic

Anonymous said...

Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!

Anonymous said...

[url=http://www.chf4kids.org/language/en-GB/news-get.php]Get Viagra Fast[/url]

Anonymous said...

Happy Fresh Year[url=http://sdjfh.in/flexpen/],[/url] one! :)

Anonymous said...

Helo ! Forex - Работа на дому чашку кофе успешной получать деньги, просто зарегистрируйтесь forex [url=http://foxfox.ifxworld.com/]forex[/url]