Alexander Hamilton; The Calvinist, Part I

Scholars that claim Alexander Hamilton was less than a Christian may be hard-pressed. However, neither Hamilton, Gouverneur Morris, nor George Washington should be labeled rationalists. The correct definition of "rationalist" as Wilkipedia explains, says "reason is king." A rationalist denies the supernatural, and anything unreasonable to the enlightened man. All three believed human nature was depraved, by none other than The Fall. Original Sin is unreasonable to rationalists, which exempts all three men from the label. Calvinist Professor Gregg Frazer, claim these men are a special kind of Theistic Rationalist; one that can pick and choose what miracles; apparently biblical, are legitimate. However, Hamilton goes so far as to claim miracles are possible apart from Biblical Revelation, or Right Reason, casting further doubt on his thesis. Here is a taste of Frazer's thesis:

"They [Founding Fathers] similarly felt free to define God according to the dictates of their own reason and to reject Christian doctrines which did not seem to them to be rational..Theistic rationalists generally disdained doctrines or dogmas. They found them to be divisive, speculative, and ultimately unimportant since many roads lead to God."

Granted, there may have been some framers who denied the supernatural; Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine come to mind, however Alexander Hamilton is not one of them. Is Original Sin a divisive doctrine? Many would claim it is a fact of everyday life.

"And making the proper deductions for the ordinary depravity of human nature, the number must be still smaller of those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge." [bold face mine]

-Hamilton, FEDERALIST No. 78

Thus, unlike, the rationalists, he did not believe learning and the enlightenment would cause virtue, but only that the depravity would change its form. Hamilton knew he couldn't change his condition, because it was inherrant:

"As riches increase and accumulate in few hands; as luxury prevails in society; virtue will be in a greater degree considered as only a graceful appendage of wealth, and the tendency of things will be to depart from the republican standard. This is the real disposition of human nature: It is what, neither the honorable member nor myself can correct. It is a common misfortune, that awaits our state constitution, as well as all others..It is a harsh doctrine, that men grow wicked in proportion as they improve and enlighten their minds. Experience has by no means justified us in the supposition, that there is more virtue in one class of men than in another. Look through the rich and the poor of the community; the learned and the ignorant. Where does virtue predominate? The difference indeed consists, not in the quantity but kind of vices, which are incident to the various classes; and here the advantage of character belongs to the wealthy. Their vices are probably more favorable to the prosperity of the state, than those of the indigent; and partake less of moral depravity." [bold face mine]

-Alexander Hamilton, New York Ratifying Convention 21 June 1788. Papers 5:36--37, 40--43
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s38.html

Gouverneur Morris; the Penman of the Constitution, cannot be considered a Rationalist either. He never exalted reason over revelation; however, he did attack it, hence Morris lived in Paris at the height of the French Revolution:

"Those who slaughtered their prince and made havoc of each other; those who endeavored to dethrone the King of Heaven and establish the worship of human reason, who placed, as representative on the altar which piety had dedicated to the holy virgin, and fell down and paid to her their adoration, were, at length, compelled to see and to feel, and, in agony, to own that there is a God. I cannot proceed. My heart sickens at the recollection of those horrors which desolated France." [bold face mine]

-An oration, delivered on Wednesday, June 29, 1814, at the request of a number of citizens of New-York : in celebration of the recent deliverance of Europe from the yoke of military despotism.

What is interesting in Morris' quote is his mention of the Holy Virgin. If Morris didn't believe what he wrote, why even mention it? Also, this quote proves Morris could not be a rationalist, as he says the King of Heaven is superior to reason, that the French tried to establish Reason over Christianity. One can only imagine what Morris saw in that dreadful time.

Morris, like Hamilton, Madison, Washington, et al. believed in human depravity:

"Your history of the two Barons is very amusing ; but when
you take occasion to pity the infirmity of human nature, be-
cause of their attachment to a trivial decoration, you assail
the wisdom of Providence in his moral government of the
world." [bold face mine]

-TO JOHN PARISH. February 18th, 1806.

Morris claimed to be a Christian, not a rationalist:

"As a good Christian I pray not to be led into it..."
-The diary and letters of Gouverneur Morris, Minister of the United States to France. Vol II.

The "Old Lights" and Rebellion

What the Scriptures "actually say" pertaining to Romans 13, may or may not be consistent with Natural Law, thus, did the Founding Fathers have the right to rebel against Great Britain? Inasmuch the literal reading of Romans 13 is inconsistent with the American Revolution, as it could be; along with the Founding Fathers, the Heterodox, Elite, 18th Century Christian Preachers, are an important dynamic within Founding American Political Thought. Regardless of the correct biblical exegegis; righteous rebellion from Natural Law, espoused by Thomas Aquinas to the Founding Fathers, has a strong historical tradition.

In my last post, I overlooked Founding Father John Jay's defense of the Natural Law tradition of Romans 13, by ignoring the correct context of of John 18:36, which Mr. Jay apparently missed:

"My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." [bold face mine]

Mr. Jay understood a right to rebellion by Jesus' disciples (the people), granted that universal right for any nation, was couched in Natural Law. But Jesus' Kingdom is not of this world, until the start of the Millennial Age. Jesus' Kingdom has been called by God. It appears the text says "Every" governing authority is granted by God. If the right to rebel against any authority has support in Romans 13, it's in the Greek rendering of the word "resist." That word, refers only to "standing against." It is never used in the New Testament for fighting. If fighting against governing authorities is granted by God to the people, why didn't Paul use a different word? That point, however, may be incidental, as the text seems to imply the people should submit to every authority they are under.

The "Old Lights" referring to New England Preachers of the liberal bent, include: Jonathan Mayhew (1720-1766), Charles Chauncy (1705-1787), Simeon Howard (1733-1804), Samuel Cooper (1725-1783), Ebenezer Gay (1696-1787) and Samuel West (1730-1807). West, was a member of the committee which framed the Constitution of Massachusetts, and member of the Mass. Convention which ratified the U.S. Constitution in 1788. These men are interesting characters, in that most of their theological reasoning discarded sixteen-hundred years of Church tradition for the freedom to interpret the Scriptures in their own way. This is all fine and dandy involving the incidentals of Christianity. These men owe our respect for their involvement in the Revolutionary cause; risking their lives, and promoting freedom of conscience to all men.

These men ranged from Arians to Socinians, having denied the Trinity as unreasonable, they rejected seemingly Calvinist principles promoted by Jonathan Edwards, Samuel Davies et. al. in the Great Awakening. Having free reign to interpret the Scriptures, and rejecting Church Creeds, led these men to deny the fundamentals of Christian Theology. The departure of fundamentals did not start at rejecting inerrancy, but rejecting the Deity of Jesus Christ, which led to rejecting Christ's Vicarious Blood Atonement for Sin. To them, only God can forgive sin, and Jesus was not God, negating Jesus' capacity for blood atonement. Scripturally, they rejected the atonement, looking to God's forgiveness through character. Amazingly, they discarded the entire sacrificial system of the Old Testament, along with God's promise of a final sacrifice for sin. A little leaven leavens the whole lump, which begs the question, "How much virtue does it take to outweigh one sin?"

This exaltation of character over, or even to partner, the free gift of grace, took them off track in God's plan of Salvation. Character is not a part of salvation, but is an evidence of salvation. Character is an evidence, not a requirement. These "Old Lights" mixed grace and works, perhaps due to their emphasis on Natural Law.

They preached in Congregational Churches limited to the Boston area of Massachusetts, before the Unitarian split in the early 19th Century. A good question to these men is how did they get around taking communion? If membership required adherance to Church ordinances, how did Samuel Cooper for instance, get around not taking communion when he adminstered it at Brattle Street Church in Boston? Brattle Street Church was Baptist that eventually became First Baptist Church. His congregation was seemingly more secretive in its Unitarianism than Jonathan Mayhew's Church, with past communion members such as: John Hancock, and Samuel Adams.

A small group of Elite Founding Fathers embraced the psuedo-arminianism of the Unitarian Preachers, some of these men included: Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Massachusetts men: John Adams, his son John Quincy, William Cushing, James Bowdoin, and Paul Revere. The division in Unitarian theology did not happen until the 19th Century, with William Ellery Channing. The key to unlock the religious views of the Founding Fathers is tied to their position on atonement-depravity. The pseudo-arminians viewed man as good, the Calvinists or nominal Calvinists viewed man as depraved.

Whatever theological beliefs they had, they were instrumental, along with the Orthodox Preachers, in arousing fervor for revolution against Great Britain. These Old Light preachers are an important element in the American Revolution.

If righteous rebellion is not correct biblical exegesis as some commentators insist, the American Revolution was un-biblical, no matter its inclusion into Natural Law. If the Revolution was un-biblical, does an incidental in Christian theology affect the Christian Nation Thesis?

Was George Washington a Christian?

The more I investigate and read the account of witnesses claiming George Washington was a Christian, the more my own view is questioned. By a careful examination of Washington's words, and the context of those words, it is evident his philosophical language, which all Christians used in reference to God, no doubt, referred to Jesus Christ. Granted, this is not an admission of faith, but, neither does it exempt the label of Christian.

Using proper English Comprehension, the key to Washington's letter to the Delaware Chiefs is not the Indians' arts and ways of life, but our ways of life, showing Jesus Christ's Religion is to be above everything else in our culture; again, Washington includes himself in "our" arts and ways of life:

"You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention; and to tie the knot of friendship and union so fast, that nothing shall ever be able to loose it."
SPEECH TO THE DELAWARE CHIEFS
Head Quarters, Middle Brook, May 12, 1779.
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-washington?specfile=/texts/english/washington/fitzpatrick/search/gw.o2w&act=surround&offset=18502434&tag=Writings+of+Washington,+Vol.+15:+SPEECH+TO+THE+DELAWARE+CHIEFS&query=jesus+christ&id=gw150049

So George Washington never referred to God in Christian terms? Quite the contrary; he mentioned Jesus Christ to the Delaware Chiefs, and here, in 1789:

"And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions."
Thanksgiving Proclamation, October 3rd, 1789

Who pardons transgressions and is The Lord? Jesus Christ is the only answer. This also shows his prayers and supplications were to Jesus, not to a deist, or theist god.

"I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the Citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to Government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow Citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the Field, and finally, that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all, to do Justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristicks of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation."
Washington's Farewell to the Army, June 8th, 1783
http://memory.loc.gov/learn/features/timeline/amrev/peace/circular.html

Without a doubt, George Washington is referring to Jesus Christ, as these Characteristicks refer only to Him. He declares, including himself, our country's religion is Christianity, whose imitation every nation should imitate.

And again, here, Washington says Revelation, which is God's will for mankind, is referring to the Bible, supported by Webster's definition of the word. Notice, God's revelation is superior to all human knowledge, including man's reason, which can only be useful and relevant if it is written down:

"[t]he Treasures of knowledge, acquired by the labours of Philosophers, Sages and Legislatures, through a long succession of years, are laid open for our use, and their collected wisdom may be happily applied in the Establishment of our forms of Government; the free cultivation of Letters, the unbounded extension of Commerce, the progressive refinement of Manners, the growing liberality of sentiment, and above all, the pure and benign light of Revelation, have had a meliorating influence on mankind and increased the blessings of Society."

There is evidence, among other reports, Washington took communion, here is one testimony in the Historical Society of Pennsylvania:

The Rev. Nathaniel Randolph Snowden, an ordained Presbyterian minister, graduate of Princeton with a degree from Dickinson College. Mr. Snowden was born in Philadelphia January 17, 1770 and died November 12, 1851. His writings cover a period from youth to 1846. In his records may be found these observations, in Mr. Snowden's own handwriting:

Mr. Snowden, as if to emphasize the piety of Washington sets forth in his records that he often saw Washington, that he accompanied seventy other clergymen to visit him on the anniversary of his birth February 22, 1792. Then Mr. Snowden adds:

"When the army lay at Morristown, the Rev. Dr. Jones, administered the sacrament of ye Lord's supper. Washington came forward at ye head of all his officers and took his seat at ye 1st table, & took of ye bread and wine, the Symbols of Christ's broken body and shed blood, to do this in remembrance of ye L J C & thus professed himself a Christian & a disciple of the blessed Jesus."
http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/washington/prayer.html

Did Washington fake communion, and this testimony false? Is the Valley Forge Prayer an accurate account? I know there are equally other testimonies rejecting Washington's faith, but, without his words rejecting Christianity, it's difficult to label him a theist. David Barton may be on safe ground claiming Washington a Christian. The claims of Washington's Grand daughter Nelly Custis-Lewis, John Marshall, Abiel Holmes, or Jared Sparks may only refer to his Christian character, not his faith in Christian Orthodoxy, which is mandatory for salvation; Marshall was a unitarian until the latter part of his life.

If Snowden's testimony is true, I have no problem with people claiming Washington a Christian, for me, I am still undecided.

Is President George Bush a Born Again Christian?

Being Born Again is not a recent phenomenon, Jesus used the words signaling the New Birth:
John 3 (King James Version)
3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

So we understand from Jesus that being Born Again, is to accept Jesus as Our Savior and Lord, so the Spirit of God can indwell our bodies to help us live the Christian life.

1. The first proof the Spirit of God does not indwell President George Bush is his clear violation of Joel 3:2 (King James Version)
"I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land."

Granted, this verse is talking about future judgment of nations that persecuted Israel. Notice God claims the land belongs to Him, not a people, or a government. God makes this clear again in the Torah:

Leviticus 25:23 (King James Version)
"The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine, for ye are strangers and sojourners with me."

It is irelevant if Bush claims he is a replacement Christian, which I doubt he does. This is the belief that the Church has replaced Israel, and Israel has no part in the future with God. Bush can be a replacement Christian and not promote the giving away of God's land, which is what he wants to do. Does the Spirit of God indwell a person who blatantly contradicts the Word of the Spirit?

Speaking at the annual dinner of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, Bush insisted that "Success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle-Eastern peace and set in motion progress toward a truly democratic Palestinian state." 4 March 2003
Bush personally committed to a Palestinian State.
Michael Freund The Jerusalem Post,
[The writer served as Deputy Director of Communications & Policy Planning in the Israeli Prime Minister's Office from 1996 to 1999.] http://www.revelations.org.za/PalestinianState.htm#Bush

It is an insane belief to form a nation that wants to destroy Israel? How could a Christian believe this?

PLO Charter, July 1-17, 1968. These words are still in effect, the original charter still displayed by the Palestine legation to the UN and other Palestinian bodies. These words will never be repealed despite what the greatest terrorist, Yasser Arafat claimed:

Article 15: The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national (qawmi) duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine.

Article 22: Zionism is a political movement organically associated with international imperialism and antagonistic to all action for liberation and to progressive movements in the world. It is racist and fanatic in its nature, aggressive, expansionist, and colonial in its aims, and fascist in its methods. Israel is the instrument of the Zionist movement, and geographical base for world imperialism placed strategically in the midst of the Arab homeland to combat the hopes of the Arab nation for liberation, unity, and progress. Israel is a constant source of threat vis-a-vis peace in the Middle East and the whole world. Since the liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence and will contribute to the establishment of peace in the Middle East.

Article 23: The demand of security and peace, as well as the demand of right and justice, require all states to consider Zionism an illegitimate movement, to outlaw its existence, and to ban its operations. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/The+Palestinian+National+Charter.htm

And this demonic state is what George Bush supports.

November 21, 2001
Colin Powell's Message in Biblical Perspective.
United States Secretary of State Colin Powell’s message on Monday in Louisville, Kentucky, was reported to represent the Bush Administration’s Middle East position. The Bush Administration is in favor of the United Nations Security Council “land for peace” concept as spelled out in Resolutions 242 and 338 (reducing Israel back to the pre-1967 borders).
http://www.revelations.org.za/PalestinianState.htm#Bush

Abu Mazen, Palestinian Prime Minister, and Nabil Shaath, his Foreign Minister, describe their first meeting with President Bush in June 2003.
Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"
Abu Mazen was at the same meeting and recounts how President Bush told him: "I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml

In June, US President George Bush stated in a speech, “I call upon the Palestinian people to elect new leaders” and for Israel, “I challenge Israel to take concrete steps to support the emergence of a viable, credible Palestinian state.”
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/Palestine/Background.asp

Helping to form a state that's prime goal is to destroy Israel is not something a Christian would do. God will never reject Israel, in the future, Israel will once again be God's people, although now, they have rejected their true Messiah. God has always rebuked His people when they disobey, but God has vowed by covenant to always be Israel's God.

"First, we are strengthening our financial commitment. Immediately after President Abbas expelled Hamas from the Palestinian government, the United States lifted financial restrictions on the Palestinian Authority that we had imposed. This year, we will provide the Palestinians with more than $190 million in American assistance -- including funds for humanitarian relief in Gaza. To build on this support, I recently authorized the Overseas Private Investment Corporation to join in a program that will help generate $228 million in lending to Palestinian businesses. Today, I announce our intention to make a direct contribution of $80 million to help Palestinians reform their security services -- a vital effort they're undertaking with the guidance of American General Keith Dayton. We will work with Congress and partners around the world to provide additional resources once a plan to build Palestinian institutions is in place. With all of this assistance, we are showing the Palestinian people that a commitment to peace leads to the generous support of the United States." George Bush July 16, 2007 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070716-7.html

March 22, 2005, Israel defies God by giving away his land. Israel hands over Tulkarem in the West Bank to the Palestinians. Bush supported this betrayal.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7183904

This information is plenty of proof that George Bush has affirmed the giving away of Israel's land in violation of Joel 3:2, and Lev 25:23. Can a true Christian have this belief? The answer is an emphatic no!

2. George Bush supports homosexuality, as he is believes in civil unions for gays. He has appointed more homosexuals to Federal office than any other President in history. This is another violation of several scriptures:

Proverbs 17:15 (King James Version)
"He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD."

Leviticus 20:13 (King James Version)
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

George Bush seems to always justify the wicked.

"I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do," the president stated. "[S]tates ought to be able to have the right to pass ... laws that enable people to, you know, be able to have rights, like others."
As noted by UPI, that is in sharp disagreement with the Republican Party platform. In fact, ABC's Gibson followed up with: "So the Republican platform on that point, as far as you're concerned, is wrong?" To which Bush replied: "Right." OCTOBER 24, 2004. http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/10/272004d.asp

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/4/112001b.asp Bush nominates another homosexual to office, April 11, 2001.

Bush appoints yet another homosexual to Federal office violating the Law of Nature. http://www.baptiststandard.com/2001/6_4/pages/bush.html

Jesus affirmed the condemnation of homosexuality by affirming the law:

Matthew 5:17-18 (King James Version)
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

3. George Bush believes The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is also the el ilah(allah) the moon god of the kabah of islam. When Mohammed rounded up his pirates to take over the world, he attacked the kabah in Arabia to destroy the three hundred idols there, took the name of the chief deity allah (el ilah), the god of all the gods. The chief deity was named "sin" who was the moon god, this is evidenced by the artifacts of crescent moons excavated in Arabia, along with the crescent moon on islamic flags, on top of churches, and the holy month of ramadan, which starts and ends with the appearing of the crescent moon. Muslims are worshipping the moon god.

The sabeans did not initially revolt or misunderstand who Mohammed's god was, because they already knew who allah was. “Allah” cannot be “God” if “allah” is the Arabic word for “god” because in the Qur’an Allah says that “Ilah” is the Arabic word for “God” and that “Allah” is the “Ilah’s” name. If that is not true, the ilah named Allah is lying, proving that he is not what Mohammad claimed him to be. If allah is the word for god than the islamic god has no name.

Oct. 26, 2004,
Bush on Religion and God
President Says He Believes Muslims and Christians Pray to Same God
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=193746&page=1

4. George Bush promotes the murder of unborn children, which the Law of Nature calls murder:

Bush Signs Title X Funding Increase for 2005
Planned Parenthood's Abortion Funding Increased
President George W. Bush and the Republican-majority Congress Increased Title X to record $288.3 million in FY 2005 on 12/8/04Title X is one of two major federal government funding sources for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the nation's largest chain of abortion centers (murdering over 244,000 unborn human beings per year by surgical abortion alone).
The Title X program includes funding for contraceptive birth control; birth control that causes chemical abortions; and birth control for unmarried adolescents, even if their parents object to the federal government giving their children hormonal drugs and devices with which to fornicate.The Title X program is also one of the principal federal government funding mechanisms for Planned Parenthood Federation of America (founded by Margaret Sanger), the nation's largest chain of child-murder-by-abortion centers.
http://www.covenantnews.com/lefemine050208.htm

George Bush has approved funding almost every year for abortions.

Judges 13:5 (King James Version)
"For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines."

Conceiving is part of the birth of a son. It is not conceiving and bear tissue, but a human being.

In the end, George Bush is a pro homosexual, pro murder by abortion, anti-constitution, anti-Jesus Christ ecumenist. There are also many more violations of the Constitution that George Bush has committed, including Article I, Section 8, and the Fourth Amendment. Do not be deceived, George Bush is an enemy of Jesus Christ! Beware.

Secularist Ed Brayton comments on D. James Kennedy

My question to Ed is, "What are Mr. Kennedy's claims and where is your refutation of them?

"And I feel the same way I felt about Jerry Falwell dying. Like Falwell, Kennedy was a man who spent his life peddling lies to the credulous and the ignorant. You'll pardon me if I don't shed a tear for him."
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/09/d_james_kennedy_dies.php

Are servants of Jesus Christ ignorant? It is you who need a tear shed for.

By calling James Kennedy ignorant, you make a fool of yourself, by calling the Founding Fathers ignorant:

That if any man shall lie with mankind as he lieth with womankind, both of them have committed abomination; they both shall be put to death. CONNECTICUT
The Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1808), Book I, p. 295.

[T]he detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that the offenders being hereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall suffer such pains of death and losses and penalties of their goods. SOUTH CAROLINA
Alphabetical Digest of the Public Statute Laws of South-Carolina (Charleston: John Hoff, 1814), Vol. I, p. 99.

That if any man lieth with mankind as he lieth with a woman, they both shall suffer death. VERMONT
Statutes of the State of Vermont (Bennington, 1791), p. 74.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=101

Sodomy . . . shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labour in the penitentiary during the natural life or lives of the person or persons convicted of th[is] detestable crime. GEORGIA
A Digest of the Laws of the State of Georgia (Milledgeville: Grantland & Orme, 1822), p. 350.

That the detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . shall be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that every person being thereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall be hanged by the neck until he or she shall be dead. NEW YORK
Laws of the State of New-York . . . Since the Revolution (New York: Thomas Greenleaf, 1798), Vol. I, p. 336

That if any person or persons shall commit sodomy . . . he or they so offending or committing any of the said crimes within this province, their counsellors, aiders, comforters, and abettors, being convicted thereof as above said, shall suffer as felons.
Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia: John Bioren, 1810), Vol. I, p. 113
[And] shall forfeit to the Commonwealth all and singular the lands and tenements, goods and chattels, whereof he or she was seized or possessed at the time . . . at the discretion of the court passing the sentence, not exceeding ten years, in the public gaol or house of correction of the county or city in which the offence shall have been committed and be kept at such labor. PENNSYLVANIA
Collinson Read, An Abridgment of the Laws of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, 1801), p. 279

Mr. Brayton, if your going to bash someone and accuse them of peddling lies after they die, have the guts to back up your statements! It is more likely you don't have the information refuting Mr. Kennedy, or else you would have posted it. Let me speak for Mr. Kennedy, and see if you can refute my words.

The United States was formed a nation of Christian states. What part of this do you not understand? The Framers believed religion is left to the states, and the people of the states could choose whatever religion they desired:

"In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government."
Thomas Jefferson, Second Inaugural Address, 1805

The secularist twist on the Treaty of Tripoli signed by John Adams is referring to the Federal Government, which was to have nothing to do with religion.The Founding Fathers chose Christianity as the Religion of the several states. What else would you call a nation whose states chose Christianity as their 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)

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]

Constitution of the State of New Hampshire (1784,1792), required senators and representatives to be of the: Protestant religion. (in force until 1877)The Constitution stipulated: Article I, Section VI. And every denomination of Christians demeaning themselves quietly, and as good citizens of the state, shall be equally under the protection of the laws. And no subordination of any one sect of denomination to another, shall ever be established by law. [p.469]

The Constitution of the State of Delaware (until 1792) stated: Article XXII Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust… shall… make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:“I, _______, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed forevermore; I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.” [p.203]

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]

NEW YORK 1777 (until 1821) That all such parts of the said common law, and all such of the said statutes and acts aforesaid, or parts thereof, as may be construed to establish or maintain any particular denomination of Christians or their ministers, or concern the allegiance heretofore yielded to, and the supremacy, sovereignty, government, or prerogatives claimed or exercised by, the King of Great Britain and his predecessors, over the colony of New York and its inhabitants, or are repugnant to this constitution, be, and they hereby are, abrogated and rejected.

NEW JERSEY 1776 (until 1844) XIX. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in preference to another; and that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect, who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their fellow subjects.

That a Republican Government is based on the Bible is beyond dispute, as it was first instituted by Moses in ancient Israel.

Deut 1 (King James Version)
13Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you.
4And ye answered me, and said, The thing which thou hast spoken is good for us to do.
15So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes.

Republican Government, ruled under God's Law from 1500 B.C is exactly how the United States was formed. The means of its execution in America may have been different, but the essential principles are the same. Consent of the Governed with God's Law as the authority is Christianity in its greatest, and best extent.

The Founding Fathers applied Republican Government in the words of Montesquieu to the Law of the Bible, not the law of pagan Rome, or Greece:

"Sparta, Rome, and Carthage...These examples, though as unfit for the imitation, as they are repugnant to the genius, of America, are, notwithstanding, when compared with the fugitive and turbulent existence of other ancient republics, very instructive proofs of the necessity of some institution that will blend stability with liberty. I am not unaware of the circumstances which distinguish the American from other popular governments, as well ancient as modern; and which render extreme circumspection necessary, in reasoning from the one case to the other."
James Madison, Federalist #63
http://www.llpoh.org/federalist/63.html

Madison's error was he failed to give credit, or understand the Republicanism of the Bible, as Webster, Adams, and the other framers did:

"[O]ur citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion."
Noah Webster
History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), p. 6."

No good government but what is republican...the very definition of a republic is 'an empire of laws, and not of men.''
John Adams, "Thoughts on Government" January, 1776

Regarding the First Amendment, infidel Thomas Jefferson realized what it referred to, although it granted freedom of conscience, the amendment only referred to Christianity, as only a Christian denomination could be the established church:

"[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists."
Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush on September 23, 1800.

Jefferson would never have neglected the other religions if the amendment encompassed them, for it was against his sense of duty:

"On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson to Supreme Court Justice William Johnson June 12, 1823

Notice the same idea from Founding Father James Wilson and Joseph Story:

"The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it."
James Wilson, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, Signer of the Constitution

"The first and fundamental rule in interpretation of all instruments[documents] is to construe them according to the sense of the terms and the intention of the parties."
Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice appointed by James Madison

The liberties granted in the United States is founded upon the Law of Nature, which is without a doubt, Yahweh, the God of Israel, is clear from the writings of Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, to John Locke, and William Blackstone. The Founding Fathers did not corrupt the identity of the Law of Nature and Nature's God, secularists are the ones with this misguided goal.

Secularists like you want to twist the words of the framers to refute the Christian nation thesis. The truth of their writings and statutes are clear, the United States was formed by Christians founded on Religion and Law:

W]e can only depend on the all powerful influence of the Spirit of God, whose Divine aid and assistance it becomes us as a Christian people most devoutly to implore. Therefore I move that some minister of the Gospel be requested to attend this Congress every morning during the sessions in order to open the meeting with prayer."
Elias Boudinot, President of Congress, Chairman of the House Committee which formed the First Amendment.The Life, Public Service, Addresses, and Letters of Elias Boudinot, LL.D., President of the Continental Congress, J. J. Boudinot, editor (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1896), Vol. I, p. 21, to the First Provincial Congress of New Jersey.

[T]he law . . . dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this.
General Alexander Hamilton, Signer of the Constitution
The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, Harold C. Syrett, editor (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961), Vol. I, p. 87, February 23, 1775, quoting William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Philadelphia: Robert Bell, 1771), Vol. I, p. 41.

"[T]he . . . law established by the Creator . . . extends over the whole globe, is everywhere and at all times binding upon mankind. . . . [This] is the law of God by which he makes his way known to man and is paramount to all human control."
Rufus King, Signer of the Constitution, Ratifier of the Bill of Rights
The Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, Charles R. King, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1900), Vol. VI, p. 276, to C. Gore on February 17, 1820.

The Jury System of English Common Law is also based on the Bible. Common Law is subservient to Ecclesiastical Law, which is based on the Word of God. The Separation of Powers doctrine can also be found in the Bible,(Isa 33:22), which only seems logical as its foundation. Power, divided in a Republican Government is purely Biblical. Other than sin, can you think of a better reason to separate human governance? The Fourth Amendment has its foundation in Deut 24:10-11, showing that Biblical doctrine was the foundational aspect in our country's design. The framers also spoke of "principles that do not change" this can only be found in the Bible, for another morality is incompatible with the beliefs of the Founding Fathers. Our form of government can only last as long as there is virtue and morality in the people.

Please enlighten us and post the lies Mr. Kennedy is guilty of peddling. Refute my statements the United States was built on Biblical Foundations.

Secularists distortions never end...again

Bloggers, marvel at this quote:

A reader skeptical of this theory asked whether Adams believed the Bible was errant or man’s reason was penultimate before the 1800s when he resumed his correspondence with Jefferson. The answer is yes. I’ve written about it here. In 1785, Adams wrote:

What suspicions of interpolation, and indeed fabrication, might not be confuted if we had the originals! In an age or in ages when fraud, forgery, and perjury were considered as lawful means of propagating truth by philosophers, legislators, and theologians, what may not be suspected?
– John Adams, marginal note in John Disney’s Memoirs (1785) of Arthur Sykes. Haraszti, Prophets of Progress, 296. Taken from James H. Hutson, The Founders on Religion, p. 26.>>

Can you believe this? What is the context? What is fabricated that Adams is talking about? A marginal note in John Disney's Memoirs of Arthur Sykes? If this was put in a book, the author couldn't get this published. Where does Adams mention the Bible, or Scriptures, so we know what the context is? Who are the philosophers, legislators, and theologians Adams is supposedly referring to? We don't know because the blogger doesn't tell us. Where are the quotes John Adams rejected miracles prior to 1800? Where are the quotes affirming man's flawed conscience is superior to the Bible? Common sense dictates man's reason has to be flawed, or he would be God. Since man's reason is flawed, reason needs a higher authority.

Any structure of government or human society that places man's reason at the top of the "authority ladder" is a government of man, because it is man's reason, and no higher authority, that makes the laws. Absolute, higher law, must come from a super-human being, a being without flaw, and that being would be GOD. His law is revealed in the Scripture, and this law is completely reasonable (but this does not mean that God's law must be subject to man's reason, because man does not know better than God does).
http://thefoundationforum.blogspot.com/

Where are the quotes before 1800 refuting this quotes by John Adams:

The great and almighty Author of nature, who at first established those rules which regulate the World, can as easily Suspend those Laws whenever his providence sees sufficient reason for such suspension. This can be no objection, then, to the miracles of J [Jesus] C [Christ]. Altho' some very thoughtfull, and contemplative men among the heathen, attained a strong persuasion of the great Principles of Religion, yet the far greater number having little time for speculation, gradually sunk in to the grossest Opinions and the grossest Practices.
John Adams diary March 2, 1756
http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/aea/cfm/doc.cfm?id=D1&numrecs=6&archive=all&hi=on&mode=&query=%20MARCH%202%2C%201756&queryid=&rec=2&start=1&tag=text#firstmatch

Any secularist, where are the quotes from James Madison prior to 1808 rejecting his belief in the miracles of Christianity? Madison became a syncretist after the nation was formed and established:

"To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence.
James Madison-Memorial and Remonstrance 1785

This miraculous aid is the aid God provided to the early church, as recorded in the Book of Acts. Paul and Peter raising people from the dead, Peter and John healing a lame man, Peter striking dead Ananias and Sapphira with his words, sudden earthquakes, and many other supernatural events like prison locks automatically opening to free the Apostle Paul.

Where are the quotes from Thomas Jefferson affirming syncretism before he left office? I'll give you a hint blogger, 1809 is after Jefferson left office.

If quotes are found affirming Jefferson a syncretist, at least they would be posted, but to say Madison and Adams were rationalists while forming the nation has not been established.

More Secularist Distortions

This time the opinion on the religious beliefs of Thomas Jefferson:

"The Declaration was written by a man who believed in a very different "creator" than Barton. Remember, Jefferson explicitly condemned the Old Testament God as "cruel, capricious, vindictive and unjust" and rejected the notion that Jesus was divine or part of any trinity."
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/08/more_hindu_prayers.php#more

Just because Jefferson did not believe in the Deity of Jesus Christ doesn't mean he believed in a different Creator, or a "very different" Creator. It is the same Creator, rejecting the second and third person of the Godhead. Jefferson believed in the God of Israel, his error was his perception on the person of Jesus Christ. That Jesus Christ is God, is a distinction of God, just as Jefferson not believing The Holy Spirit is not God. The distortion is Ed Brayton portraying Jefferson as worshiping a different God altogether. Unitarians believe they worship the God of Israel. The Creator is the same, of which Jefferson himself declared he was a unitarian:

"But the population of my neighborhood is too slender, and is too much divided into other sects to maintain any one preacher well. I must therefore be contented to be an Unitarian by myself, although I know there are many around me who would become so, if once they could hear the questions fairly stated."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, January 8, 1825

"The pure and simple unity of the Creator of the universe, is now all but ascendant in the Eastern States; it is dawning in the West, and advancing towards the South; and I confidently expect that the present generation will see Unitarianism become the general religion of the United States."
Thomas Jefferson to to Rev. James Smith, December 8, 1822.

"To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other."
Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803

No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example.
Thomas Jefferson in 1803-Hutson (see n. 8) at p. 96, quoting from a handwritten history in possession of the Library of Congress, “Washington Parish, Washington City,” by Rev. Ethan Allen.

Jefferson, was deceived about Christianity and its essentials. But his unitarian God, like that of John Adams, was Yahweh, the God of Israel:

"I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem."
Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association, January 1, 1802

This common Father to Christians is the God of Israel. Where is the evidence Jefferson was a universalist while forming the nation? Where is this evidence at any point in his life?

Due Credit to Other Founding Fathers

Most of the Founding Fathers, if not all, were in agreement on the Law of Nature,(state of nature) being from the same source, the Bible. In agreement are Born Again Christian "key founders" like: Father of the Bill of Rights George Mason, Author of the House Language of the First Amendment Fisher Ames, Chairman of the House Drafting Committee for the First Amendment Elias Boudinot, Bill of Rights and Constitution Ratifier, Senator Rufus King, Father of the Revolution Samuel Adams, and the First Supreme Court Justice John Jay of New York. How could secular progressives not list Samuel Adams as a key founder? He was most responsible for starting rebellion against England, organizing the Boston Tea Party, Ratifying the Constitution, A Signer of the Declaration of Independence, and helped frame the Articles of Confederation.

It is obvious they have an agenda to suppress the Christian foundation of the United States. Could it be the rest of the framers have different views than Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison on certain issues? From the design of our government(Representative Government, mentioned in Ex 18:21), to separation of church and state, why would the minority view be more authoritative than the majority view? Who they are should be irrelevant since James Madison believed the most important framers were the ones who ratified instruments. Jefferson, it seems, would agree with Madison, that the "key founders" label is incorrect. Being President, or holding an office is irrelevant to who the "key founders" are according to James Madison.

James Monroe believed George Washington was the key to the Constitution, and Madison was initially against a Bill of Rights, until he realized he was on the losing side of the issue. I disagree James Madison is the Father of the Constitution. Even he admitted such:

“Dear Sir,–Your letter of the 18th Ult. was duly received. You give me a credit to which I have no claim, in calling me ” the writer of the Constitution of the U. S.” This was not, like the fabled Goddess of Wisdom, the offspring of a single brain. It ought to be regarded as the work of many heads & many hands."-TO WILLIAM COGSWELL. … MAD. MSS.Montpellier, March 10, 1834.

It is more logical to call Madison one of the distinguished founders, who played a large role in forming the Constitution, rather than claiming he is the Father, or author of the Constitution. How could Madison be the Father of the Constitution, when his idea of it was not most beneficial, and without acceptance from men like: George Mason, Elbridge Gerry, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and Edmund Randolph? There is no legitimate spokesman for the Constitution.

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.

Rowe's incorrect view of The State of Nature...Again:

Positive Liberty's Jon Rowe, as well as the secular progressive movement continue to distort our Founding Father's view of the Law of Nature(State of Nature), by violating the Framers and Christian Philosophers' application of words. Rowe's latest post is incorrect because he attributes philosophical wordage, an abandonment of a biblical view.
http://positiveliberty.com/2007/08/the-state-of-nature.html#more-2623

ADDED UPDATE ON JOHN LOCKE, AUG 10, 2007.

John Locke was NOT an adherent of the enlightenment. He fought against it with his many treatises. The true enlightenment thinkers: Hume, Rousseau, Voltaire, etc. were the ones Locke, Blackstone, Grotius, Puffendorf, and Montesquieu rivaled with. The enlightenment thinkers were ones who denied the essentials of the faith, the supernatural, etc. Locke and the other Christian Philosophers did not deny essentials of the salvation of Christianity.

Until Rowe and the secular progressives understand this error, they will continue to misunderstand the Christian beliefs of the Founding Fathers. The framers used philosophical wordage, as well as the Born Again Christian founders:
And let us play the man for our God, and for the cities of our God; while we are using the means in our power, let us humbly commit our righteous cause to the great Lord of the Universe, who loveth righteousness and hateth iniquity... let us joyfully leave our concerns in the hands of him who raiseth up and pulleth down the empires and kingdoms of the world as he pleases; and with cheerful submission to his sovereign will, devoutly say: "Although the fig tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vines; the labor of the olive shall fail, and the field shall yield no meat; the flock shall be cut off from the fold, and there shall be no herd in the stalls; yet we will rejoice in the Lord, we will joy in the God of our salvation."
John Hancock-Boston Massacre Oration. March 5th, 1774.

Rowe and secular progressives who deny John Locke's Christianity is a betrayal of truth and the promotion of revisionist history. Rowe and secular progressives do not understand Christianity, that's why they doubt John Locke's Christianity. The man was a Theologian, who studied the bible all day long! It's unbelievable how the secular progressive movement perverts the views of the Christian Philosophers. I dare one secular progressive to post the writings of John Locke clearly denying the the Trinity, and Deity of Jesus Christ! Denying original sin, and eternal damnation is not mandatory to be a Christian, as well as claiming someone is of the enlightenment or theistic rationalist leanings. As long as the essentials of Christianity are not violated, it is not heresy. If you read Locke's Second Vindication, you will see his reason for rejecting original sin is that he couldn't believe God would condemn babies who had prematurely died, and humans not attaining the age of accountability. Locke wrongfully assumed God will judge all humans based on original sin. God only judges people that are at the age of accountability. That is why King David believed he would again see his new born son that died, on account of his sin with Bathsheba.

Rowe wrongfully describes the Law of Nature and who the Founders attributed it to:

The idea of the state of nature traces to Hobbes. Though the form that our Founders embraced was Locke’s. This is important: Locke’s state of nature differed from Hobbes’ and provided the model our Founders followed when they declared independence; but the concept of the state of nature itself was nonetheless formulated by Hobbes.>>

The state of nature, which actually is encompassed in the Law of Nations, is derived from the Law of Nature-our Founding Fathers believed it was from God. The concept was understood from the scriptures through Christian Theologians. A Republican form of Government(ruled by law) is straight from the Bible, for it is God's Law that rules from elected representatives, rather than the perverted form of democracy, where Biblical law can be changed by the will of the majority. Under a Republic, murder will always be murder because the Bible says so. The United States is founded on the Religion and morality of the Bible, rather than the perverted liberal enlightenment principles, which attack, and pervert the Bible. A Republican form of Government is based on Deut 1:15-17,
"...made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes..."
This government can only last if the people are moral and virtuous, as the framer's claimed. and the majority rules doctrine, beyond the rule of law is consistent with the Law of Nature. Locke did not form any theories that were not already laid down in the Bible, the jury system of Common Law, and separation of powers is also in the Bible.

Here is another instance of Rowe perverting Christianity, and the views of John Locke:

Now, because Locke 1) has God take a central role in this theory, and 2) called himself a Christian and defended the Christian religion as “reasonable,” otherwise uninformed folks could easy confuse Locke’s teachings from his second treatise with authentically Christian principles. However, they are not...Just because Locke had God play a central role in his liberal democratic theory does not mean there is anything authentically biblical or Christian about Locke’s teachings.>>
http://positiveliberty.com/2007/08/the-state-of-nature.html#more-2623

It doesn't get anymore whacky than this. Because Locke didn't believe in original sin, Rowe uses this to twist Locke's views on Christianity. Denying original sin, or eternal damnation is not a product of the enlightenment or rationalism, it is what Locke wrongly thought the Bible taught. Rowe and the secular progressives need to study the scriptures more and understand original sin is not mandatory to be a Christian, but I doubt they will. There is no clear evidence, I repeat, there is no clear evidence that John Locke denied the Deity of Jesus Christ!

Again Rowe mistakenly assumes:

Just because Locke had God play a central role in his liberal democratic theory does not mean there is anything authentically biblical or Christian about Locke’s teachings.>>

It doesn't get anymore perverted than that statement! John Locke was a Christian Theologian, Yet so heavily did Locke draw from the Bible in developing his political theories that in his first treatise on government, he invoked the Bible in one thousand three hundred and forty nine references; in his second treatise, he cited it one hundred and fifty seven times.
How can so many references to the Bible in Locke's most famous political work be reconciled with the charge that his political philosophies were totally secular? or theistic.
In 1669, John Locke assisted in the drafting of the Carolina constitution under which no man could be a citizen unless he acknowledged God, was a member of a church, and used no “reproachful, reviling, or abusive language” against any religion.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=106
John Locke, A Collection of Several Pieces of Mr. John Locke Never Before Printed or Not Extant in His Works (London: J. Bettenham for R. Francklin, 1720), pp. 3, 41, 45, 46.

Locke went to seminary! How does this refer to secular philosophy?

It only gets worse folks, Rowe again:

And in doing so, arguably they invoked a different God — a benevolent unitarian deity — the God of the theistic rationalists, not the biblical God.>>

Locke's belief in miracles takes care of the theistic rationalist rant:

God only rarely uses miracles. "Though it be easy for omnipotent power to do all things by an immediate overruling will, and to make any instruments work even contrary to their nature, in subserviency to his ends, yet his wisdom is not usually at the expense of miracles . . . but only in cases that require them for the evidencing of some revelation or mission to be from him...If it were not so, the course and evidence of things would be confounded; miracles would lose their force and name; and there could be no distinction between natural and supernatural."
The Reasonableness of Christianity

The reason why Rowe and the secular progressives are so wrong on all the issues is because they do not understand Christianity and the Bible. This proves my point:

Orthodox Christians needed to rely on such an a-biblical Enlightenment system of thought because the Bible simply doesn’t speak to issues with which the Whig republicans were concerned (like a right to revolt).>>

It is in the Bible! Just find where it is and reconcile it. God affirms revolt over an unrighteous kingdom at the beginning of human history in Gen 14:14-20. A Theophany of Jesus Christ(Melchizidek) Priest of the Most High God affirms what Abram did. Righteous revolt over government is in the Bible countless times.

Even orthodox Christians like John Witherspoon, Sam Adams, Patrick Henry and John Jay were influenced by an a-biblical Enlightenment worldview, especially when they argued for republicanism.>>

None of those men denied the Deity of Jesus Christ, and believed the Bible was superior in all matters.

Jesus didn’t overturn one social institution. Not slavery, not any of the illiberal forms of government.>>

Was He supposed to? What was His mission? Is do unto others as you would have them do to you not anti-slavery?

And indeed, Paul instructs Christians, in Romans 13, in no uncertain terms, to obey an illiberal, undemocratic, unelected tyrant who never sought consent to rule over believers.>>

Another incorrect quote. It's amazing so many errors on one post. The context is to be a minster of God to thee for good. Only a just and righteous government has God's approval.

Overall, Rowe and the secular progressive movement are completely wrong about the beliefs of the Founding Fathers, John Locke, The Law of Nature, and practically everything they propose because they lack the true understanding of this universe through the Law of Nature's revelation, the Bible.

Jon Rowe Betrays our Founders and Hindus...Again:

Jon Rowe, the secular progressive, attacks Judge Roy Moore for his correct statement about the Christian foundation of the United States, then posts this:

Hindus, like Christians claim to worship one God."
http://jonrowe.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html

Yes folks, the man, with his fellow secular progressives, continue to distort the Christian heritage of the United States as well as the Law of Nature, Separation of Church and State, the First Amendment, and now, if you can believe it, Hinduism.

The contradiction of Hinduism starts in their scriptures known as the Vedas. These Vedas are a mass of contradictions worthy of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. The last part of the Vedas teach pantheism, karmic retribution, and reincarnation-the Bhapavad-Gita seems monotheistic, contradicting the earlier vedas. The earlier vedas are:

"definitely pantheistic (all of existence is, in some way, divine) and perhaps even monistic (all of existence is one, whether any divinity exists at all).
Walter Martin, The Kindgom of the Cults. Bethany House Publishers, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 55438. 1997, p. 388.

The Hare Chrishnas have promoted the monotheism of Hinduism, while others believe everything is god, and still others believe in a multitude of gods. Reincarnation, common to all Hindus-Rowe's comment that Hindus worship one god, is as accurate as the pagan catholics claiming the earth is flat! Hinduism is the epitome of contradiction, Hindus believing in a creator god, and others believing everything is god-this false religion is a disgrace to the Christian foundation of the United States Judge Roy Moore spoke about. Judge Moore's issue is with a pagan religion(prayer) in a nation founded on the precepts of the Bible.

Yes, the Law of Nature in the Declaration of Independence is the God of the Bible as the Christian Philosophers, and our Founding Fathers claimed.

[The] "Law of nature" is a role of conduct arising out of the natural relations of human beings established by the Creator and existing prior to any postive precept [human law]....These...have been established by the Creator and are, with a peculiar felicity of expression, denominated in Scripture, "ordinances of heaven."
Noah Webster(1758-1843) was among the first to call for the Constitutional Convention (1785)and was responsible for the copyright and patent protection clause found in Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution.

Oh, I forgot, only Rowe and secular progressives' "key founders" Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin, are the only ones that matter, or who can speak for the other two hundred fifty Founding Fathers.

Rowe's quotes is most likely from the ISKCON sect of Hinduism, where Krishna is supreme in the Godhead. To ISKCON, Jesus Christ is Krishna's son, but not the unique Son of God. The Hare Krishnas pick and choose parts of the bible just like Jefferson and Adams did.

I had to throw this quote in here showing how deceived Rowe and the secular progressives are about our Founding Fathers:

Completely wrong. If anything, the political theology of the Founding suggests the Founders granted religious freedom to all precisely because they believed all religions -- Muslims, Hindus, Native Americans, etc. -- worshipped the same God they did."
http://jonrowe.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html

When Rowe says this, he means only Jefferson and Adams can speak for the Framers, not the other two hundred framers, like Rufus King, who drafted the First Amendment, Drafted and Ratified the Constitution :

[In o]ur laws...by the oath which they prescribe, we appeal to the Supreme Being so to deal with us hereafter as we observe the obligation of our oaths. The Pagan world were and are without the mighty influence of this principle which is proclaimed in the Christian system."
Reports of the Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of 1821, Assembled for the Purpose of Amending The Constitution of the State of New York (Albany: E. and E. Hosford, 1821), p. 575, Rufus King, October 30, 1821.

King, only Drafted and Ratified the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, but he isn't Jefferson, or Adams, so he shouldn't be quoted, and doesn't know what he's talking about! James Madison believed the "key founders" were those who ratified these documents like Rufus King:

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 Congress
http://www.loc.gov/loc/madison/hutson-paper.htm

Madison seems to destroy the "key founders" of Rowe and the secular progressives, as well as their dogma of the First Amendment referring to any religion becoming the National Church. Rowe and the secular progressives can push their schemes all they want, but it's deceit. Rowe asks:

Why would the Biblical God grant men an unalienable right to break his commandments? Arguably, He wouldn't. Hence arguably, the rights granting "Nature's God" of the key Founders is not the Biblical God.>>

This is a perfect example of one who needs to study a lot more. Rowe is confusing the Old and New Testaments, the First Commandment ONLY applied to the theocracy of Israel, not the freedom of conscience embodied in the Christian Philosophers' Law of Nature. The Biblical God grants an unalienable right to break his commandments because this isn't Israel, and the United States is not a Theocracy. Religion is left to the States, and the key Founders' God is the Biblical God.

Rowe's final statement claims:

challenge Roy Moore or anyone sympathetic to his view to find one quotation from Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, or Franklin clearly expressing the belief that Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, or any non-Christians worship false Gods. (I'll give you a hint: They can't because they don't exist.)>>

Why should I try to find any quotes from anyone else, they aren't "key founders", so they do not matter.

Was James Madison a Christian or Theist?

By James J. Goswick July 8, 2007

The evidence surrounding the faith of James Madison
does not support the theistic claim of libertarian
Jon Rowe, or any liberal for that matter. The key to
refuting Rowe and other proponents of the theistic
rationalist label they put on James Madison is the
audience Madison addresses for his claim of
Christianity's truth. If the audience are deists,
unitarians, or theists, Rowe is correct, if they are
Christians, he is wrong. Madison in his Memorial
claims Christianity is the religion he believes is divine:

"Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace,
to profess and to observe the Religion which we
believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an
equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet
yielded to the evidence which has convinced us."

Were the Baptists, Quakers, Menonists, and Anglicans
in the legislature Christians or Unitarians?
Madison is claiming the assembly is Christian, that
believe as he does. Rowe would need proof that the
assembly of Virginia in 1785 were theists, and notice how
Rowe believes there were "infidel principles" but only
mentions Thomas Jefferson and no one else, "Many of
those elite Virginia Anglican Whigs secretly held to
"infidel principles". Indeed, after graduation,
Madison's mentor was Jefferson, who may well have
brought Madison to unitarian infidelity." Who else led
Madison to "infidel principles"?
http://positiveliberty.com/2007/05/james-madison-still-wasnt-christian.html#more-2397

If Madison was a theist, where is the evidence that
the Virginia Assembly were not Christians? Where is
the evidence that the majority of the
Assembly(Baptists)were theists? Baptists and Anglicans
are Trinitarians. Rowe has presented no
evidence of theists in the Virginia Assembly,
on the contrary, the Memorial and Remonstrance shows
James Madison believed in orthodox Christian beliefs.
Rowe's use of historians or other second hand sources
doesn't support his claim either, Madison's own words
are superior to the words of an historian.

Madison's "best and purest religion" is just an
historians opinion that is true of Thomas Jefferson's
beliefs, the quote is harmonious with his Memorial claim
that all non Christian religions are false. Christianity
is the best religion and the others are false.
We have Jefferson's written words he believed the
bible was corrupted, not Madison's. The best
evidence that Madison is a theist is his "My Red
Children" letter to the Indians. Madison says, "The
Great Spirit, who is the father of us all."
Madison contradicts this statement in his Memorial by
calling the other religions false:

"Compare the number of those who have as yet
it with the number still remaining under
the dominion of false religions; and how small
is the former!"

If the Indians used this term for God, Rowe would have a
point, which he does:

"These lands are ours. No one has a right to
remove us because we were the first owners. The Great
Spirit above has appointed the place for us, on which
to light our fires, and here we will remain."
Tecumseh, Native American chief, in a message to Pres.
James Madison, 1810

From this passage it seems Madison is a theist. Did
Madison change his views? In the final analysis,
Jon Rowe believes Madison played
both sides to win their support, but this view doesn't
seem logical and destroys any of Madison's
credibility. How could the so called Father of the
Constitution call other religions false, simultaneously
not believing what he said, lieing about his faith,
and the faith of his parents just to defeat a bill?
What does that say about his character?

This is the worst kind of hypocrisy, and Rowe admits it:

"To the evangelical Christians, speaking as though
their religion was true, and to the Native Americans,
doing the same. This fits with theistic rationalism
which believes that all religions worship the same
God."
http://positiveliberty.com/2007/05/who-is-the-great-spirit.html#more-2430

Mr. Rowe forgot one important detail, Madison said he
believed Christianity was divine, not the Virginia Assemblies
religion was true. Rowe then believes Madison lied to the
Assembly in Virginia just to make a point. Don't buy
what he's selling folks, common sense knows better.

Another death blow to Rowe and his theist dogma for
Madison and the other framers is the rationalists denial
of miracles, which Madison rejected as his Memorial claims:

"To say that it is, is a contradiction to the
Christian Religion itself, for every page of it
disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it
is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this
Religion both existed and flourished, not only without
the support of human laws, but in spite of every
opposition from them, and not only during the period
of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to
its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence."

This miraculous aid is the aid God provided to the early
church, as recorded in the Book of Acts. Paul and Peter raising
people from the dead, Peter and John healing a lame man,
Peter striking dead Ananias and Sapphira with his words,
sudden earthquakes, and many other supernatural events like
prison locks automatically opening to free the Apostle Paul.

Is it likely that James Madison changed his views
from those of 1772-1785 to different views in 1812, back to
Christian beliefs in 1833's letter to a Christian Rev. Jasper
Adams? From his letter to the Indians, Madison
violated the first commandment of God, of which he knew
all about, having gone to seminary, then changed
his beliefs later in life. The first commandment of God is
in the bible countless times where the Prophets claim there is no
other God but Yahweh. What should be noted is James Madison believed the
Christian system divine while he helped formed the nation.
Madison's theist quote was in 1812, if it isn't a contradiction.

It is clear Madison changed his later beliefs from his
earlier actions, but labeling Madison a theist because
of his contradictions and use of philosophical terms
rather than biblical ones isn't sufficient justification.

Regards.