Cleveland Sports Forum

Mt. Fan

I guess I'm with HB on this - certainly religion has a role in the public square. I do not believe in the incorporation doctrine, at least not as pertains to non-procedural protections, but I think Equal protection might mean no establishment or abridgement of free exercise at the state level. I'm honestly not sure and would need to research more upon that.

All of that said -- I think invoking God in matters of politics is a losing battle, strategy-wise. The left and the PC crowd has ensured that will happen. But, I think someone can arrive at the same conclusions on things, even if God is not leveraged as part of the argument. Unfortunately, if I say "The government should not pay for contraceptives, or force religious institutions that are against their use to pay for them", and then I say "By the way, I was raised a Southern Baptist", I'm labeled (at best) a theocrat, and my original argument dismissed. That is just the rules of engagement today.

Here's a differing opinion on the subject by a constitutional historian. I know nothing about the author except that he evidently wrote a book about James Madison.









Santorum and Madison on church and state
By Kevin R. C. Gutzman

About this blog: James Madison was a Founding Father
of great complexity and many contradictions who had a profound influence on the ideas that created America. In his book, “James Madison and the Making of America,” released last month by St. Martin’s Press, Kevin R. C. Gutzman provides a multi-layered portrait of Madison, with particular emphais on his ideas about church and state. Here, Gutzman, a professor of history at Western Connecticut State University, looks at presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s recent coments on church and state in relation to what this Founding Father had to say about the issue.

-------------------------------------

Some controversies never die. Among them, seemingly, is the one over the proper relationship between government and religion — between church and state.

Former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania hopes to become the second Roman Catholic president of the United States and, not unnaturally, he has taken the opportunity to consider the example of the first, John F. Kennedy.

Creating something of stir recently, Santorum said Kennedy’s famous 1960 speech endorsing an “absolute” separation between church and state made him want to “throw up.” Why?

When the question was put to him by George Stephanopoulos (son of a very prominent Orthodox priest), Santorum replied: “I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.”

One wishes that Stephanopoulos had asked Santorum how he knew that. Where does Santorum get his idea of “the objectives and vision of our country?” Certainly not from study of James Madison.

The chief craftsman of America’s tradition of church-state separation, Madison, disagreed with Santorum. He developed at great length over more than 50 years his belief in religious freedom. Never again in America should Virginia whip Baptists or Massachusetts hang Quakers. The church should form no part of the state.

With that in mind, Madison at the tender age of 25 coined the phrase “free exercise of religion” for the Virginia Declaration of Rights — America’s first such declaration. He pushed the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom to passage, officially separating church from state in the Old Dominion.

Madison also played the lead role in drafting the U.S. Constitution, whose Article VI bans religious tests for office-holding. He led the way in drafting the First Amendment, which paired “free exercise” with a ban on congressional legislation “respecting an establishment of religion.”

Madison’s point was not to exclude believers from politics. That would have been impossible in Madison’s day, when virtually every American believed in God, just as a huge majority of us do now.

Santorum says that, “Unfortunately on that day President Kennedy chose not to dispel fear. In fact, what he chose to do was expel faith.”

This is simply inaccurate. Kennedy invoked Madison in explaining that presidents should neither impose religion nor be accountable to religious figures — in Kennedy’s case, the pope.

For Madison, the separation of church and state was simply that: not that John Jay, Patrick Henry, Sam Adams, or any of the other devout politicians of the Revolutionary era must abandon politics, but that they must not impose their religion on others through the instrumentality of the state.

Santorum’s confusion on this score came out in his recent statement that he looked forward to an opportunity as president to lecture Americans on the dangers of contraception. One simply cannot imagine James Madison taking what is so transparently a position dictated by Santorum’s religion, stripping it of its theological foundation, and hectoring his fellow citizens about it.

Santorum seems to think that the president is our official bishop, rabbi, or imam, and that his election would amount to a secular ordination.

“The idea of strict or absolute separation of church and state,” Santorum said, “is not and never was the American model.” What does he mean by that?

Madison explained in his “Memorial and Remonstrance: Against Religious Assessments” (1785) that laws establishing state churches had harmed both government and religion. Profoundly revolutionary in his day, this idea has gained ground since. In our own time, the Roman Catholic Church has banned priests from political service, forcing some to quit Congress.

In retirement, deep consideration of his principle led Madison to conclude that neither Congress nor the U.S. military should have chaplains. He apparently decided that it had been an error for him as president to encourage Americans to pray for victory in the War of 1812, because such blandishments, “seem to imply and certainly nourish the erronious [sic] idea of a national religion.” The government, he thought, should neither tax people to pay a minister nor set out particular religious observance that Americans ought to follow.

Nothing that John Kennedy said in 1960 indicated that he must cease to be Catholic if he became president. It did indicate, however, that Kennedy had given the underpinnings of American religious freedom serious thought.

One hopes that Santorum will do the same, and soon.

The issues that are important to me involve less government, a balanced sensible budget, a flatter tax, and a strong defense.


On the "social issues" I also as most here seem to, consider myself more open minded.

I agree with Abraham Lincoln that government governs best when it governs least, and that government governs best when it governs closest to the people.

As I've mentioned before, in all the hours and days I have spent in The City of San Francisco, I have never met a single person who complained or complains about living there. Odd views are freely tolerated, because "Hey, it's San Francisco, and that's what we are supposed to do here.....we all were instructed on arrival and signed off on the waiver."

I don't get very worked up about abortion as a political issue. I think those decisions are between a woman, her God of choice, and maybe occasionally the guy who dropped the seed. And to the parents, if she is less than 17. And I'll add, that I don't think any human being really likes anything about abortion and it's never an easy decision for anyone, and God knows.

No government entity should be involved at the human level of things like abortion.. I think God lets all that stuff get sorted out and categorized appropriately for Him, and that's good enough for me.

Pretty much the same reasons I have no problem and or reason to stop same sex marriages.

I think Santorum would be a fine President on the big issues I care about, and I have few worries he would be overt or even mildly assertive in trying to tattoo any of his personal Catholic beliefs on our citizenship.

I was baptized Catholic. By one of the first African American priests in Ohio, circa 1956, as I was later told. My Irish Grandfather stood up for him in the church a few years earlier.

I do not devoutly follow all the planks of the Catholic platform, which essentially notes I am not a 100% "practicing Catholic."

(insert the old joke about anything you have to "practice at")

I have no desire for The Catholic Church to have a bit of impact on US Government, and I have no concern there is any motivation.

Here's a very objective piece regarding the beliefs of the founding fathers by James Watkins;

True or False: The Founding Fathers of The United States were Christians who formed a government based on godly principles.

That's a more complex answer. The "revisionist left" would like to make them secular and the "religious right" would like to make them saintly. Let's take a look at some of the more prominent Founding Father's beliefs . . . in their own words.

But first, for the sake of argument, let's use the Apostle' Creed as a common description of orthodox Christian doctrine:

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

John Adams

The second President (or tenth if you consider John Hanson the first) wrote to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.

However, Adams is often quoted as saying, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!" However, here's the complete quotation in an April 19, 1817, letter to Thomas Jefferson:

Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion at all!!!" But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell.

As a Unitarian, Adams flatly denied the doctrine of eternal punishment believing all would eventually enter heaven. (Many Unitarians reject the Trinity and most accept all religions as valid expressions of faith.) But being a good Unitarian, he was certainly open to the teachings of Christ

Jesus is benevolence personified, an example for all men. . . . The Christian religion, in its primitive purity and simplicity, I have entertained for more than sixty years. It is the religion of reason, equity, and love; it is the religion of the head and the heart (Letter to F.A. Van Der Kemp, December 27, 1816).

During Adam's administration the Senate ratified the 1797 Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli, which states in Article XI that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." Some view this as "a smoking gun" that America was not founded as a Christian nation, while others argue that it was simply a concession to the Muslim nation (when the treaty was renegotiated eight years later, Article XI was dropped).

Samuel Adams

Samuel Adams organized the Boston Tea Party, and served as Governor of Massachusetts, a delegate to the Continental congress, and a signer of the Declaration of Independence.

In his 1772 work, The Rights of the Colonists, Adams wrote:

II. The Rights of the Colonists as Christians.

The right to freedom being the gift of the Almighty...The rights of the colonists as Christians...may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutions of The Great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.

In his Last Will and Testament he wrote:

Principally, and first of all, I resign my soul to the Almighty Being who gave it, and my body I commit to the dust, relying on the merits of Jesus Christ for the pardon of my sins.

Benjamin Franklin

In his autobiography, Franklin describes himself as "a thorough Deist." "I began to be regarded, by pious souls, with horror, either as an apostate or an Atheist."

According to a Deist publication, a Deist is "One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason." Deists reject the Judeo-Christian accounts of God as well as the Bible. They do believe that God is eternal and good, but flatly reject having a relationship with Him through Christ.

Franklin certainly believed in the providence of God. In his famous speech to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on June 28, 1787:

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth•that God governs in the affairs of men... If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground unseen by him, is it probable an empire could arise without his aid? I firmly believe this, and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building not better than the builders of Babel.

Just five months before his death, he wrote to Dr. Stiles, the President of Yale, who had questioned Franklin about his faith:

I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe; that he governs it by his Providence; that be ought to be worshipped; that the. most acceptable service we can render to him is doing good to his other children; that the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points of all sound religion, and I regard them as you do, in whatever sect I meet with them. As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think his system of morals and his religion, as be left them to us, the best the world ever saw, or is like to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it.

Alexander Hamilton

The Episcopalian authored many of the Federalist Papers, signed the Constitution, and became the first Secretary of the Treasury. In an April 1802 letter to James A. Bayard, Hamilton proposed The Christian Constitutional Society:

In my opinion, the present constitution is the standard to which we are to cling. Under its banner bona fide must we combat our political foes, rejecting all changes but through the channel itself provided for amendments. By these general views of the subject have my reflections been guided. I now offer you the outline of the plan they have suggested. Let an association be formed to be denominated "The Christian Constitutional Society," its object to be first: The support of the Christian religion. second: The support of the United States.

Hamilton was shot and killed by Aaron Burr in a duel on July 12, 1804. His last dying words reportedly were:

I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.

Patrick Henry

Best known for his "give me liberty or give me death" speech on March 23, 1775, he became the first governor of Virginia.

One of his most famous quotations, cannot be verified, although it's used by many Christian ministers: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!" It's not found anywhere in his recorded writings or speeches.

However, here's a verified quotation from a letter to his daughter dated August 20, 1796:

Amongst other strange things said of me, I hear it is said by the deists that I am one of the number; and indeed, that some good people think I am no Christian. This thought gives me much more pain than the appellation of Tory; because I think religion of infinitely higher importance than politics; and I find much cause to reproach myself that I have lived so long, and have given no decided and public proofs of my being a Christian. But, indeed, my dear child, this is a character which I prize far above all this world has, or can boast.

And in his will

This is all the inheritance I give to my dear family. The religion of Christ will give them one which will make them rich indeed.

John Jay

One of the authors of the Federalist Papers and first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Jay wrote to Rev. Uzal Ogden, on February 14, 1796:

I have long been of opinion that the evidence of the truth of Christianity requires only to be carefully examined to produce conviction in candid minds. . . .

And in an April 23, 1811, letter to John Bristed, April 23, 1811, he wrote:

While in France . . . I do not recollect to have had more than two conversations with atheists about their tenents. The first was this: I was at a large party, of which were several of that description. They spoke freely and contemptuously of religion. I took no part in the conversation. In the course of it, one of them asked me if I believed in Christ? I answered that I did, and that I thanked God that I did.

Thomas Jefferson

The writer of the Declaration of Independence and the third President of the United States wrote to Charles Thomson in 1816:

I, too, have made a wee-little book from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.

Jefferson was a Deist who respected Christ's teachings, but rejected His divinity, His miracles, and His resurrection. In a letter to William Short dated April 13, 1820, he wrote:

I am a Materialist.

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to [Jesus] by His biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same Being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore to Him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of His disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great . . . corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus.

In separating Jesus divine and human natures, Jefferson wrote to John Adams, January 24, 1814 that the divine aspects of Christ were "the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills."

And so he compiled The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted Textually from the Gospels. Jefferson simply cut out anything of a supernatural or miraculous nature and so his Bible ends:

Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen cloths with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury. Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus, And rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

George Washington

The first President's faith is a bit harder to pin down.

Many Christian writers and commentators point to Washington's twenty-four page manuscript book, titled, Daily Sacrifice. It was found in April 1891 among a collection of Washington's papers in his confirmed handwriting when he was about the age of twenty. In it he prays:

Bless my family, kindred, friends and country, be our God & guide this day and for ever for his sake, who lay down in the Grave and arose again for us, Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.

. . . in and for the sacrifice of Jesus Christ offered upon the cross for me; for his sake, ease me of the burden of my sins, and give me grace that by the call of the Gospel I may rise from the slumber of sin into the newness of life.

Let me live according to those holy rules which thou hast this day prescribed in thy holy word; make me to know what is acceptable in thy holy word; make me to know what is acceptable in thy sight, and therein to delight, open the eyes of my understanding, and help me thoroughly to examine myself concerning my knowledge, faith and repentance, increase my faith, and direct me to the true object Jesus Christ the way, the truth and the life, bless O Lord, all the people of this land, from the highest to the lowest, particularly those whom thou has appointed to rule over us in church & state. continue thy goodness to me this night. These weak petitions I humbly implore thee to hear accept and ans. for the sake of thy Dear Son Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.

In his Speech to Delaware Indian Chiefs on May 12, 1779, Washington said:

You do well to wish to learn our arts and our 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 everything they can to assist you in this wise intention.

However, during his presidency (1789-1797) and in his later life, Washington is not recorded referring to Jesus Christ and rarely to God. He preferred titles such as "the Divine Author of our blessed Religion," "Almighty Being," "Providence" and "Grand Designer" (all terms from Deist beliefs).

Washington also used the title "Supreme Architect" (a Freemasonary term of which he became a devout member, served as the head of the original Alexandria Lodge No. 22, and presided over the laying of the U.S. Capitol in a Mason apron).

According to Bishop White, Washington's pastor for nearly 25 years at the Protestant Episcopal Church of America, as well as Washington's adopted daughter Nelly Custis-Lewis, the President would leave the service before communion was served. (The Eucharist or Holy Communion is considered an essential part of salvation for Catholics and for many members of litergical churches.)

Lewis however defended her step-father's faith in a letter:

I never witnessed his private devotions. I never inquired about them. I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian. He was not one of those who act or pray, "that they may be seen of men" [Matthew 6:5]. He communed with his God in secret [Matthew 6:6].

Thomas Jefferson was less charitable:

[Washington] had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address as to force him at length to disclose publicly whether he was a Christian or not. However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly, except that, which he passed over without notice" (Jefferson's Works, Vol. iv., p. 572).

So, were the Founding Fathers Christians?

They were certainly godly men who believed in a supreme being, but not everyone would subscribe to the Apostles' Creed.

Three things do seem clear to me:

First, we must always check our sources before making any claim•or passing one on.

Both revisionists and the religious right have tried to make the Founding Fathers fit their ideology. It gives neither side of the debate any credibility when quotations are found to be fictitious or grossly out of context.

For instance, I've seen articles proclaiming that Jefferson claimed to be "a real Christian" while conveniently avoiding his opinion that belief in Christ's divinity was "dung" (see contexts above).

Second, we must be careful with labels, especially "Christian."

One author claims that 51 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence held a "Christian worldview." He doesn't go on, however, to define what he means by Christian worldview. Would Jefferson and Franklin, who admired Christ's teachings, be included in the 51?

And third, we should be grateful that the Founding Fathers•whatever they believed•were so intent on making religious liberty a right for those of us who do subscribe to the Apostles' Creed and those who don't.

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute threepence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, June 20, 1785.

© 2003 James Watkins

Note:

I am a subscriber to the Apostles' Creed (I've had a "subscription" since second grade). I would love to document that the most prominent Founding Fathers were orthodox Christians.

However, I'm also a journalist who is committed to being an OAF (Objective, Accurate, and Fair), so I have only included quotations where I could find at least two collaborating, reliable sources.

So this essay continues to be a work in progress. If you have a relevant quotation from one of the Founding Fathers regarding his faith or find an error, please email me with at least two reliable sources. Thanks!

(BeliefNet has a good list of Founding Fathers' writing on Christianity and religion on its site.)

"Hey, it's San Francisco, and that's what we are supposed to do here ..."

A couple of days ago a very similar thought passed through my head:

"Hey, this is the POLITICS folder, and it's what we are supposed to do here."

Mt.Fan:

Those writings are examples of what I talked about before. If you wanted to take the time to dig further believe me you could find hundreds more similiar articles with similiar opinions. Just like you could find hundreds of similiar books and articles from the right supporting the entirely different perspective.

Only difference is, in the writings that try to say the founders were not religious and did not set up our government on Judeo Christian values they will take one thing that a person said, or a comment the person once wrote in a letter, etc. On the opposite side of the argument you can find literally hundreds of footnotes to back our argument.

Take George Washington for example. That last message you posted said, "The first President's faith is a bit harder to pin down." That is as ridiculous a statement that an educated person could ever write. I have been reading alot on my dear ole 6th great grand uncle of late and believe me, his values are crystal clear. There is a book written about Washington and his faith & character called "Sacred Fire". The author spent 11 years researching for it. It is almost 1200 pages long and has over 200 pages of footnotes of Washington's own words and writings to prove the point. Not just a theory someone derived because he called God by a different name from time to time. (but always with great reverance)

Nelly Custis was Martha Washington's biological son and a ward of George, and after George died Nelly said, "to doubt George's Christian faith was as absurd as doubting his patriotism."

Anyone that doubts either is a liar or just ignorant.

As George said in his farewell address to the nation when he was leaving office -

"of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indespinsible supports. In Vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician equally with the pious man ought to respect and cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in the courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of a peculiar structure; reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Ole George was a bit of a prophet. He warned against what we're seeing now and what I was talking about yesterday. And oh yeah, he didn't believe religion had a place in government.... Riiiight.... He felt so strongly about it that he warned his country not to stray in the last words he publicly spoke to them.

All I can tell you once again, Mt.Fan, is read the federalist papers for yourself and with an open mind and see what conclusion you come to. It's crystal clear.

Of all the names adorning our founding documents there were a couple guys who were not overly religious. The left points to Madison often, I know. But read all of their own words for yourself, why they set up things the way they did. Read where they got their ideas for government. Read how they took ideas straight out of The Book of Judges and Kings in the old testament. Look at the writings on the walls inside the nations capital and our early courts. Then try to tell me I am wrong.

I'll respect your opinion. But I do not respect very educated educators who know darn well the truth and still do their best to spin a secular progressive message for their own selfish needs.

We used to have a moral compass as a country. We used to be a people who would strive to do what is right. And it was instilled into us from an early age. Now, to the chagrin of Washington, we have lost our moral compass. We now strive to do whatever makes us feel good at the moment. Screw the consequences. I'll worry about who I hurt later. I'll worry about how I'll pay for it later.

Now I don't mean to shove my own beliefs on anybody else, I know my beliefs about prayer in school and such may not be very popular with alot of people. But there is no doubt in my mind that we as an American people are losing our moral compass, and we are way worse off for it.

And George Washington tried to warn us about it in his parting words.

Here's my take on progressive-ism:

• 1. It is progress to remove the old theological shackles and allow people to be free of a religiously-influenced government.
  2. It is progress for historically disenfranchised to be given "extra help" in order to succeed.
  3. It is progress for the downtrodden to receive support from the state.
  4. It is progress to get rid of drugs.
  5. It is progress for the state to take care of the elderly.
  6. It is progress to push our children to learn more, by funding head start.
  7. It is progress to aid women's health, by funding planned parenthood.
  9. It is progress against teenage pregnancy to teach contraception in schools.
  8. It is progress to end dependence on foreign oil, by subsidizing alternative energies.
  9. It is progress to tax the successful more, so as to fund programs for the disadvantaged.
  And so on

40 year war on poverty - FAILURE. Senior citizen safety net is broke - FAILURE. Births to unwed mothers is at an all-time high - FAILURE. 20 year war on drugs - FAILURE. We have more citizens getting foodstamps that any other time -- FAILURE. We spend more money on educating our kids, but they consistently rank outside of the top 10 (20?) in all categories -- FAILURE.

My question to progressives: Where's the [expletive deleted] progress? The only good thing to come out is the end to (overt) racial and gender discrimination. Everything else is an abject and complete utter failure.

HB,

Not one word of anything I posted ever said that the founding fathers didn't believe in a higher power, or that they thought such beliefs should somehow be excluded from being a guiding compass for those who govern and lead the country.

The piece by James Watkins was about as well researched, fair and unbiased as it gets. He is obviously a devout orthodox Christian who openly states his preference would be to prove that all the founding fathers were devout orthodox Christians (read the end of the piece), but the facts simply don't give 100% support to that position. He does a pretty fair job of explaining his position even if it doesn't square up with your views on the subject. He is far from being some kind of secular lefty out to prove an agenda.


Obviously the founding fathers were deep thinkers in matters concerning government, morality, and religion. Some were devout orthodox Christians, some were Theists and Deists, some were Unitarians. They wrote the constitution to respect all points of view, that much is as clear as it gets. The unifying factor is they all believed in a higher power, period. The rest is open to debate.


George Washington was a devout Freemason. That doesn't mean he wasn't a devout Christian, but he didn't exactly wear it on his sleeve as a public figure, and he probably had good reasons for that. I wish today's politicians would follow his example.

Franklin and Jefferson were obviously NOT orthodox Christians, but they respected and even revered the teachings in the New Testament. That much is as clear as it gets. They certainly did not write any specific religion into the constitution, but they left basic morality that comes from religious beliefs to be the underpinning of the constitution as self evident truth.

Kennedy's statements on the subject were no doubt meant to calm down the anti-Catholic forces against him in his bid for office. Remember that he was the first and only Catholic to hold the office (not that he was much of a Catholic). It was a different era, and being Catholic was considered a black mark against Kennedy's candidacy. Santorum should realize that and take Kennedy's statements in that context. Many voters of that time were probably afraid that Kennedy would take marching orders from the Pope.

Santorum scares the hell out of me. I do think he would do everything in his power to push his religious views into law if he had that ability, and the only thing to stop him would be the system of checks and balances the founding fathers built into our government. I could never vote for that guy in a million years.

Santorum scares the hell out of me. I do think he would do everything in his power to push his religious views into law

Yeah, I dunno, maybe ... It could be just his staking out a position right of Romney, a position he would not be bound to once he secures the nomination.

VT'er wrote:

Santorum scares the hell out of me. I do think he would do everything in his power to push his religious views into law

Yeah, I dunno, maybe ... It could be just his staking out a position right of Romney, a position he would not be bound to once he secures the nomination.

You may be right... but then that would make him just another lying, pandering politician (which I already figure him for anyhow). Still not a reason to support him.

Mt.Fan:

As I said, we need you in this discussion to keep me fair.

Instead of "Christian" values I should have just said religious or Godly morals or something. My bad. You are right, Franklin was not a Christian. He did have a strong belief in God but questioned the divinity of Jesus.

He did however have no problem with people who did believe in Jesus because he felt it helped make them better people. (something I had in mind when I was talking to Ken a while back. I don't understand why some people who do not believe have such a problem with those that do. If it makes them a better person why should you care?)

I would have to debate with you on Jefferson however. What he was during his public life and what he turned into late in life after he was done in government were two different things.

After his public life was over Thomas Jefferson wrote some letters that looks like he was not a born again Christian. I dunno if he went senile, changed his mind, or just decided to quit putting on a show, but during his public life while he was governing he indeed was, seemingly, a Christian.

You should read his 9 page work, "Notes on Religion" that he penned in 1776. It is a very orthodox belief in scripture and Jesus.

He was a student of scripture & attended church regularly. (at the capitol building during his 2 terms ... and he also authorized the use of the war department and treasury building to be used for church services on Sundays) He was an active member of an Anglican church in which he served as a local vestry, he was married in a Christian church, sent his children to a Christian school, and gave money to support many Christian causes.

Some of the things he did in his public life that the left point to in order to say he was not a believer is just ridiculous. For instance the infamous, "Jefferson Bible" that was mentioned in an earlier post of yours.

He went through and cut out some miracles in the scripture. Some say that just proves that he was a skeptic. That he was first and foremost a scientist and didn't really believe in that nonsense. When in fact the real reason he went through and cut out those particular scriptures was because he was putting together a bible for American Indians, and he wanted it to be as easy for them to understand as possible without blowing their minds. Giving them a good guideline of how to live a righteous life without making it impossible for them to believe. "Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted From the New Testament for the Use of the Indians” is what he called it, and it was a tool to evangelize and educate indians, that's all.

I know he is a weird one cause of his change late in life, but while in government he was outwardly a Christian. And he did things that if he did them as president today the ACLU would blow a gasket.

He once wrote that he, "did not want his administration to be a government without religion, but one that would strengthen religious freedom.” Say what you want about him but I wish he were around today.

I would also have to disagree with you that George Washington didn't wear his beliefs on his sleeve. He was bashful in some ways. For instance he would not take communion in public. His ward that I mentioned earlier, Nelly Custis, said that he just preferred to go home and have communion to God in private. But if you read his speeches and letters you will not find a more outspoken religious man in government than George Washington.

I honestly do not know who James Watkins is, won't try to find out. No offense at all to Mr Watkins, he may be a highly enlightened man. But there are so many people out there with an agenda that writes about this subject that I trust no one. I read the words of the men themselves and don't worry about trying to trust theories of people that may have an agenda.

HB,

I agree you should just read the writings of the men themselves and draw your own conclusions.

So what to make of Jefferson's words here?

"I, too, have made a wee-little book from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.

Jefferson was a Deist who respected Christ's teachings, but rejected His divinity, His miracles, and His resurrection. In a letter to William Short dated April 13, 1820, he wrote:

I am a Materialist.

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to [Jesus] by His biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same Being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore to Him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of His disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great . . . corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus.

In separating Jesus divine and human natures, Jefferson wrote to John Adams, January 24, 1814 that the divine aspects of Christ were "the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills."

To say he made the statements I put in bold type because he was senile is kind of a cop-out. The statements are pretty lucid. He was obviously a guy who gave a great deal of thought to these things, why is it implausible to just admit that these were his reasoned conclusions by the time these things were written? Not saying the thoughts are right or wrong, just that these were what he came up with after his years of consideration?

I do think all these guys had a strong believe in a higher power, and they were all actively engaged in searching for deeper truth and meaning. That's why they did such a great job of putting together the Constitution, and it's also why they deliberately and carefully put the provisions that they did in there regarding religion.

BTW, I totally agree with you that it doesn't matter what a person's religion is, as long as it motivates them to do the right thing. Honestly, when I examine the Catholic religion it looks like a real cult to me with all their weird dogmas. And when I look at the Mormon religion, well all I can say is, damn. That one is really kooky when you get down to what they actually believe. But (except for Catholic pedophiles...I mean, priests... most devote Catholics are pretty moral and good-hearted people. Even the 90+% of the Catholic women who have utilized birth control and reproductive health services. And Mormons are generally wonderful people, although I have some reservations about someone who is actually a priest who teaches and preaches that crap being in charge of the whole country.. Hell, you can even make a strong case that Scientology has it's benefits for members, as crazy as their beliefs are. tom Cruise and John Travolta seem to thrive and live pretty moral lives, maybe it only works for actors?

The proof is in people's actions and the end results, as long as you don't go too far down into the rabbit holes of those respective religions.

I kind of wonder what the Constitution might have looked like if there would have been some Muslims and Buddhists hanging around the colonies back in that era? The only religious doctrines that were prevalent at that time were the various brands of Christianity. That's why in my opinion Christianity was the predominant philosophical and ethical influence. If some of the other doctrines were common and tolerated the same way I have little doubt that they would have had an influence, at least on the Deists and Freemasons who sought religious truth wherever they could find it. Just a thought.

I never researched separately (perhaps my error), but I was taught that a large percentage of our Founding Fathers were indeed Deists, as Hillbilly noted.

The capsule definition of Deism I've always accepted is that is "the clockmaker" religion.

Deists believed that there was a Supreme Being that created The Universe, but after creation he put it up on the mantle to run on it's own....with no further involvement.

My take is that our Founding Fathers were far more influenced by Locke, Rousseau and "enlightened thought" of the day than they were by any religious beliefs outside of the laissez faire Supreme Being of Deism.

I love our Founding Fathers and respect them greatly. That said, it seems to be historically accurate that Franklin fathered many "illegitimate children," and that Jefferson had intimate relations with at least one of his slaves.

I really think the guys who were behind the Declaration of Independence and The U.S Constitution were way more influenced by a "school of thought" than they were by any particular religious preference.

Jefferson referenced "The Creator" in the Declaration of Independence. Keep in mind he knew he still had to sell the thing to get all the guys after John Hancock to sign.

Switching, there is no way in heck that Santorum will be looking to waste effort on instilling the thoughts of Catholicism if elected. He'll be working on way more secular things....like budgets and spending.....because he knows that's what needs to be done.

Yes, views expressed in going after votes can truly be defined as "pandering." No doubt.

But elections still need to be won in America, and it takes a lot of finesse to do it.

I give a wide berth to the methods to win the game, and pay more attention to having a person I am comfortable with winning come out on top.

If there is a roadside tavern in Heaven, and I personally hope there is, I'd wager that Adams, Franklin, Jefferson et al are quaffing a rum or brew while looking down and saying, "man, these guys think we were so clairvoyant 225 years ago?"

I want a US President who will scare the begeezus out of any possible future enemy of The United States.

(Apparently the Sarah Palin debate note was correct in noting that Barack Obama's "we'll just go talk with them" was pandering bullcrap with regards to the Middle East.")


Credit to Barack in that he just sicked the Republican supported US Military on taking down Osama Bin Laden.

I want a President who will beat Congress's arse...or work with them.....to simplify our tax code.

And to reduce the deficit.

And to keep America strong and important in The World.

That's any Republican in the race, but definitely not Barack or Michelle Obama.

I'm still looking for the day that Michelle announces a move to a state like New York or Illinois to run for The US Senate , ala Hillary.