The Myth of the "Christian Nation" Divides Us

0 votes

While our politicians get on with the work of plundering our wealth, planning our lives, and preparing their next war of aggression, they remain comfortably insulated from criticism of any of these substantive actions because they have successfully distracted average Americans with issues that should not involve government at all. There is none more divisive than religion.

The left reads into the First Amendment of the Constitution an active role for government in prohibiting the acknowledgment of religion or God in any public setting. The right reads into our Declaration of Independence a requirement of belief not only in God, but in the Christian God, in order for one to claim the unalienable rights that are “endowed by our Creator.” Neither position is correct.

If there was one thing that our founders made clear, it was their belief that each person’s inner life belonged wholly to him or her. They referred to this as the “right of conscience,” and they revered it above all other rights. They believed that each human being had the right to answer for himself the questions of whether there is a God and what the nature and will of God might be. They believed that reason was the means for man to do so. Regardless of the conclusions that any individual might reach, he was still entitled to all of the same unalienable rights. This is the true meaning of “religious freedom.”

Among the growing minority that has recognized our loss of liberty and the importance of regaining it, there are many who mistakenly say that the United States was “founded as a Christian nation,” and that only returning to Christian principles will solve our problems. Others may not require that one believe in Christ, but do insist that belief in God is necessary in order to give authority to the law of nature and the natural rights. These positions not only alienate atheists, who are admittedly a small minority, but also a large contingency of Christians and other believers in God who do not want government – which is an institution of force – to play any role in their inner lives. This is an unnecessary division among people who might otherwise unite to fight for their liberty.

It is long past time to answer some fundamental questions about our history once and for all. Did the founders of the United States believe in God? Was the United States founded as a “Christian nation?” Was the Constitution based upon Christian or Judeo-Christian laws as found in their scriptures? Did the founders believe that belief in God was necessary to claim the unalienable rights?

The answer to the first question is a resounding “yes.” Even Jefferson, arguably the most “liberal” of the founding fathers, believed in a supreme being, despite the accusations of atheism made against him by political rivals. He also revered Christianity as the greatest religion in human history, as did his “conservative” counterpart, John Adams. However, neither Adams nor Jefferson believed that Jesus Christ was the son of God or even a divine being. Most people are familiar with Jefferson’s bible, which he cut apart and reorganized to eliminate all of the miracles. However, John Adams, a Unitarian, was even more ambivalent about the idea that Jesus Christ was God. In a letter to Jefferson, he wrote,

“They all believe that great Principle which has produced this boundless universe, Newton’s universe and Hershell’s universe, came down to this little ball, to be spit upon by Jews. And until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world.”[1]

Neither Adams, Jefferson, Washington, nor Franklin believed that Jesus was literally the son of God or otherwise a divine being in any way. Rather, they admired most of the moral principles of Christianity, although not all of them. For instance, they disagreed with Jesus’ doctrine to “turn the other cheek.” They believed that self defense of one’s life, liberty, and property was not only a right, but a duty. However, it was the Christian principles of love and non-aggression that are espoused in virtually all religions that inspired John Adams to say, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”[2] This will become even more apparent shortly.

In any case, the answer to the first question is “yes.” Most of the founders believed in God. They revered the moral teachings of Christianity, although most of the philosophical leaders among them did not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Our second question is, “Was the United States founded as a Christian nation?” In 1796, the United States signed a treaty with Tripoli, promising a monetary gift in return for a cessation of hostilities. That treaty was unanimously ratified by the senate and signed by President John Adams. Among its articles resides the answer to our second question.

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."[3] [emphasis added]

Thomas Jefferson confirmed this statement in his autobiography when commenting on a Virginia bill to establish religious freedom.

“Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.”[4]

Next, there is the question of the philosophical basis for the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and original system of laws of the United States. According to Thomas Jefferson, that philosophical basis was most directly the enlightenment philosophers, specifically John Locke and Algernon Sydney. In 1825, Jefferson actually got a resolution passed by the Board of the University of Virginia to make this point clear.

"Resolved, that it is the opinion of this Board that as to the general principles of liberty and the rights of man, in nature and in society, the doctrines of Locke, in his 'Essay concerning the true original extent and end of civil government,' and of Sidney in his 'Discourses on Government,' may be considered as those generally approved by our fellow citizens of this, and the United States."[5]

Despite this and other unqualified statements by the founders regarding the philosophical basis for our founding principles, there are many that claim that the founders drew their philosophy from Judeo-Christian scriptures or teachings. While there is much common ground between these teachings and the enlightenment philosophers, the founders were clear that where scripture or dogma conflicted with the enlightenment philosophy of liberty, it was the non-aggression philosophy of liberty that prevailed. Regarding the scriptures, Jefferson wrote,

The whole history of these books is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.[6]

The founder’s skepticism about man’s knowledge of the will of God was not confined to the scriptures themselves. John Adams makes clear that at least he recognized that human beings had no ability to definitively determine the will of God.

“That there is an active principle of power in the universe, is apparent; but in what substance that active principle resides, is past our investigation. The faculties of our understanding are not adequate to penetrate the universe.”[7]

Finally, there is the most important question. Did the founders assert that belief in God was necessary to claim the unalienable rights? As with the other questions, they answered this one quite unambiguously. In a letter to Peter Carr, Thomas Jefferson advised his young friend,

“Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.”[8]

“Do not be frightened from this enquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it ends in a belief that there is no god, you will find incitements to virtue in the comforts & pleasantness you feel in its exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you. If you find reason to believe there is a god, a consciousness that you are acting under his eye, & that he approves you, will be a vast additional incitement; if that there be a future state, the hope of a happy existence in that increases the appetite to deserve it; if that Jesus was also a god, you will be comforted by a belief of his aid and love. In fine, I repeat that you must lay aside all prejudice on both sides, & neither believe nor reject anything because any other persons, or description of persons have rejected or believed it.” Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable not for the rightness but uprightness of the decision.”[9] [emphasis added]

There are those who argue that without God, there is no authority to base the natural rights upon. This was not the assertion of our founders and it directly contradicts our Declaration of Independence, which reads,

“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…” [emphasis added]

While the founders believe that our rights came from our Creator (whomever or whatever the Creator might be), they explicitly said that these truths are self evident. They are truths that can be observed directly. This is directly inspired by Locke’s empiricism. While he, too, believed in God, he based his philosophy only upon what he could directly observe in nature or reasonably conclude from those observations. Therefore, his philosophy recognized the existence of God but did not depend upon it for its validity.

Consider a useful analogy. If a priest and an atheist were both to consider a rock lying upon the ground, both would agree that the rock exists. They could see it, touch it, and hear its sound if they picked it up and then dropped it from their hand. The priest would say that the rock was created by God. The atheist would explain its existence with scientific theories. They may disagree vehemently on this point, but no third party would have to decide who is correct. All can see that the rock exists, for its existence is self evident. The same is true of our natural rights. Our Declaration of Independence says so explicitly.

The only authority that the founders recognized as the basis for our laws was the non-aggression principle, which they recognized as the fundamental law of nature. The beauty of this idea is that it transcends religion and thus welcomes members of all religions, as well as those with no religious beliefs at all. The non-aggression principle allows each individual to use his reason to answer the most important philosophical questions of life for himself, without being forced to assent to any beliefs that he does not hold. It allows people to believe in God voluntarily, or to not believe, as their reason dictates. The only restriction upon them is that they commit no aggression against anyone else, regardless of their beliefs. Jefferson expressed this beautifully when he wrote,

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.[10]

If all of America’s founding principles, including freedom of religion, could be summed up in two sentences, no better than these could be found anywhere. If we could agree to live by this one statement alone, the number of people no longer divided along partisan lines would be staggering. Our politicians are wasting trillions of our dollars and assuming un-delegated powers over us that apply to believers and non-believers alike. We must grant each other the ability to exercise the right of conscience freely within the boundary of non-aggression. Only then will we see clearly where the true source of our crisis lies – in a government whose every act contradicts the reason for its existence and perpetuates a state of war with its people. We must unite together to eliminate this earthly threat in order to resume the pursuit of our happiness, both in this world and the next.

[1] Adams, John Letter to Thomas Jefferson January 22, 1825 from The Works of John Adams Second President of the United States Vol. X Charles C. Little and James Brown Boston, MA 1851Pg. 415

[2] Adams, John To the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachussetts 11 October 1798 from The Works of John Adams Second President of the United States Vol. IX Charles C. Little and James Brown Boston, MA 1851Pg. 229

[3] Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary June 17, 1797 from The Avalon Project Yale Law School Lillian Goldman Library http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp. There has been some debate on whether the language in Article 11 was translated correctly from the original Arabic in which the treaty was written. However, this is irrelevant. It was the English translation containing these exact words that the Senate reviewed and ratified, making the question of translation irrelevant on this point.

[4] Jefferson, Thomas Autobiography from Jefferson Writings edited by Merrill D. Peterson, Literary Classics of the United States, New York, NY 1984 pg. 40

[5] Thomas Jefferson, Writings, ed. Merrill Peterson (New York, N.Y.: Library of America, 1984), p. 479

[6] Jefferson, Thomas from The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 14 edited by Albert Ellery Bergh and Andrew A. Lipscomb The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association 1904 pgs. 71-2

[7] Adams, John Letter to Thomas Jefferson January 22, 1825 from The Works of John Adams Second President of the United States Vol. X Charles C. Little and James Brown Boston, MA 1851Pg. 414

[8] Jefferson, Thomas Letter to Peter Carr August 10, 1787 from Jefferson Writings edited by Merrill D. Peterson, Literary Classics of the United States, New York, NY 1984 pg. 902

[9] Jefferson, Thomas Letter to Peter Carr August 10, 1787 from Jefferson Writings edited by Merrill D. Peterson, Literary Classics of the United States, New York, NY 1984 pg. 903-4

[10] Jefferson, Thomas Notes on Virginia from Jefferson Writings edited by Merrill D. Peterson, Literary Classics of the United States, New York, NY 1984 pg. 285

© Thomas Mullen 2009

Check out Tom Mullen’s new book, A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. Right Here!

Home

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Suggested word change.

Second paragraph, last sentence:

Neither position is *desirable.*

More generally, I think we need to drop the worship of the founders and the founding of this country. They had some good ideas and pointed out some things that were probably *desirable.* There's no need for any idea of absolute truth, "correctness," or a cannon here.

You're right, Tom, that the vast majority of us ought to unite behind some convenient principles of government (or the lack thereof), but many ideas of imposing what we think is correct on others are only hobbling freedom.

Hmm

for all the personal ramblings of tidbits to make some case...
Wonder if one could explain why Congress was always opened with prayer by our forefathers (and for the next 200 years)? Wow...what hypocrites they were to insist on separation of church and state while praying in their Congressional sessions. Tch Tch
Actions speak plainer than words.
Perhaps their concept of "separation of church and state" is not quite the same as that of today.
People often interpret other's words and their meanings in order to back their own agendas. Particularly those of dead people who can no longer clarify their intentions.

In 1784, Patrick Henry

In 1784, Patrick Henry endorsed a bill to levy a tax to support "Teachers of the Christian Religion." When the bill seemed likely to pass, Madison and others decided to put the vote off to the next session to give themselves time to arouse opposition. In the summer of 1785 Madison wrote the Memorial and Remonstrance arguing against Henry's bill. Hundreds of copies were circulated throughout the state. Madison, who was often cautious in his words, wrote passionately concerning Church and State:
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

The Memorial and Remonstrance drew wide support and Henry's bill died in the next session.

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience by in any manner, or on any pretext infringed. - James Madison Proposes the Bill of Rights to the House of Representatives June 8, 1789

"A government of reason is better than one of force." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1820

Love they neighbor as thyself

All other statements in this post are simply commentary on the above.

No nation is required to represent, teach or uphold this simple truth.

Christ was not in the business of any religion, he just told the truth.

This truth and the observance of same resolves the majority of human suffering.

We tend to give "power" to things. It is our nature. This 'tendency" is not lost on the immoral men who rule our world. Tom's post insists on complexity. I fully disagree with the scope of his statement as God is simple.

The fed is privately owned. The rest of the central banks are controlled by the same men. Is it any wonder why our children need to be slaughtered each day in wars at the command of "the government?"

Doe this have anything to do with "treat others as you would wish to be treated".......?

St. Thomas Aquinas also, kept it simple...

"...this is the first precept of the law, that good is to be done and promoted and evil is to be avoided. All other precepts of the natural law are based on this..."

War is evil. War is wrong. War is immoral.

I blame war on the men who control our governments and economic systems. They do not observe the words of God the Father in Heaven who spoke to us through Jesus Christ..".love they neighbor as thyself."

Unify

Amen,Good people do Good

Amen,Good people do Good deeds
Good people make it happen

Revisionist History.

Read the founders writings in their own words and you may have a different take on our history and the Republics foundation. Why do you think Tom Mullen left out (or glosses over) these quotes? Does it not fit his agenda?

John Adams: "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."
From: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIII, p. 292-294. In a letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813.

John Quincy Adams: In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity
From: John Quincy Adams, An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport at Their Request on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), pp. 5-6.

Sam Adams: I conceive we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world . . . that the confusions that are and have been among the nations may be overruled by the promoting and speedily bringing in the holy and happy period when the kingdoms of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and the people willingly bow to the scepter of Him who is the Prince of Peace
From: From a Fast Day Proclamation issued by Governor Samuel Adams, Massachusetts, March 20, 1797, see also Samuel Adams, The Writings of Samuel Adams, Harry Alonzo Cushing, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1908), Vol. IV, p. 407, from his proclamation of March 20, 1797

James Madison: I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way
From: James Madison, The Papers of James Madison, William T. Hutchinson, editor (Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1962), Vol. I, p. 96, to William Bradford on September 25, 1773.

Thomas Jefferson: I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others.
From: Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies from the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Grey & Bowen, 1830), Vol. III, p. 506, to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803

Benjamin Franklin: As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and His religion as He left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see
From: Benjamin Franklin, Works of Benjamin Franklin, John Bigelow, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904), p. 185, to Ezra Stiles, March 9, 1790

John Witherspoon: [H]e is the best friend to American liberty who is the most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down profanity and immorality of every kind. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country
From: John Witherspoon, The Works of the Reverend John Witherspoon (Philadelphia: William W. Woodward, 1802), Vol. III, p. 42

and he also said:
I shall now conclude my discourse by preaching this Savior to all who hear me, and entreating you in the most earnest manner to believe in Jesus Christ; for “there is no salvation in any other”
From: John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), Vol. V, p. 276, Sermon 15, “The Absolute Necessity of Salvation Through Christ’ January 2, 1758

George Washington: 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
From: George Washington, The Writings of Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XV, p. 55, from his speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs on May 12, 1779

Benjamin Rush: The Bible contains more knowledge necessary to man in his present state than any other book in the world.
From: Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral & Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas & Samuel F. Bradford, 1798), p. 93, “A Defence of the Use of the Bible as a School Book;” see also Rush, Letters, Vol. I, p. 578, to Jeremy Belknap on March 2, 1791.

John Jay: Mercy and grace and favor did come by Jesus Christ, and also that truth which verified the promises and predictions concerning Him and which exposed and corrected the various errors which had been imbibed respecting the Supreme Being, His attributes, laws, and dispensations
From: William Jay, The Life of John Jay (New York: J & J Harper, 1833), Vol. II, p. 386, to John Murray, April 15, 1818

Gunning Bedford: To the triune God – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost – be ascribed all honor and dominion, forevermore – Amen
From: Gunning Bedford, Funeral Oration Upon the Death of General George Washington (Wilmington: James Wilson, 1800), p. 18, Evans #36922

CONGRESS 1854: Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle... In this age, there can be no substitute for Christianity... That was the religion of the founders of the republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants
From: Reports of Committees of the House of Representatives Made During the First Session of the Thirty-Third Congress (Washington: A. O. P. Nicholson, 1854), pp. 6-9

I have many more I would like to share- but I'm out of time.

The debate is whether or not we were a Christian Nation...

not whether or not aspects of Christianity influenced the individuals who founded our country.

Were we and are we a nation full of Christians? Yes.

Were some of the founding fathers Christians? Yes.

Does that make us a Christian Nation? No.

Does the Constitution, the document that is the charter for our national government, specifically state that we are a Christian Nation? No.

In fact it goes out of its way to explicitly state the following: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Our Nation has no official religion. We are not a Christian Nation, or a Muslim Nation, or a Hindu Nation we are simply a Nation.

Game set match.

Now, as to your quotes...

I've not the time to examine all of them in detail and attempt to pick them apart. But I do know the Ben Franklin quote you are referencing and I feel that I ought to post it in full so that you can get the full feeling of his words; feel free to skip it if you wish.

"You desire to know something of my religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it. But I cannot take your curiosity amiss, and shall endeavour in a few words to gratify it. Here is my creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His providence. That He ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render 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 principles 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 the system of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt 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, and think it needless to busy myself with it, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in His government of the world with any particular marks of His displeasure.

"I shall only add, respecting myself, that, having experienced the goodness of that Being in conducting me prosperously through a long life, I have no doubt of its continuance in the next, without the smallest conceit of meriting it... I confide that you will not expose me to criticism and censure by publishing any part of this communication to you. I have ever let others enjoy their religious sentiments, without reflecting on them for those that appeared to me unsupportable and even absurd. All sects here, and we have a great variety, have experienced my good will in assisting them with subscriptions for building their new places of worship; and, as I never opposed any of their doctrines, I hope to go out of the world in peace with them all."

[Benjamin Franklin, letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale, shortly before his death; from "Benjamin Franklin" by Carl Van Doren, the October, 1938 Viking Press edition pages 777-778 Also see Alice J. Hall, "Philosopher of Dissent: Benj. Franklin," National Geographic, Vol. 148, No. 1, July, 1975, p. 94]

Note that Mr. Franklin expresses doubt as to the divinity of Jesus, indicates that it is irrelevant to the moral messages contained in Christian teachings, indicates that he believes that He does not punnish individuals who do not believe in the divinity of Jesus, and indicates that he regards some of the the religious sentiments held by his fellow country men as "unsupportable and even absurd."

Now, I'm not certain-- I'm not that well versed in the arcane matters of theology-- but I'm fairly certain that the divinity of Christ is a key component of Christianity.

At any rate the quote seems to indicate that he believes the basic tenements of Christianity are good, a conviction which many atheists and agnostics will agree with, and he could care less for the mystical garbage which which the core message is draped in.

He a Christian in the sense that I am a Christian, which is to say he admires and adhere's to the core tenements of the moral system expounded by the faith.

As to your Thomas Jefferson Quote-- I believe that the full quote is:

"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 he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other."

To me it sounds as if he is stating that Jesus never claimed divinity.

Here's a quote of his that seems to contain similar sentiments:

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter"

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Adams
Thomas Jefferson
April 11, 1823

Also I've been meaning to read the The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth where purportedly, Thomas Jefferson has distilled the basic teachings of Christianity and boiled off a great degree of the mystic mumbo jumbo that comprises the religious aspects of the religion.

You've motivated me to do so. Thank you.

Tom Mullen's Agenda

I believe every one of these quotes is consistent with the points made in my article: most of the founders revered most of the moral teachings of Chrisitanity (the diamonds, as opposed to the dunghills), but did not believe that Jesus was divine (or do you feel that something here proves that they did believe that? Does that mean they contradicted themselves?)

Tom Mullen's Agenda: That each person be granted the freedom to decide for him or herself whether there is a God, and which religion or discipline best suits them in serving God, if any. What is your agenda?

Tom Mullen
author of A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America

Hello Tom, My agenda? Not

Hello Tom,
My agenda? Not an agenda really- I was simply pointing out some things that you did not- the specific words of the 'founders' themselves which in their own words make clear their reverence for belief in Christ as Lord.

You made the claim above: "Neither Adams, Jefferson, Washington, nor Franklin believed that Jesus was literally the son of God or otherwise a divine being in any way"

I say their OWN words makes your claim erroneous:
Again, look at Jefferson's words: "I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others."

Have you thought about what Jefferson means when he writes "attached to His doctrines." To suggest that Jefferson did not believe that 'Jesus was literally the son of God or divine' is simply silly. Here's a man claiming a faith and is "attached to His doctrines" but yet he does not really believe in the tenants of the faith? Really? Your claim does not fit with his own words that I quoted above along with at least a half dozen more I have as well. The same goes for Adams (I assume you mean John, not John Quincy) Washington and Franklin.

How about this: Jefferson: "The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses"
From: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Alberty Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XII, p. 315, to James Fishback, September 27, 1809

AND
Jefferson: "I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ"
From: Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies from the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Grey & Bowen, 1830), Vol. III, p. 506, to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803

Ever wonder what he meant by "a real Christian' (as opposed to what?- A fake one, or one who is by word but not by deed?)

Tom- he says "a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ" If you're familiar with the doctrine of Christ- how can you suggest that Jefferson does not believe Christ is God? And apparently Jefferson is "a real" one.

The issue here is not what YOU believe, or what I believe or even if Jefferson was correct in what he believed... the issue is what did Jefferson (and the vast majority of the founders) believe- According to their writings when READ IN CONTEXT- your assertions are misleading.

Not all- but the vast majority of them (the founders) were devout self-professed Christian men who accepted the tenants of that faith. The fact that some were not also speaks volumes of those who were- that they knew man must make his own decision, hence the foundation of Liberty.

No Jefferson did not think that Christ was Divine

The words you quote support what I wrote: he admired Christianity's moral principles, i.e. its "doctrines."

That he did not believe that CHrist was divine he said explicitly:

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors."
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816

You are not distinguishing between the founders admiring the moral code of Christianity and believing that Jesus Christ was God. The former is true, the latter definitely not.

What is infinitely more important is to distinguish between their admiration for Christianity's moral teachings and whether or not they thought that THE LAW should be based upon those teachings. Again, the former is true and the latter is most definitely not, except where Christianity and the non-aggression principle agree. To be a good and faithful Christian, you must voluntarily do more than avoid aggression. There are positive acts that you must do, and that is where the founders would not allow the law to be applied, because the law is a writ of force. There are also things that you must believe if you are to be a good and faithful Christian, and the founders recognized that the law cannot and should not dictate what anyone believes.

Some examples that illustrate this point, and which do not contradict their admiration for Christianity's teachings, are:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

"If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

Tom Mullen
author of A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America

Thanks, nice article. Good

Thanks, nice article.
Good people do Good deeds
Good people make it happen

"Self Evident", means there is

Self Evident, means there is NO EXCUSE..Everyone sees for themselves...You control your own destiny & God also agees to let you destroy youself, if you so choose..There will be weeping & nashing of teeth , "I believe"...I can only weep, tell & pray..
I found ; faith comes by hearing, & hearing come by way of the WORD ..
ONLY G-d can do the work HE starts & YOU have to ask HIM to start it in you..YOU have to be willing to ask..HE does the rest....TRANSFORMATION, not of human hands or effort...That is why it is said a person become a NEW CREATION..Not rebuilt, not conformed by actions , but by HIM that performs what HE said HE would.Just as HE said HE will be ISRAELS protector inspite of themselves ..HE said HE will perform it...Get man out of the way ..But there is another , a deceiver, who goes about the Earth seeking whom he may devour..
Do you know about the arc of Israels' covenant ? They seek it out to no avail because Christ is the arc..Their arc was only symbolic...If you learn , the anti false Christ will place himself in the Jewish Temple ..
What is this ? It is representing the arc,,Or Christ..
The deceiver wants G-d's throne...Christ's throne..He wants to be worshiped as being G-d...This is the ONLY plan that could work, if it were possible..He will get it done on Earth for 3 1/2 years or less..Then sudden destruction.True Christ kicks butt.
Ok, Michael sorry for the discourse but people need to see where we are going ..The big picture..
Good people do Good deeds
Good people make it happen

Just a post script for those

Just a post script for those who blame Christianity..True believing Christians do not seek out to destroy false believers, normaly ..Christ taught not to tear out the weeds & chaff as this may tear up seads of truth & upcoming true believers ..Just as America divided against itself cannot stand.. It would be like dividing ourselves, when we ourselves are not perfect while in the flesh..We still have human nature to contend with..So ,much of this blame is condeming to the true believer & is a trick to discredit Christ. Christ taught to teach the WORD ..He never taught to control others or their religion ...That is something out of human nature..
Ever hear the saying God helps those who help themselves.. FALSE..
God says: "stand back & behold the HAND of GOD". HE is to be TRUSTED no other.
Good people do Good deeds
Good people make it happen

Glad this was posted

The problem you have is that it appears that a pretty large sector of the Christian community will do anything to hold on to it's doctrine, even the parts that were proven wrong decades ago. And there are large institutions with big dollars that are fighting to see that our kids see the natural world based on this flawed logic. It's sad to see this blatant disregard for science in a country that for quite some time was a leader in scientific developments. There is no myth that these institutions are fighting day and night to remove knowledge from our classrooms to further progress Christian beliefs and I don't believe for one second that it is what our founding fathers had in mind. So while we fight for liberty we should also speak out loudly against the portions of belief systems that have no grounding in reality, for that further erodes a society.

PW

ummm...

excuse me? Public Schools promote Christianity???

What planet are you from?

Every religion has "its doctrine" and the intent of the Constitution was to protect the individual's right to worship freely. "Congress shall pass no law..." means that government does not INTERFERE with religious observances whether christian or pagan!

ummm

No what I said was that there are well financed institutions that have continually tried to promote Christianity via the public school system; such as the Discovery Institute. They have tried on multiple attempts to replace biology textbooks with their own version (ie.Creation). Fortunately I believe every case to date has been beaten in court. The battle continues.

I think SOME fear that our advancing understanding of the natural world through observation is slowly eroding the fabric of their belief systems. Fortunately for those people that live here in the USA, according to the Constitution, can still have their belief systems in the event they do not INTERFERE with the rest of us.

Which, by the way, I am all for....

PW

ummmm

Perhaps these institutions are fighting for the ability for "your" kids to hear more than one "theory" and the ones resisting are those who claim to understand the origins of the universe from data which other intelligent, educated folk observe and draw different conclusions, as is pointed out in this movie: http://www.expelledthemovie.com/. Thus giving "public" schooled children a balanced view with the freedom and liberty to draw their own conclusions...

Or better yet, "government subsidized" schools could simply teach the true facts of what we do actually know, present all the current theories regarding those facts and stay clear of all faith-based assumptions altogether!

Bottom line : IN whom do you

Bottom line : IN whom do you trust ?
Someone who said HE (IS) TRUTH or a society that claims they decide what truth is ?
Besides it is not true believers that are the deceivers..There are two Christianities.Just as there are two ISRAELS..Just as there are two religions that are going to go the distance..Just as there are two Christs, one TRUE & one false..I would pray upon your reasoning that to defeat an enemy the best way is to become them ..Where do you think we are today in AMERICA ?
Laugh at this.. God has revealed their plan to me..Funny hah?
Good people do Good deeds
Good people make it happen

Myself.

Bottom line: You're off your rocker, but we're cool. So long as you don't meddle in my affairs, I'll not meddle in yours; I wouldn't want to catch whatever you've got...

Though it could be argued ,

Though it could be argued , inalianable OR un-alianable RIGHTS were said by the founders as being "self evident" , even when one does not believe...But today politics has transformed the meaning of everything ..
Nature itself spells out the self evidence of male & female relationship to eachother, but that too has been redefined ..No discrimination intended as I am not the Judge of anyone..I AM tolerant unlike many of our citizens who proclaim it, but show otherwise.
TRUTH is also, "self evident"...It is only when someone wants to match up their actions or agenda to make it become truth, that we need to examine what is TRUTH.
Good people do Good deeds
Good people make it happen

Truth is, it just is, and false, is not, it just is not . . . .

I've herd it said, "Truth is like a mountain that can not be moved and those that argue for it nor against it can move it not." Truth just is, and those willing to find it must persevere until it is fully revealed. Good Luck.

I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of The United States of America and to The Republic for which it stands. One Nation FREE AND INDEPENDENT with LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL!

I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of The United States of America and to The Republic for which it stands. Fifty states FREE AND INDEPENDENT with LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL!

Tom Mullens: I followed you until the end

When you went here

"We must grant each other the ability to exercise the right of conscience freely within the boundary of non-aggression. Only then will we see clearly where the true source of our crisis lies – in a government whose every act contradicts the reason for its existence and perpetuates a state of war with its people. We must unite together to eliminate this earthly threat in order to resume the pursuit of our happiness, both in this world and the next."

"Freely within the bound...." Like moving your fingers while handcuffed.

I agree with your headline. Ron Paul is not Huckabee.

WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")

Yes, Freely within the boundary of non-aggression

THere is a natural limit to human action, even for people in a state of perfect liberty. THat limit is non-aggression - they may do anything they wish as long as they do not commit aggression against anyone else, just as Jefferson said above.

Tom Mullen
author of A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America

OK Tom Mullens, Please answer me this

How do you propose we act freely within the bounds of non-aggresion, to defeat, a lethal armed force that acts freely within the bounds of aggression?

WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")

it is not aggression to defend yourself with force

In fact, that is the purpose of government: to use force when it is justified, which is only in defense against aggression. Government is an institution of force - and that is its proper role. Thus the term, "law enFORCEment."

Tom Mullen
author of A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America

Are you aware of

Hapkido? http://www.hapkiyoosool.com/philosophy.htm

WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")

I thought you knew...

All you do is shower them with thoughts of love and pink glitter.

Flowers help too.

/ sarcasm

~Live life to its fullest, with an open heart, open arms and most important... an open mind~

Thinking good thoughts I see; Devon_Saunders

I was hoping for a more Chinese wisom kind of response, like the Theory of Yoo http://www.hapkiyoosool.com/philosophy.htm

Seriously

WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")

:)

The Tom Mullethead way is to defend yourself.

Meaning never acting, always reacting.

Meaning it works great in theory... it just doesn't work when you put people in the equation.

See Nuclear Weapon as an example.

~Live life to its fullest, with an open heart, open arms and most important... an open mind~