The Founding Fathers Were Not Christians

[Rohirrim]

Excerpts from:

The Founding Fathers Were Not Christians
by Steven Morris, in Free Inquiry, Fall, 1995 (If you want to complain about this article, complain to Steven Morris, who wrote it)

"The Christian right is trying to rewrite the history of the United States as part of its campaign to force its religion on others. They try to depict the founding fathers as pious Christians who wanted the United States to be a Christian nation, with laws that favored Christians and Christianity.

This is patently untrue. The early presidents and patriots were generally Deists or Unitarians, believing in some form of impersonal Providence but rejecting the divinity of Jesus and the absurdities of the Old and New testaments.

Thomas Paine was a pamphleteer whose manifestos encouraged the faltering spirits of the country and aided materially in winning the war of Independence:
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."
From:
The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, pp. 8,9 (Republished 1984, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY)



George Washington, the first president of the United States, never declared himself a Christian according to contemporary reports or in any of his voluminous correspondence. Washington Championed the cause of freedom from religious intolerance and compulsion. When John Murray (a universalist who denied the existence of hell) was invited to become an army chaplain, the other chaplains petitioned Washington for his dismissal. Instead, Washington gave him the appointment. On his deathbed, Washinton uttered no words of a religious nature and did not call for a clergyman to be in attendance.
From:
George Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller Jr., pp. 16, 87, 88, 108, 113, 121, 127 (1963, Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, TX)


John Adams, the country's second president, was drawn to the study of law but faced pressure from his father to become a clergyman. He wrote that he found among the lawyers 'noble and gallant achievments" but among the clergy, the "pretended sanctity of some absolute dunces". Late in life he wrote: "Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!"

It was during Adam's administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."
From:
The Character of John Adams by Peter Shaw, pp. 17 (1976, North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC) Quoting a letter by JA to Charles Cushing Oct 19, 1756, and John Adams, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by James Peabody, p. 403 (1973, Newsweek, New York NY) Quoting letter by JA to Jefferson April 19, 1817, and in reference to the treaty, Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 311 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, June, 1814.


Thomas Jefferson, third president and author of the Declaration of Independence, said:"I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian." He referred to the Revelation of St. John as "the ravings of a maniac" and wrote:
The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained."
From:
Thomas Jefferson, an Intimate History by Fawn M. Brodie, p. 453 (1974, W.W) Norton and Co. Inc. New York, NY) Quoting a letter by TJ to Alexander Smyth Jan 17, 1825, and Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 246 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to John Adams, July 5, 1814.

"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." -- Thomas Jefferson (letter to J. Adams April 11,1823)

James Madison, fourth president and father of the Constitution, was not religious in any conventional sense. "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
"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."
From:
The Madisons by Virginia Moore, P. 43 (1979, McGraw-Hill Co. New York, NY) quoting a letter by JM to William Bradford April 1, 1774, and James Madison, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Joseph Gardner, p. 93, (1974, Newsweek, New York, NY) Quoting Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments by JM, June 1785.

Ethan Allen, whose capture of Fort Ticonderoga while commanding the Green Mountain Boys helped inspire Congress and the country to pursue the War of Independence, said, "That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words." In the same book, Allen noted that he was generally "denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian." When Allen married Fanny Buchanan, he stopped his own wedding ceremony when the judge asked him if he promised "to live with Fanny Buchanan agreeable to the laws of God." Allen refused to answer until the judge agreed that the God referred to was the God of Nature, and the laws those "written in the great book of nature."
From:
Religion of the American Enlightenment by G. Adolph Koch, p. 40 (1968, Thomas Crowell Co., New York, NY.) quoting preface and p. 352 of Reason, the Only Oracle of Man and A Sense of History compiled by American Heritage Press Inc., p. 103 (1985, American Heritage Press, Inc., New York, NY.)



Benjamin Franklin, delegate to the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, said:
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble." He died a month later, and historians consider him, like so many great Americans of his time, to be a Deist, not a Christian.
From:
Benjamin Franklin, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Thomas Fleming, p. 404, (1972, Newsweek, New York, NY) quoting letter by BF to Exra Stiles March 9, 1790.


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

Speaking of the independence of the first 13 States, H.G. Wells in his Outline of History, says:

"It was a Western European civilization that had broken free from the last traces of Empire and Christendom; and it had not a vestige of monarchy left, and no State Religion... The absence of any binding religious tie is especially noteworthy. It had a number of forms of Christianity, its spirit was indubitably Christian; but, as a State document of 1796 expicity declared: 'The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.'"

The words "In God We Trust" were not consistently on all U.S. currency until 1956, during the McCarthy Hysteria.

The Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate in 1797, read in part: "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." The treaty was written during the Washington administration, and sent to the Senate during the Adams administration. It was read aloud to the Senate, and each Senator received a printed copy. This was the 339th time that a recorded vote was required by the Senate, but only the third time a vote was unanimous (the next time was to honor George Washington). There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty. It was reprinted in full in three newspapers - two in Philadelphia, one in New York City. There is no record of public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
My take is the 1st Amendment was initially written to protect the practice of religion from government intrusion. Now, it's needed to protect the practice of government from religious intrusion.

[Rock Chalk]

Its not eht Christian right trying to rewrite history here bub.

If I thought it might change your mind I would go prove to you and this bumble**** of an idiot that they were indeed Christian protestants.

[Rohirrim]

Nobody can argue with a belief. I'm just trying to present facts.

[rosco]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Nobody can argue with a belief. I'm just trying to present facts.

The facts go against everything that the right believes.

[TexanBob]

The Christian right is trying to rewrite the history of the United States as part of its campaign to force its religion on others.

The hate-religion left is trying to rewrite the history of the United States as part of its campaign to ban religion and force their immorality on others.

You can't read the documents of the Founding Fathers without seeing common references to God, to a creator, to divinity, etc. The First Amendment was written to prevent the establishment of a state-sponsored religion such as the Church of England which they fled. They didn't intend to scrub religion from the public square the way the ACLU and the other religion-haters have conned the courts into believing.

We are guaranteed freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. That's what the Founders wanted and the left's attempts to rewrite history is the real threat, not the desires of the Christian Right.

Ask yourself why the Soviets and the Nazis sought to ban religion as one of the first acts of their totalitarian power? Because they want nothing to be worshipped above the State. The State is their religion and it is the religion of liberals. Organized religion whether it be Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam or whatever instills morality into people and they are harder for the State to control if the demands of the State are met with moral outrage.

SOMEBODY'S beliefs are always going to be pushed in a debate. What you should be asking yourself if you are listening to the hate-religion left is whether they are not, in their own way, trying to force THEIR religion on you to replace the religion they seek to oppose.

[Rohirrim]

The Soviets outlawed religion because of the tenets of Marxism (Religion is the opiate of the people). The Nazis supported Christian Protestant churches.

I don't see the left "hating" and attacking religion. I see them fighting the imposition of Christian fundamentalism on American society and civil government. Who's the pro-active force here, the ones trying to inject religion into government and schools, or the ones trying to stop them?

[orangeatheist]

Originally Posted by TexanBob

You can't read the documents of the Founding Fathers without seeing common references to God, to a creator, to divinity, etc.

And while this is true, what meaning does it have today? Medical books at the time made references to blood-letting, too, but that is not something relevant to today.

I have always failed to understand why we should revere everything penned or thought by people centuries ago. Certainly, a great deal of what the Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution is valid and appropriate for our civilization today. But not everything. The mention of a deity was something quite common "in the day." So what? What relevance does that have to today's population? Would removing the deity really have any affect on civil proceedings? It's not like Yahweh or Allah or Ahura Mazda (who whomever the Founding Fathers were referencing using the generic term "God") is drawing some paycheck from the taxpayers. Certainly keep such references for historic and nostalgic purposes but why do they have to have any bearing on the course of our proceedings today?

Frankly, I don't care what (for all practical purposes) a bunch of scientifically naive people wrote down 2 or 300 years ago when they decided to found a country. Name one empirical evidence that provides proof that any deity has anything to do with civic proceedings and then I might change my tune.

[Captain_Poncho]

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

And while this is true, what meaning does it have today? Medical books at the time made references to blood-letting, too, but that is not something relevant to today.

The implication being, of course, that we're too smart to believe in God anymore, right? Well over 90% of America would heartily disagree with that stance.

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

I have always failed to understand why we should revere everything penned or thought by people centuries ago. Certainly, a great deal of what the Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution is valid and appropriate for our civilization today. But not everything.

Of course. All that pesky God stuff that you personally don't like must be totally irrelevant to everyone because you personally find it useless. I'll be going through the Contitution and the Bill of rights with my list of things we ought to be rid of and everyone should abide by that. What did those guys who wrote the thing way the heck back in the 1770's know? Since they lived in a different century, that makes their views just a bit on the dim side.

Right?

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

It's not like Yahweh or Allah or Ahura Mazda (who whomever the Founding Fathers were referencing using the generic term "God") is drawing some paycheck from the taxpayers.

I'm sure those Protestants from Europe were all referencing Allah or Vishnu when they wrote the Contstitution and the DOI. Makes perfect sense.

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

Frankly, I don't care what (for all practical purposes) a bunch of scientifically naive people wrote down 2 or 300 years ago when they decided to found a country.

Right! Since they were "scientifically naive" (they didn't prescribe to the science is god religion), everything they had to say with any relation to God in it must be tossed right into the hopper. These guys were religious, so let's not listen to the stuff they had to say, including "All men are created equal." Uh oh! There's the word "created" in there! That's a reference to God! Out with it!

Out, I say!

[Rascal]

This thread is ridiculous.

[TexanBob]

Originally Posted by rascal

This thread is ridiculous.

If people really feel threatened by religion, that's their problem. It is them who want to impose their viewpoint on the rest of us and they are largely winning.

Within 25-30 years, Christians will be treated in America the way Jews were treated in Nazi Germany. The signs have already formed, just as the Bible foretold would someday happen. The left will couch their language in the form of compassion, tolerance, diversity, enlightenment, etc. but their true aim is to squelch religion and drive it from the public square.

That's all I'm going to say about it. None of us are capable of stemming the tide of history.

[orangeatheist]

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

And while this is true, what meaning does it have today? Medical books at the time made references to blood-letting, too, but that is not something relevant to today.

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

The implication being, of course, that we're too smart to believe in God anymore, right? Well over 90% of America would heartily disagree with that stance.

Wow, yer feisty, Cap’n. But I see your knack for taking something and running with it all willy nilly hasn’t diminished since you abandoned our last discussion.

No, I’m not implying that people today are too smart to believe in a god. While I wish that were true I’m fully aware that a vast majority still believe in some divine power. My question has to do with relevance. Centuries ago, people believed gods and demons caused disease and ordered the course of events. We know now that this isn’t true of necessity. Such beliefs are just that: beliefs. Would you care to deny that? Since these are merely beliefs (and highly personal ones at that) they really do not affect the course of civic discourse, do they? While the Founding Fathers, and many moderns, may have believed (or still believe) that a divinity controls (or ordained) our government, such a belief has no practical purpose.

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

I have always failed to understand why we should revere everything penned or thought by people centuries ago. Certainly, a great deal of what the Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution is valid and appropriate for our civilization today. But not everything.

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

Of course. All that pesky God stuff that you personally don't like must be totally irrelevant to everyone because you personally find it useless.

Name how it is useful, Cap’n. What practical purpose does it provide other than to placate the believer?

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

I'll be going through the Contitution and the Bill of rights with my list of things we ought to be rid of and everyone should abide by that.

If there are items in these documents that have no practical relevancy, certainly. It is not merely my personal choice to remove the mention of a deity from government proceedings but simply the practical nature of it. What purpose does it serve that supports government? Can you name something other than “majority opinion,” personal bias or nostalgia? When have I ever stated that you are not free to worship whatever sky deity you want? Would you be equally as zealous if these founding documents mentioned Allah by name?

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

What did those guys who wrote the thing way the heck back in the 1770's know?

About modern science? Not much.

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

Since they lived in a different century, that makes their views just a bit on the dim side.
Right?

See what I mean? Having a discussion with you is like watching a tennis match: you jump to so many conclusions that my neck hurts just trying to catch up. Why don’t you pocket your religious zealotry long enough to get the point?

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

It's not like Yahweh or Allah or Ahura Mazda (who whomever the Founding Fathers were referencing using the generic term "God") is drawing some paycheck from the taxpayers.

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

I'm sure those Protestants from Europe were all referencing Allah or Vishnu when they wrote the Contstitution and the DOI. Makes perfect sense.

Ah, so you believe these Founding Fathers had Yahweh in mind when they used the generic “god” term? And nice of you to dodge my point and focus only a parenthetical comment I was making. Do you always pick and choose what you respond to in order to save face? Why don't you answer my questions when you decide to respond to my posts? Let me repost what you edited in order to avoid the tough answer. I had asked:

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

Would removing the deity really have any affect on civil proceedings? It's not like Yahweh or Allah or Ahura Mazda (who whomever the Founding Fathers were referencing using the generic term "God") is drawing some paycheck from the taxpayers. Certainly keep such references for historic and nostalgic purposes but why do they have to have any bearing on the course of our proceedings today?

Care to take a stab at answering that now, Cap'n?

[Quote=orangeatheist
Frankly, I don't care what (for all practical purposes) a bunch of scientifically naive people wrote down 2 or 300 years ago when they decided to found a country.[/quote]

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

Right! Since they were "scientifically naive" (they didn't prescribe to the science is god religion), everything they had to say with any relation to God in it must be tossed right into the hopper.

Wow. You amaze me at your ability to transform another person’s words into the straw man you can beat mercilessly in a public forum.

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

These guys were religious, so let's not listen to the stuff they had to say, including "All men are created equal."

And here’s my point, Cap’n. Let’s see if you can keep up this time: What, for practical purposes, changes if I were say “All men are equal” and drop the “created” part? Hopefully you can answer this SIMPLE question and not distort it into another straw man or avoid it altogether.

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

Uh oh! There's the word "created" in there! That's a reference to God! Out with it!

Out, I say!

Glad you agree. But seriously, I have no problem with keeping such statements in the original documents. What I have a problem with is people acting on these words. For example, because these founding documents mention a widely held belief by the Founding Fathers that human beings were "created" by a god, some zealous Christian fundamentalists assert that public schools in America should teach Creation Science or some other such nonsense. My argument is to keep the original wording but to act out of the more secular notion of the intention, for example, that people are equal, whether it winds up being that they were created by a divinity or evolved over millions of years. It is not government's business to get involved in such debates or to act out of a position other than what is required of individual offices.

[Arkie]

Many of you can probably tell that I'm conservative, but I'm not part of the Christian Right. Even Jesus said, "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto the Lord that which is the Lord's."

Our country was founded by a population of people that were sick and tired of religion being imposed on everybody. Read below, because I believe the Christian right has evolved into a fundalmentalists organization similar to the way Europe was or the Middle East.

The words "In God We Trust" were not consistently on all U.S. currency until 1956, during the McCarthy Hysteria.

The Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate in 1797, read in part: "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." The treaty was written during the Washington administration, and sent to the Senate during the Adams administration. It was read aloud to the Senate, and each Senator received a printed copy. This was the 339th time that a recorded vote was required by the Senate, but only the third time a vote was unanimous (the next time was to honor George Washington). There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty. It was reprinted in full in three newspapers - two in Philadelphia, one in New York City. There is no record of public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by TexanBob

If people really feel threatened by religion, that's their problem. It is them who want to impose their viewpoint on the rest of us and they are largely winning.

Within 25-30 years, Christians will be treated in America the way Jews were treated in Nazi Germany. The signs have already formed, just as the Bible foretold would someday happen. The left will couch their language in the form of compassion, tolerance, diversity, enlightenment, etc. but their true aim is to squelch religion and drive it from the public square.

That is the most ridiculous thing I've read in a long time. Oh, the plight of those poor Christians! The only thing I'm looking for is fairness. It is not fair for the state to support a religion--any religion--because it is an exclusionary practice. It undermines the right of parents who follow a different religion (or none at all) to teach their kids the religion they see fit. No one is trying to stop you or anyone else from worshipping your god. It just doesn't have any place in government.

[orangeatheist]

Originally Posted by TexanBob

If people really feel threatened by religion, that's their problem.

And if people really feel threated by non-religion, that's their problem.

Originally Posted by TexanBob

It is them who want to impose their viewpoint on the rest of us and they are largely winning.

Really? How do you figure?

Originally Posted by TexanBob

Within 25-30 years, Christians will be treated in America the way Jews were treated in Nazi Germany. The signs have already formed, just as the Bible foretold would someday happen. The left will couch their language in the form of compassion, tolerance, diversity, enlightenment, etc. but their true aim is to squelch religion and drive it from the public square.

I'm sorry, Bob, I realize this is your belief but from where I sit this last little ditty was pure nonsense. The Bible foretold no such treatment of Christians in modern America. If it did, you would care to give me a sampling that we can both agree upon was prophetic of Christians in modern America? I don't think any rational person is seriously trying to drive religion from the public square in the draconian measure your post implies. What people like me want is for Christians and other people of faith to leave the business of government to government and the business of religion to the religious. Why should my kid have to go to school and hear about your or anyone else's god? Isn't that your business? Shouldn't you be teaching your kids about your god and letting schools teach the fundamentals of readin', writin' and 'rithmatic?

Originally Posted by TexanBob

That's all I'm going to say about it. None of us are capable of stemming the tide of history.

Wow. And people feel sorry for me because I'm an unbeliever. With beliefs like that, I'm glad I'm not in the pews.

[Arkie]

Some of you are using the Founding Fathers' tolerance of Christianity (and all religions) against them, by turning them into Christians, themselves.

Without exception, the faith of our Founding Fathers was deist, not theist. It was best expressed earlier in the Declaration of Independence, when they spoke of "the Laws of Nature" and of "Nature's God."

Why do some of you think that by expressing a tolerance for all religions threatens Christianity? If our founding fathers came back, they would be very dissappointed in the Fundalmentalist Christians. It is definetly a hinderance to the growth of this great nation and what we stand for.

[Arkie]

Originally Posted by TexanBob

Within 25-30 years, Christians will be treated in America the way Jews were treated in Nazi Germany.

We need to start getting those death camps ready, even though our society can barely stomach executing murderers for their crimes.

[Captain_Poncho]

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

Wow, yer feisty, Cap’n. But I see your knack for taking something and running with it all willy nilly hasn’t diminished since you abandoned our last discussion.

Thanks, I guess. And I'm OH so sorry I didn't respond to the last rambling post you directed at me. I'll try to make up for that apparently huge disappointment to you here.

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

No, I’m not implying that people today are too smart to believe in a god.

Just that you wish they were, and that God has no relevence in society. Which seems to be the foundation for the rest of your post, a foundation that I find vacuous and dangerous.

While I wish that were true I’m fully aware that a vast majority still believe in some divine power. My question has to do with relevance. Centuries ago, people believed gods and demons caused disease and ordered the course of events. We know now that this isn’t true of necessity. Such beliefs are just that: beliefs. Would you care to deny that?

The implication here being that, we can recognize a belief in (or reference to) God to as a soon-to-be-proven-false idea that has no useful purpose, right?

Since these are merely beliefs (and highly personal ones at that) they really do not affect the course of civic discourse, do they? While the Founding Fathers, and many moderns, may have believed (or still believe) that a divinity controls (or ordained) our government, such a belief has no practical purpose.

I heartily disagree. To realize and recognize that God is in control and that we are not is wise beyond measure. To live our lives and make our government an extension of that mindset is nothing but good. A nation that gets its direction from God doesn't fall into the human mindset that we ought to look out for number one as the basis for our existence. A nation that is only interested in making sure we get 1)pleasure 2)convenience and 3)power is a nation without the direction of God. See ancient Rome, Assyria, etc. for a good example of a self-seeking, self-gratifying culture imploding upon itself.

Name how it is useful, Cap’n. What practical purpose does it provide other than to placate the believer?

See above.

If there are items in these documents that have no practical relevancy, certainly. It is not merely my personal choice to remove the mention of a deity from government proceedings but simply the practical nature of it. What purpose does it serve that supports government? Can you name something other than “majority opinion,” personal bias or nostalgia?

I've covered the practical purposes that belief in God serves. But here's a few more: Adhering to the teachings of God leads one to: love for love's sake, help those less fortunate, bring up your kids with discipline, respecting and loving your spouse second only to God, etc. These are the BASIS of society. Having the government recognize this is not harmful in any way, shape or form and I'd ask you, ORANGEATHIEST to cite specific examples of how it IS harmful to recognize this basis of society.

When have I ever stated that you are not free to worship whatever sky deity you want?

When have I ever accused you of such? I note, with some amusement, that later on in this post, you accuse me of jumping to conclusions. Absolutely classic.

See what I mean? Having a discussion with you is like watching a tennis match: you jump to so many conclusions that my neck hurts just trying to catch up. Why don’t you pocket your religious zealotry long enough to get the point?

Howzabout you pocket your religious zealotry for science as god and, while you're at it, put down the Hotbutton Words That I Don't Think Apply To Me Ready Reference Guide. I understand you Athiests fluster easily.

Ah, so you believe these Founding Fathers had Yahweh in mind when they used the generic “god” term?

Yep.

And nice of you to dodge my point and focus only a parenthetical comment I was making. Do you always pick and choose what you respond to in order to save face?

Do you always get this angry when trying to discuss the rational nature of your Athiesm? I'm so very, very, heart rendingly sorry I didn't answer the query to the full satisfaction of my easily-riled counterpart.

Why don't you answer my questions when you decide to respond to my posts?

I didn't realize you were the arbetur of what, specifically, I had to respond to. Now that I know better, I can make sure I don't disappoint you and make you all flustered again.

Let me repost what you edited in order to avoid the tough answer. I had asked:Would removing the deity really have any affect on civil proceedings? It's not like Yahweh or Allah or Ahura Mazda (who whomever the Founding Fathers were referencing using the generic term "God") is drawing some paycheck from the taxpayers. Certainly keep such references for historic and nostalgic purposes but why do they have to have any bearing on the course of our proceedings today?

Care to take a stab at answering that now, Cap'n?

That self-righteous "care to take a stab" bit is so cute. Anyhow...

The purpose, as I outlined in my first response, is that keeping the references in serves to remind us that we are not in control of everything, and that we owe our very existence as people and as a nation to God. It also serves notice that we recognize that there is justice higher than what people can dole out, and that it's in our best interest as individuals and as a nation to recognize that. The fact that you don't recognize that doesn't make you right, nor the lone voice of reason. But it does put you in a very tiny minority.

And here’s my point, Cap’n. Let’s see if you can keep up this time: What, for practical purposes, changes if I were say “All men are equal” and drop the “created” part?

It helps remove the recognition of God as soverign over us, as the creator of mankind, thus making us more self-focussed and less outwardly focussed. Which is the first step in a nation's self-destruction.

Hopefully you can answer this SIMPLE question and not distort it into another straw man or avoid it altogether.

Hopefully, you can refrain from future inflammatory pronouncements like the above and stick to your actual points. Because when you rant like that it just makes you look snippy.

Glad you agree. But seriously, I have no problem with keeping such statements in the original documents. What I have a problem with is people acting on these words. For example, because these founding documents mention a widely held belief by the Founding Fathers that human beings were "created" by a god, some zealous Christian fundamentalists assert that public schools in America should teach Creation Science or some other such nonsense.

Yes. People acting out their faith are prone to bad, right? How presumptuous.

As for Creation science, I'd urge you to look into the idea of Intelligent Design, and irreducible complexity. I'd also like to point out for you that, as an athiest, you shouldn't have to lean on faith in any respect. To believe in the theory of evolution as being the answer as to how and why we're all here requires a great deal of faith. Sound the alarm!

[freak6]

Religeon is a poison, and done more bad than good. This is undeniable when looking at the facts, something that destroys religeon anyway so they like to avoid those.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Bosko

Many of you can probably tell that I'm conservative, but I'm not part of the Christian Right. Even Jesus said, "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto the Lord that which is the Lord's."

Our country was founded by a population of people that were sick and tired of religion being imposed on everybody. Read below, because I believe the Christian right has evolved into a fundalmentalists organization similar to the way Europe was or the Middle East.

That's a good post.

I guess I'm either an independent or a "don't give a damn-ist" where religion is concerned. I find both the fundies and the atheists equally goofy and irrelevant.

[orangeatheist]

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

Wow, yer feisty, Cap’n. But I see your knack for taking something and running with it all willy nilly hasn’t diminished since you abandoned our last discussion.

Originally Posted by Capatain_Poncho

Thanks, I guess. And I'm OH so sorry I didn't respond to the last rambling post you directed at me. I'll try to make up for that apparently huge disappointment to you here.

First rule of emotional appeal: Label your opponent’s comments “ramblings.” Try not to poison the well, Cap’n. And I appreciate that you finally took the time to actually venture answers to my questions and points.

Originally Posted by orangeathiest

No, I’m not implying that people today are too smart to believe in a god.

Originally Posted by Capatain_Poncho

Just that you wish they were, and that God has no relevence in society.

When did I say god has no relevance in society? I said (or at least tried to imply that) the mention of a deity in government documents is not relevant to the carrying out of said government documents. Please try to keep up.

Originally Posted by Capatain_Poncho

Which seems to be the foundation for the rest of your post, a foundation that I find vacuous and dangerous.

Well, then, you’ve got your panties in a bunch for no reason since the predication of your assumption was incorrect.

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

While I wish that were true I’m fully aware that a vast majority still believe in some divine power. My question has to do with relevance. Centuries ago, people believed gods and demons caused disease and ordered the course of events. We know now that this isn’t true of necessity. Such beliefs are just that: beliefs. Would you care to deny that?

Originally Posted by Capatain_Poncho

The implication here being that, we can recognize a belief in (or reference to) God to as a soon-to-be-proven-false idea that has no useful purpose, right?

No. You missed it again. As far as I’m concerned, god has already been “proven” false. I realize, however, that to folks like you this is something that may never happen. I’m fine with that. As I spelled out my intention later in my post and you replied to it, I have to assume that you missed it yet again based upon your question above.

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

Since these are merely beliefs (and highly personal ones at that) they really do not affect the course of civic discourse, do they? While the Founding Fathers, and many moderns, may have believed (or still believe) that a divinity controls (or ordained) our government, such a belief has no practical purpose.

Originally Posted by Capatain_Poncho

I heartily disagree.

Of course you would.

Originally Posted by Capatain_Poncho

To realize and recognize that God is in control and that we are not is wise beyond measure.

I do not share your opinion. Why should my government?

Originally Posted by Capatain_Poncho

To live our lives and make our government an extension of that mindset is nothing but good.

Spoken by a true zealot. Let me rephrase your sentiments and see if you’d still agree with them.

“To realize and recognize that Allah is in control and that we are not is wise beyond measure,” said the Palestinian. “To live our lives and make our government an extension of that mindset is nothing but good.”

Oh yeah, I forgot. Cap’n worships the true god, not those terrorist bastards!

Originally Posted by Capatain_Poncho

A nation that gets its direction from God doesn't fall into the human mindset that we ought to look out for number one as the basis for our existence.

For crying out loud will you please stop beating on that poor straw man!

Originally Posted by Capatain_Poncho

A nation that is only interested in making sure we get 1)pleasure 2)convenience and 3)power is a nation without the direction of God.

And what nation would that be, pray tell? The one populated by your straw men?

Originally Posted by Capatain_Poncho

See ancient Rome, Assyria, etc. for a good example of a self-seeking, self-gratifying culture imploding upon itself.

And these nations fell because they stopped acknowledging Yahweh? Huh?

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

Name how it is useful, Cap’n. What practical purpose does it provide other than to placate the believer?

Originally Posted by Capatain_Poncho

See above.

But your “above” didn’t answer word one of my question other than to support your straw man argument.

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

If there are items in these documents that have no practical relevancy, certainly. It is not merely my personal choice to remove the mention of a deity from government proceedings but simply the practical nature of it. What purpose does it serve that supports government? Can you name something other than “majority opinion,” personal bias or nostalgia?

Originally Posted by Capatain_Poncho

I've covered the practical purposes that belief in God serves.

I guess I must’ve missed it. You try to answer it below but all you do is prove my point that the only purpose it serves is to placate a personal religious bias.

Originally Posted by Capatain_Poncho

But here's a few more: Adhering to the teachings of God leads one to: love for love's sake,

No it doesn’t. I love for love’s sake as well and don’t have a god to appeal to. Therefore, no practical purpose. Besides, love for love’s sake, by its very definition, does not require acknowledgement of a god. In fact, love for love’s sake simply requires the acknowledgement of love. Next?

Originally Posted by Capatain_Poncho

…help those less fortunate,

Buddhists and atheists do this too, and without any appeal to a god. Various other religions help those who are less fortunate as well and, guess what? No acknowledgement of Yahweh whom, you admit below, was the deity our Founding Fathers had in mind when they used the generic term, “god” in their writings. Therefore, again, no practical purpose that cannot be served without an appeal to a god, and even more directly, to the Hebrew/Christian deity. Next?

Originally Posted by Capatain_Poncho

…bring up your kids with discipline, respecting and loving your spouse second only to God, etc.

Well, you sort of have me there. I don’t respect and love my spouse second only to a sky fairy. I respect and love her second to none. But, I suppose, that’s to be expected from an atheist! But, as I’ve stated elsewhere to you, my children are very disciplined and respectful and loving. Once again, this is all done with appeals to a deity. Therefore, again, no practical purpose. Next?
.
.
Oh, there is no “next.”

Originally Posted by Capatain_Poncho

These are the BASIS of society.

Yes, and each of these qualities can be had without reference to a deity. That’s my point!

Originally Posted by Capatain_Poncho

Having the government recognize this is not harmful in any way, shape or form

Recognizing the qualities is of course not harmful. Recognizing one unproven deity over against another unproven deity can be harmful in this pluralistic society. Don’t you see that?

Originally Posted by Capatain_Poncho

…and I'd ask you, ORANGEATHIEST to cite specific examples of how it IS harmful to recognize this basis of society.

It is “harmful” in the same way that it would be “harmful” to you to wake up one day and see your elected officials acknowledging Sharia Islamic Law as the basis of society and telling you to pipe down while they get on their prayer rugs and bow to Mecca. How is erecting a minaret near your high school harmful, Cap’n so as to call all citizens to worship five times a day? How is it harmful to recognize that the 8 Fold Path of Buddhism is the basis of society? Do you see yet how it works when only one deity –or any at all—is singled out for acknowledgement?

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

When have I ever stated that you are not free to worship whatever sky deity you want?

When have I ever accused you of such? I note, with some amusement, that later on in this post, you accuse me of jumping to conclusions. Absolutely classic.

Well, Cap’n, you may be pleased with yourself for thinking you found me in a trip up, but let me take you back to the original conversation. You had stated, “I'll be going through the Contitution and the Bill of rights with my list of things we ought to be rid of and everyone should abide by that.” The clear implication of the statement, “…things we ought to be rid of and everyone should abide by that” was a reflection of your perception that it is my atheistic desire to remove mention of God from US founding documents because I find them displeasing. I, of course, set you straight on that misperception. However, even if this were true (and what prompted my comment above) was that removal of god from the government in no way infringes upon your right to worship him anyway you please. Therefore, even if I did “go through the Contitution [sic] and Bill of rights [sic] with my list of things we ought to be rid of” that does not imply that “everyone should abide by that,” if that list included removal of references of god as a point to stop personal worship. I may desire everyone to abandon god-belief but that doesn’t mean my personal wishes should be taken up by others by enforcement of law.

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

See what I mean? Having a discussion with you is like watching a tennis match: you jump to so many conclusions that my neck hurts just trying to catch up. Why don’t you pocket your religious zealotry long enough to get the point?

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

Howzabout you pocket your religious zealotry for science as god

May I ask, in light of that last comment, if you read Hovind (Dr. Dino)’s work or are associated with anyone who does?

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

and, while you're at it, put down the Hotbutton Words That I Don't Think Apply To Me Ready Reference Guide. I understand you Athiests fluster easily.

You see, this is what you can term “rambling.”
[Quote=orangeatheist
Ah, so you believe these Founding Fathers had Yahweh in mind when they used the generic “god” term? [/quote]

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

Yep.

Thank you for playing.

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

And nice of you to dodge my point and focus only a parenthetical comment I was making. Do you always pick and choose what you respond to in order to save face?

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

Do you always get this angry when trying to discuss the rational nature of your Athiesm?

Not when it’s being discussed with a peer of equal rationality. Just ask Mile High Shack. And, for what it’s worth, I’m not angry. I’m annoyed by self-righteous religious zealots who make posts like buckshot against their opponents and then think they can get away with it by cherry picking what points they feel comfortable answering.

Forgive me if I take the time and effort to post thoughtful and thorough replies and feel it is common curtsey to expect the same in return. I guess your god doesn’t teach you that, eh?

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

I'm so very, very, heart rendingly sorry I didn't answer the query to the full satisfaction of my easily-riled counterpart.

Your feigned sorrow is noted. Sarcasm is so becoming in a man of faith, isn’t it?

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

Why don't you answer my questions when you decide to respond to my posts?

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

I didn't realize you were the arbetur of what, specifically, I had to respond to. Now that I know better, I can make sure I don't disappoint you and make you all flustered again.

Self-righteous sarcasm noted again but you didn’t answer my question. Why did you avoid some of my questions in favor of others?

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

Let me repost what you edited in order to avoid the tough answer. I had asked:Would removing the deity really have any affect on civil proceedings? It's not like Yahweh or Allah or Ahura Mazda (who whomever the Founding Fathers were referencing using the generic term "God") is drawing some paycheck from the taxpayers. Certainly keep such references for historic and nostalgic purposes but why do they have to have any bearing on the course of our proceedings today?

Care to take a stab at answering that now, Cap'n?

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

That self-righteous "care to take a stab" bit is so cute. Anyhow...

“Self-righteous?” More like “annoyed response”.

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

The purpose, as I outlined in my first response, is that keeping the references in serves to remind us that we are not in control of everything,

Humans are not in control of our government? That is the point of this discussion, isn’t it? You’re trying to move the goalposts and now make this reference to god as all-encompassing. We, of course, are not in control of everything. The folks in Florida bracing for a hurricane impact surely know that by now if they didn’t already. But the fact that humans cannot control everything does not, by default, require us to acknowledge a god. And even if it did, which god out of thousands should we choose, according to government? What would you advocate in your zealous appeals?

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

…and that we owe our very existence as people and as a nation to God.

I owe your god no such thing. And neither do the Buddhists or Hindus or Muslims or Zorastrians or any other religion that does not acknowledge your Yahweh. I again appeal to your good senses: What practical purpose does any of this serve? You haven’t answered the question without emotional and circular appeals.

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

It also serves notice that we recognize that there is justice higher than what people can dole out,

Is that right? And if I were to ask you to empirically demonstrate that there is a “justice higher than what people can dole out,” would you be able to oblige?

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

…and that it's in our best interest as individuals and as a nation to recognize that.

It certainly isn’t in my best interest. And wasn’t it you who didn’t want other ideas forced upon you? Why, yes it was! Sarcastically, you had stated, “ I'll be going through the Contitution and the Bill of rights with my list of things we ought to be rid of and everyone should abide by that.” Meaning, of course, quite the opposite. Does your hypocrisy keep you up at night?

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

The fact that you don't recognize that doesn't make you right, nor the lone voice of reason. But it does put you in a very tiny minority.

And, of course, we now that the majority is always right, don’t we? At one time, Christians were the “very tiny minority” and I can imagine a Roman senator saying, “The purpose, as I outlined in my first response, is that keeping the references to the Roman gods serves to remind us that we are not in control of everything, and that we owe our very existence as people and as a nation to the gods. It also serves notice that we recognize that there is justice higher than what people can dole out, and that it's in our best interest as individuals and as a nation to recognize that. The fact that you don't recognize that and choose to acknowledge a dead savior doesn't make you right, nor the lone voice of reason. But it does put you in a very tiny minority.” See it yet?

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

And here’s my point, Cap’n. Let’s see if you can keep up this time: What, for practical purposes, changes if I were say “All men are equal” and drop the “created” part?

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

It helps remove the recognition of God as soverign over us, as the creator of mankind, thus making us more self-focussed and less outwardly focussed. Which is the first step in a nation's self-destruction.

Emotional appeal again. I do not acknowledge a creator and I am not nearly as self-focused as some other Christians who do acknowledge a creator are. You are generalizing again and drawing conclusions from a false stereotype. I asked you for practical reasons and you give me religion. You are doing nothing more than proving my point.

[Quote=orangeatheist]
Hopefully you can answer this SIMPLE question and not distort it into another straw man or avoid it altogether. [/qoute]

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

Hopefully, you can refrain from future inflammatory pronouncements like the above and stick to your actual points. Because when you rant like that it just makes you look snippy.

Thanks for the pointers. I will try to keep them in mind while you dodge more of my questions in your zealotry to appeal to emotions.

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

Glad you agree. But seriously, I have no problem with keeping such statements in the original documents. What I have a problem with is people acting on these words. For example, because these founding documents mention a widely held belief by the Founding Fathers that human beings were "created" by a god, some zealous Christian fundamentalists assert that public schools in America should teach Creation Science or some other such nonsense.

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

Yes. People acting out their faith are prone to bad, right? How presumptuous.

WTF? Can you please try to retain focus on the actual subject we are discussing? This isn’t about general “acting out” of faith, but the acting out of faith as a function of government. You will try to pay attention, won’t you?

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

As for Creation science, I'd urge you to look into the idea of Intelligent Design,

What makes you think I haven’t looked into it? Let me ask you a question regarding ID: Let’s for a moment assume that the Universe really was designed by an intelligent superbeing. Would you assume that this superbeing was Yahweh?

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

..and irreducible complexity.

Debunked nonsense. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html for starters.

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

I'd also like to point out for you that, as an athiest, you shouldn't have to lean on faith in any respect. To believe in the theory of evolution

You’ve really sunk your teeth into some old canards, haven’t you? I ask again, are you friends with Kent Hovind? Evolution is a theory and a fact. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html When you familiarize yourself with the proper terminology we can discuss this subject in a different thread. Deal?

Originally Posted by Captain_Poncho

as being the answer as to how and why we're all here requires a great deal of faith. Sound the alarm!

*sigh*

Edit: I'm too tired to go through and edit my spelling and formatting errors. You'll just have to find it in your generous hearts to forgive me....

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"Adhering to the teachings of God leads one to: love for love's sake"--Cap'n Panocha

Captain Panocha's self-righteous, arrogant, judging, mocking, labelling, name-calling behavior on this forum is all the proof you need.

[Rohirrim]

More from Jefferson:

The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man (Letter to J. Moor, 1800).

The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion (Letter to Benjamin Rush, 1800).

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes (Letter to von Humboldt, 1813).

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. (Letter to H. Spafford, 1814).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson's (and the other founding father's) position was clear. Government in no way should intrude upon any citizen's belief, or practice of that belief. On the other hand, religion should likewise, never be allowed to intrude upon the civil government.

Perhaps somebody on this board could show me an example of the Left (so-called) intruding upon the practice of religion, or forcing anyone by any means - coercion, edict, law - to stop practicing their religion? It seems to me that if a religion (and its believers) is blocked in its efforts to (for example), force the civil government to include prayer in public schools, those religious people consider that blocking action to be an intrusion on their ability to practice their religion. You'd think there were thousands of leftie protestors blocking the entrance to their church. No. I cannot think of a single example of anyone on the left trying to stop the practice of religion. I can think of numerous examples of the religious trying to force-feed their religious views on the civil government - and the rest of us.

Like John Marshall (I believe it was him) once said, the most important right, and the right upon which all other rights depend, is the right to be left alone.

As a side note, there is now a fundamentalist Christian organization who's goal it is to flood South Carolina with fellow fundamentalists, take over the government and install a fundamentalist doctrine, and then - if the Federal government disagrees with their action - to secede from the Union.

BTW - I'm not an atheist. You know, there are a whole bunch of lefties out there who are very religious people - for example, the Quakers.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Orangeatheist:

Do you believe there's such a thing as "atheism in the name of God?"

Just curious.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Perhaps somebody on this board could show me an example of the Left (so-called) intruding upon the practice of religion, or forcing anyone by any means - coercion, edict, law - to stop practicing their religion?

Methinks you'll be waiting a long, long time for such an example, amigo.

(Other than the kind they just make up, that is.)

[orangeatheist]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Orangeatheist:

Do you believe there's such a thing as "atheism in the name of God?"

Just curious.

Wow....that's like trying to pick up an oil slick. I have no idea where to get a handle on a quesition like that!

My instincts, however, prompt me to answer "no" to that question.